Sitting of 8 December 2003

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
Oral Answers to Questions
  HOME DEPARTMENT
  The Secretary of State was asked—
  HOME DEPARTMENT

    Violent Crime
    Mr. John Baron: What measures the Government are taking to combat the rise in violent crime. [142084]
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Blunkett): Contrary to the thrust of the question, the internationally respected British crime survey showed that violent crime fell by 5 per cent. last year. Recorded crime rose, however, as more people were prepared and confident enough to register crimes that they would not have reported before. We published the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Bill last Tuesday. Twenty-five per cent. of all violent crime is perpetrated in the home, and therefore involves domestic violence issues. As people's confidence in the system increases, however, so will the recording of such crime, and I am pleased and proud of that.
    Mr. Baron: I thank the Home Secretary for his response but, despite his excuses, the general public know that violent crime is significantly on the increase. During the past five years, it has been recorded that violent crime has risen by nearly two thirds. Home Office figures for last year alone suggest that, in my area, robbery was up by a third, burglary was up by a half and violence against the person more than doubled. When will the Government stop their gimmicky initiatives and go to war against the criminals by introducing much stiffer court sentences and a massive increase in the numbers of police on the streets? [Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order.
    Mr. Blunkett: Burglary and robbery are down according both to the British crime survey and to the recorded crime figures but, yes, violent crime has risen, which is why we need to get a grip on binge drinking and to take decisive action on the enforcement of breaches. It is also why the antisocial behaviour measures that we have put in place need to work on the ground. Let me be absolutely clear: the new transparent recording system now records crimes that have never before been
    760
    designated as violent, and that have not hitherto been recorded. That was brought in not by us but by the Association of Chief Police Officers in 2000–01, and it has inevitably led to a much more visible and transparent system. If we are going to have a sensible debate about crime, that at least should be recognised.
    Ms Meg Munn: As my right hon. Friend has rightly said, 25 per cent. of violent crimes take place in the home. In addition, he will be aware that, on average, two women a week die as a result of domestic violence. Can he tell me what measures in the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Bill will protect women and intervene to stop the ever-increasing circle of violence?
    Mr. Blunkett: We spelled out in the statement that I made in July, and again in the Bill last Tuesday, a range of measures that will ensure not only early intervention but, in the case of a continuing problem, the exclusion of a person from the family and the neighbourhood. The idea, which is now gaining salience, that the perpetrator should move out, rather than the woman and the children, is one that we can all welcome.
    Mr. Boris Johnson: Given the success and importance of Crimestoppers in solving crimes, does the Home Secretary agree that it would make sense to give it a budget projected forward over four years, rather than forcing it to rely on an annual payment that it may or may not receive?
    Mr. Blunkett: I am all in favour of being encouraged by Opposition Members—not least the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Johnson)—in terms of extra public spending, the partnership with the voluntary sector and civic renewal. I think that it makes sense, in relation to our arrangements with all such helpful voluntary activity, to have a continuity of budget over more than a 12-month period.
    Mr. Russell Brown: My right hon. Friend is fully aware that, when we speak of violent crime, much is said about gun crime. Over the weekend, I read a sickening newspaper article with which I had great difficulty in coming to terms. It was about what appears to be an increase in crimes committed using knives, machetes and axes, some of which could be gangland crime. What do the crime figures tell us about the use of such weapons?
    Mr. Blunkett: I will write to my hon. Friend with the exact figures relating to violent crimes involving the use of weapons of that description. He will be aware that action was taken in the late 1990s to strengthen the law in relation to the availability and use of knives, but we should not forget that issue, bearing in mind the understandable attention that we and the public pay to gun crime.
    David Davis: May I seek your indulgence, Mr. Speaker, on a non-violent topic? I add the congratulations of Conservative Members to those of hundreds of thousands of people elsewhere in London who are cheering on the English rugby team for their success.

    761
    The Home Secretary referred to his comment on 27 June 2001, when he said that
    "providing an answer to violent crime, will be paramount in restoring people's confidence in the system."—[Official Report, 27 June 2001; Vol. 370, c. 655.]
    He has talked about transparency. All we have heard today are transparent excuses. For the first time in the history of the United Kingdom, more than 1 million violent crimes have been recorded. Has not he failed to restore people's confidence in our system?
    Mr. Blunkett: First, I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his ingenuity in getting the rugby celebrations into this afternoon's questions. I agree with him entirely. I have always thought that a little pushing and shoving on the rugby field was better than a bit of shoving and pushing on a Saturday night.
    I agree with myself, because I agree with the quote that the right hon. Gentleman read out. That is paramount. I know that the Leader of the Opposition would agree with those sentiments, because when he was Home Secretary recorded crime under the old system went up by 19 per cent.
    David Davis: Overall violent crime is not the only area of concern. Under Labour, gun crime has more than doubled. Will the Home Secretary explain why the number of gun crimes has passed 10,000 for the first time in British history? Does he intend to do anything about the plague of imported handguns that we are witnessing at the moment?
    Mr. Blunkett: I remind the right hon. Gentleman that the Conservative party opposed the legislation on handguns introduced by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary when he was Home Secretary. We took action in the recent Criminal Justice Bill, because the difficulty is that what is legal or illegal depends on who has their hands on the weaponry. The amnesty that we held in April was the most successful amnesty ever, with more than 44,000 guns handed in.
    David Davis: Answer the question.
    Mr. Blunkett: The answer is clearly to prevent people from being able to get hold of replicas or to get hold of and to adapt Brocock guns, and that should be part of the new legislation. I would have thought that everyone supported that. There is an underlying issue for all of us: it is not a party political issue. The growth in gun crime arises out of gangs, often associated with drugs, getting their hands on guns from outside the country and on formerly legal guns inside the country. All of us have to work in partnership with the police—as communities have done in north London and Manchester—to change the culture and the behaviour of young men in particular and to clamp down on the organised thuggery that lays behind these problems. We can all agree on wanting that to succeed.
    Lawrie Quinn: My right hon. Friend will know that domestic violence in our constituencies is often the result of the misuse of alcohol and alcohol-related problems. In my constituency, partnerships between the police and groups such as the Women's Refuge have done some
    762
    positive work. What wider partnerships will help us to fight the awful violence that takes place every weekend in our constituencies?
    Mr. Blunkett: My hon. Friend the Minister for Crime Reduction, Policing and Community Safety brought from her previous role in the Department of Health the embryo of an alcohol misuse strategy. She and I are working on that, in order to publish in the new year something radical and effective that will assist at local level in ensuring that we clamp down on binge drinking and on the misuse of alcohol in general, which can cause so much misery. I may be called Scrooge as well as everything else, but perhaps this is the moment for me to appeal to people to be moderate in their drinking leading up to Christmas while also having a wonderful time.
    Mr. Mark Oaten: On the issue of alcohol, 47 per cent. of violent crime is the result of the overuse of alcohol, and 92 per cent. of policemen have been attacked by drunks. Why is it that, although the Government promised the alcohol strategy paper in 1998, we have had to wait so long for it?
    Mr. Blunkett: My hon. Friend the Minister for Crime Reduction, Policing and Community Safety assures me that we are on schedule for the 2004 date. That is a publicly stated objective. It is sometimes necessary to wait while the yolk comes out of the egg. As long as it makes a decent omelette, the waiting will have been worth while.

    Previous Convictions
    Mrs Liz Blackman: When he expects provisions giving juries the right to see a defendant's previous convictions to be implemented. [142087]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Paul Goggins): The provisions in the Criminal Justice Act 2003 relating to evidence of bad character will be enforced only once sufficient training and guidance have been provided and the necessary rules of court have been made. At this stage, no final decision has been made about the precise timing.
    Liz Blackman: I welcome those powers, which I believe properly balance the rights of victims with the safeguarding of the accused. I believe that they will make a significant difference in my constituency by bringing more guilty people to justice. They will, however, make no difference at all until the provisions are implemented. May I urge my hon. Friend to make that a top priority?
    Paul Goggins: I thank my hon. Friend for her welcome and for her remarks about the improved balance that the provisions will bring to the criminal justice system. Obviously, however, given the most radical shake-up in the criminal justice system for a generation and given the number of provisions, it will take time to build the necessary capacity and to ensure that the relevant training is undertaken. That will be done as quickly as is practicable, because we all want the reforms to operate as soon as possible.

    Burglary
    David Taylor: What publicly funded alarm schemes he and his ministerial colleagues have assessed in terms of their ability to deter would-be distraction burglars; and if he will make a statement. [142088]
    The Minister for Crime Reduction, Policing and Community Safety (Ms Hazel Blears): The Home Office established a distraction burglary taskforce in 2000, with funding of £1 million, to provide advice and guidance on tackling such crime. Another £1 million was provided for three projects to tackle distraction burglary. Alarms can play an important role in helping older people to live independent and safer lives in their own homes, but the Home Office does not assess individual systems.
    David Taylor: I thank the Minister for visiting Coalville last month to review the work of PRIDE, the protection and reassurance initiative to defend the elderly. Under that initiative, nearly 2,000 remote-control alarms, very visible and very audible, have been fixed to the outside of homes occupied by vulnerable people. What was the Minister's assessment of the scheme? How can we secure sustained funding, and how can we roll the scheme out to other areas in the light of its success in driving revictimisation rates down to an incredibly low 2 per cent.?
    Ms Blears: I was delighted to be able to visit local people in Coalville, and to have the honour of presenting Mr. and Mrs. Wickwar with their brand new PRIDE alarm. I was also delighted to meet Mrs. Bird, who was already the proud owner of an alarm. She told me, "I have never had to use the alarm, but I feel so much safer now."
    My hon. Friend is right. The alarms act as a deterrent and provide the crucial reassurance sought by elderly people in particular. I am pleased to say that we are investing £72 million in the building safer communities fund at local level to establish crime and disorder reduction partnerships to fund schemes such as that and many others. I urge them to fund all schemes that can make people, especially older people, feel safer in their homes.
    Bob Spink: Does the Minister not agree that tough deterrents work, particularly in the case of professional career criminals such as burglars? Will she urge the Government to find a reverse gear and ensure that burglars go to jail?
    Ms Blears: The hon. Gentleman will, I think, accept that it is vital for us, as well as being tough on crime, to be tough on the causes of crime. It is this Government who, as well as imposing stiff sentences for burglary, have reduced its incidence by 39 per cent. since coming to office. I bet his constituents, like mine, would far rather not be burgled in the first place, and it is this Government who have been able to drive burglary down. There have been some tough sentences, but there has been crime reduction as well. This Government operate on all fronts.

    Drug-related Offences
    Mr. Stephen Hepburn: If he will make a statement on arrests for drug-related offences in the north-east. [142089]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Caroline Flint): There were 9,300 arrests for drug offences, including possession and supply, in the north-east. In addition, 47,800 arrests were made for property crime offences, such as robbery, burglary, theft and handling. Home Office research has found that drug-using arrestees commit much higher volumes of property crime than those who do not take drugs.
    Mr. Hepburn: We were told that one reason why we needed to invade Afghanistan was to stop the flow of heroin to this country, but there is as much heroin on the streets of the north-east as there has ever been, and 95 per cent. of it comes from Afghanistan. What are we going to do to tackle the drug-related crime that seems to be getting out of hand in this country?
    Caroline Flint: Drug-related crime is a serious matter, and I should like to pay tribute to police forces and others in the north-east, whose recent significant results have led to some major arrests and court convictions. However, my hon. Friend is right to raise the issue of the source, and that is why we have a 10-year strategy to tackle opium coming from Afghanistan. Indeed, the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Mr. Rammell), will hold a conference on the issue on 2 February in Kabul. We will also be working with all agencies to try to deal with the source of supply. However, I should point out that it is far better for people to deal with a state that wants to work together than with one that does not.
    Mr. Nick Hawkins: Does not the Minister recognise that one real problem—in the north-east and throughout the rest of the countryߞis a lack of the intensive rehabilitation places that get people off the conveyor belt to crime by ensuring that they are taken away from drugs? Given that not only many parts of the media but some of her colleagues, such as the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann), have waged campaigns on that issue, will the Government finally recognise that they are wrong and provide the number of intensive rehabilitation places for hard drug users that we Conservatives have called for?
    Caroline Flint: The number of places available is increasing. The hon. Gentleman is right to point to treatment, and intensive rehabilitation places are important, but so is care in the community. I am pleased to say that, in addition to Middlesbrough, four further areas in the north-east will benefit from our criminal justice interventions programme. That programme will see people through from the point of arrest and charge to whatever may happen next, whether it be custodial sentence or community sentence, to ensure that they get treatment that lasts.

    Victim Support
    Mr. Bob Blizzard: If he will make a statement on Government funding for Victim Support. [142090]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Paul Goggins): The Government's annual grant to Victim Support has more than doubled in recent years—from £11.7 million in 1996–97 to £30 million in 2003–04. That is helping to support almost 1.5 million victims of crime, and more than 300,000 witnesses of crime, each year.
    Mr. Blizzard: Will my hon. Friend join me in paying tribute to the voluntary victim support groups throughout the country that provide such valuable services to victims of crime? I very much welcome the Government's doubling of funding for Victim Support, but there is concern about how much of that money is getting through to local victim support groups at the front line; indeed, my local group says that it has seen none of that extra money. Will my hon. Friend look into that matter to ensure that as much of the new money as possible reaches the local groups that provide the support that victims need?
    Paul Goggins: I gladly join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to the 12,000 volunteers, including those in his constituency, who contribute at the sharp end to the work of Victim Support. If there are issues in his area, I should be very happy to look into them, because we want to ensure that the money goes to those who work at the sharp end. Indeed, we are looking to devolving funding down to local level, so that what Victim Support provides more neatly fits with the requirements of each area.
    Mr. George Osborne: Does the Minister agree that face-to-face contact with a police officer is often very important to victims, so that they can feel that the crime of which they are a victim is being taken seriously? Some police officers have told me that, in their view, sending a police officer round when someone's car has been stolen, for example, is a waste of police time. What does the Minister think of that view?
    Paul Goggins: It is essential that the police respond to all incidents of crime, but it is obvious that they need to prioritise in terms of how quickly they respond to particular incidents. It is vital that the police work in partnership with agencies such as Victim Support, so that both can work together to provide not only the justice that people want, but the support that victims of crime need.
    Mr. Graham Allen: Will the Under-Secretary congratulate Members of all parties in this House who participated in the Victim Support day a couple of weeks ago, meeting volunteers to support the work that they do? Will he ensure that the funding for Victim Support is devolved to the relevant areas locally, as he suggested in a previous answer, and that the level of funding nationally is maintained at least in line with inflation? Will he ensure that the witness
    766
    support service does not receive funding on a hand-to-mouth basis that may end in two or three months, but has the certainty of several years of financial support?
    Paul Goggins: I am happy to join my hon. Friend in congratulating the 200 Members from both sides of the House who showed an interest in the open days that were run by Victim Support. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary attended an event in his constituency and I attended events in Manchester and Trafford.
    It is vital that the levels of funding allocated relate to the level of work that each local Victim Support project faces, and we must do our best to make sure that they have the resources they require. The witness support service that my hon. Friend mentioned is very important and we will find ways of trying to support its work as best we can.

    Charities
    Mrs. Patsy Calton: How many instruments giving effect to changes to objects of charities were subject to (a) negative procedure and (b) affirmative procedure in Parliament in each of the last five years. [142091]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Fiona Mactaggart): The numbers of instruments giving effect to changes to objects of charities subject to negative resolution procedure were one in 1998, one in 1999, five in 2000, two in 2001, one in 2002, which was subsequently withdrawn, and two in 2003. There were no instruments subject to affirmative procedure during that time.
    Mrs. Calton: What checks are made as to the accuracy and legitimacy of statutory instruments laid in that way? A subsequently withdrawn instrument in 2002 concerning Cheadle royal hospital contained substantial inaccuracies that were passed on by the Charity Commission, and the charity concerned was involved in the disposal of millions of pounds of charitable donations that have gone into public and private ownership. I am concerned that we still have no idea of the likely income to be obtained from the remaining assets.
    Fiona Mactaggart: That is a matter for the Charity Commission, as the non-ministerial Department responsible, but I pass on the thanks of the commission and of my predecessor to the hon. Lady for drawing the failures in the instrument to the notice of the House and the commission. Her determination to intervene has meant that the matters have begun to be resolved. She will be aware that there is a draft new instrument—she has been sent a copy—to ensure that those failures do not continue in any future instrument. She asked whether I could be satisfied that there was no continuing flaw in the administration of the body. The matter has been drawn to the attention of Greater Manchester police and the Charity Commissioners. The matter has been investigated by forensic accountants, who are confident that there is nothing about which we should continue to be concerned.
    Sir Sydney Chapman: Will the Under-Secretary confirm that the Government will

    767
    be proposing a charities Bill in this Session of Parliament? If so, will the Bill address the abuse of power that the Charity Commissioners exhibit from time to time? I can give a personal example. Will she ensure that there is provision in the Bill to allow charities to appeal against a decision requiring them to cease functioning immediately as a charity?
    Fiona Mactaggart: I can confirm that we will be publishing a draft Bill and that it will contain a mechanism for appealing against the decision of the Charity Commissioners to a special tribunal.

    Police
    Mr. Ben Chapman: If he will make a statement on police emergency response times. [142092]
    The Minister for Crime Reduction, Policing and Community Safety (Ms Hazel Blears): Responsibility for deciding the most appropriate emergency response times should lie with the chief officer in each police force area. However, the vast majority of forces are committed to attending emergency calls within 10 minutes for urban areas and 20 minutes for rural areas.
    Mr. Chapman: Although it is right to say that chief constables are best placed to react to local needs, and I accept that some evidence is anecdotal and that Merseyside police, for example, receive 1.2 million calls for assistance each year, I am afraid that the perception of the service is often poor. When a school in my constituency was recently invaded by intimidating and aggressive youths assaulting pupils and causing mayhem, the headmaster dialled 999 and the police arrived 35 minutes later, long after the invaders had skedaddled—and that was an emergency call. When making non-emergency calls, my constituents sometimes cannot get through at all and, in some cases when they do, it takes the police hours to respond.
    Is it not time that we considered putting in place appropriate mechanisms and resources, so that responses can be quicker and better feedback can be given to those who call, and that we published a national non-emergency number?
    Ms Blears: My hon. Friend has raised some serious issues, and I am aware of his concerns, particularly about Merseyside. I therefore made it my business to speak personally to the chief constable about those issues last week. I know that he is in correspondence with my hon. Friend, particularly on the issue of getting feedback from people about what happened when they called and what the outcome was. The chief constable is piloting an interesting project in Merseyside to make sure that people get proper information.
    There is also an issue about whether it is right to categorise calls as emergency, urgent or routine and whether we have the right calls in the right categories. There is work to be done there. However, I am pleased to be able to tell my hon. Friend that, in Merseyside, the police answer 80 per cent. of their emergency calls within the 10-minute limit. I am absolutely sure that the chief
    768
    constable and the force are willing to engage with my hon. Friend and other MPs throughout Merseyside to make sure that local people get the best possible service.
    Mr. James Paice: Given that police authorities said that they needed a funding increase of over 6 per cent. and the Government are giving them an increase of 3.25 per cent., how on earth are they to have the resources necessary to meet not only the response times that the Minister just described but the much tighter response times that the constituents of all hon. Members would like them to meet? Is it not rather odd that the Government set 31 different performance indicators for the police, interfering in every way in how local police forces are run, yet they do not set one for emergency response times?
    Ms Blears: We have to get the facts right. This year's funding allowance rose by 4.2 per cent: there is an across-the-board rise of 3.25 per cent. in the general grant, and on top of that there are specific grants, particularly for the crimefighting fund, which have given us record numbers of police officers, more than we have ever had on the streets before. There are also 2,000 community support officers out there, helping to reassure the public.
    That comes on top of absolutely massive increases over the past three years—a 30 per cent. rise in funding for the police, which is a real terms increase of 17 per cent. That can be compared with a real terms increase of 2 per cent. during the Tories' last couple of years in office. That is this Government's record, and it means that we have made available the resources to ensure that the police can deliver on response times, on reassurance, on fighting crime, on reducing burglary and vehicle crime, and on making this country a safer place to live.
    Tony Lloyd: Does my hon. Friend agree that probably the biggest single subject of complaints about policing is response times? Although she is right to point out that we have seen a massive increase in funding, does she, as a Greater Manchester MP like me, agree that it would be right and proper to have an objective standard against which to judge the police? The 10-minute response time should be measured against achievement, and if we could have those results published, police force by police force, division by division, we would be able to hold the police to account in a way that the public would appreciate.
    Ms Blears: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to focus on performance. He will be aware of the push to drive up the performance standards of Greater Manchester police force. We are trying to reduce the number of best value performance indicators in the police because we want to free up forces to deploy their resources in the right place at the right time. It is important that they respond on time, but what happens as a result of their attending is also crucial. It is all very well to tick the box and say, "We were there in 10 minutes," but I am concerned to find out what happened when they turned up. For example, was the outcome good? Was the right number of officers sent to a fracas, or to the kind of incident that my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Chapman) outlined?

    Criminal Records Bureau
    Annette Brooke: How much the Criminal Records Bureau has lost on average on (a) each standard disclosure and (b) each enhanced disclosure over the last 12 months. [142093]
    The Minister for Citizenship and Immigration (Beverley Hughes): At the eleventh hour, I realised that there could be different ways of interpreting this question. I had assumed that it was about money, so I hope that that is the right approach. Had we moved to full-cost recovery in 2003–04, the fee for standard and enhanced disclosures would have to have been set at £34 and £39 respectively, as against the actual fees set of £24 and £29.
    Mrs. Brooke: Will the Minister continue to press the Criminal Records Bureau to reduce costs and operate efficiently? Will she also ensure that any such savings are reflected in future fees? A 100 per cent. increase last year and 17 per cent. next year is just too much for our already overstretched and overburdened community and voluntary organisations.
    Beverley Hughes: The hon. Lady should know that voluntary organisations do not pay anything—they avail themselves of the disclosure service free of charge. For other organisations, we have made it clear that by 2005–06 charges will have to be set that enable the full cost of the service to be recovered. That, of course, also allows the Criminal Records Bureau to continue to improve its standard of service, which it has done. It now has the capacity to assess 50,000 applications a week—double the rate last year—and it more than meets the service standards of 90 per cent. of standard disclosures in two weeks and enhanced disclosures in four weeks. I am pleased to say that, of those people using the service, one in five have decided not to employ somebody as a result of disclosure, which shows that in terms of its main purposeߞprotecting children and vulnerable adultsߞit is working very well.
    Mr. Simon Burns: May I point out to the Minister, however, that her answer omits the fact that from April next year the enhanced fees will go up to £33, which is a 175 per cent. increase since April 2002? That places a particular hardship on care homes. To provide at least a semblance of value for money, when will the Government ensure that the time taken to clear an investigation is reduced from about four weeks to the two weeks that Health Ministers promised in Committee when the requirements were introduced?
    Beverley Hughes: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman heard me recount the performance standards that are being met. In fact, nine out of 10 applications are for enhanced disclosures, the majority of which are being dealt with in two weeks. I am sure that he will agree that the previous system was not working. The police national computer could not cope with the number of applications. As of 29 November this year, more than 3 billion applications have been submitted, which shows hon. Members the scale of the need. If we are to provide a good service, the standard must meet the needs of
    770
    organisations, and that must be paid for. We made it clear, when the first disclosure fee was announced in 2001, that the service would have to move to a full-cost recovery basis. The Government have stepped in, and we are moving to full-cost recovery in a planned, incremental way that enables organisations to meet the charges, but not all at once. That is a fair system. As I said, the main purpose is to protect children and vulnerable adults, and our feedback is that organisations and the registered body are very happy with the improvements that have been made.

    Police
    Mr. David Rendel: What allowances are paid to (a) Metropolitan police officers and (b) Thames Valley police officers stationed in west Berkshire. [142095]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Fiona Mactaggart): Members of any Home Department police force may receive a housing allowance, dog handlers allowance, plain clothes allowance or motor allowance if the provisions of the Police Regulations 2003 are satisfied. In addition, officers in the Metropolitan police force receive London weighting of £1,881 and a London allowance of £1,011 if they were recruited before 1 September 1994, or £4,338 if they were recruited after that date and are not in receipt of housing allowance. Officers in Thames Valley police who were recruited after 1 September 1994 and who are not in receipt of a housing allowance receive a south-east allowance of £2,000.
    Mr. Rendel: Given the difference in allowances that the Minister has just announced and given that house prices are often lower in other parts of the country than they are in west Berkshire, it is clear that a considerable number of police officers are recruited and trained by Thames Valley but then move to other police forces. What will the Minister do to ensure that central funds make up to Thames Valley police force the excess costs of recruiting and training a lot of police officers who then move elsewhere?
    Fiona Mactaggart: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that because of the operation of the floor in the grants to police in the recent announcement, Thames Valley received more than it might otherwise have expected. Our injection of extra money into police forces such as Thames Valley is proving successful. Thames Valley police force covers both his constituency and mine, and it now has more police officers than at any other point in history. The chief constable is able to use special policing payments—at 1 per cent., and increasing to 2 per cent.—to deal with the serious problem of retention of police officers in our area.

    Drugs
    Mr. Tom Harris: What plans he has to support communities in the fight against drugs. [142096]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Caroline Flint): The Government's drug strategy concentrates on safeguarding communities as one of its four principal aims. Strong communities are at the heart of preventing crime and reducing antisocial behaviour, and are central to the Government's agenda for civil renewal. Drug action teams and crime and disorder reduction partnerships work on a local basis. They should support communities to identify needs and engage with them to find solutions.
    Mr. Harris: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that answer. As a member of the Committee that scrutinised the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 through 39 long sittings, I welcome the Government's commitment to confiscating drug assets and reinvesting the money in those communities, including my own, that have been most hard hit by the drugs trade. Will she reconsider the Government's targets for asset recovery? The website of the Assets Recovery Agency puts the value of the illegal drug trade in this country at £9 billion a year, but the Government's target for total criminal assets recovered by 2004–05 is only £60 million. Is that ambitious enough
    Caroline Flint: The powers are very new and, as my hon. Friend will be aware, the Assets Recovery Agency has been in place for less than a year. We are on track for this year's target of £45 million, with more than £37 million already confiscated. It is a challenging new area. We are establishing four regional asset recovery units in England and Wales and, in Scotland, the First Minister announced in November that more money would go to communities fighting the misery of crime and drugs. I understand that more details will be provided in the new year. We are trying to make this new policy work and I hope that the pot will grow, because we are trying to ensure that crime does not pay.
    Angela Watkinson: The Minister will be aware of the importance of drugs education in reducing illegal drug use and, therefore, drug-related crime. Will she liaise with her colleagues in the Department for Education and Skills and look at some of the education material that masquerades as drug prevention, some of which is more like an instruction manual for how to inject, or avoid being caught out by one's parents. Will she try to filter out those unsuitable and inappropriate drug publications, so that young people in schools are not exposed to them?
    Caroline Flint: Reducing the use of drugs by young people is one of the major parts of our strategy. I am in regular contact with colleagues in the Department of Health and the Department for Education and Skills, and I shall have a meeting shortly to discuss issues concerning young people at risk. We do consider the information that is issued. The FRANK campaign, which was launched this year, has been highly successful, both in terms of the number of people who have accessed information through the website or e-mail and in terms of the activities around the country that have been supported by schools. We have also launched Blueprint with the Department for Education and Skills and others, which will establish over several years what
    772
    is effective in terms of education on drugs. We have to have information that is informative and useful, and warns people of the dangers. However, we also have to recognise that young people may be using drugs and we have to reduce the harm from that, too.
    John Mann: Effective drugs treatment, especially for heroin, works both in prison and in the community. As the Home Office drastically underestimates the saving to the taxpayer of effective drugs treatment, will the Minister consider initiating new research so that we can find out what is working and, especially, the saving to the taxpayer from what is working?
    Caroline Flint: We already know from research that every £1 spent on treatment saves the criminal justice system £3, so we should all pay attention to that figure. I am sure that my hon. Friend agrees that, to support treatment, money needs to be put in and that a record amount is going into such programmes. We constantly consider research; for example, we are not just waiting until the end of the criminal justice intervention programme but are looking at it as it develops. We can thus obtain a speedy response about what is working and passport it across, and understand what might not work in certain areas. Research has been carried out in prisons, but more could be done and we are trying to find better ways of assessing the impact of drug treatment in prison. What evidence there is, however, shows that drug treatment in prison reduces re-offending.
    Mr. Humfrey Malins: The drug that causes the most damage to communities and that results in the most crime is, of course, alcohol. I am sure that the Minister will agree that we need to put a stop to the huge rise in binge drinking by normally law-abiding teenagers, which causes so much damage to their health and to their communities and takes up an enormous amount of police time. Would not one remedy be for the Government to ask the courts to be much more robust and much tougher when considering the grant or renewal of licences to the sorts of clubs and pubs that all too often, by their aggressive marketing policies, appear to encourage the behaviour that we all want to control?
    Caroline Flint: The hon. Gentleman is probably aware that I have spoken in other forums about the link between alcohol and drugs. If one meets a drug user who says "I'm off the crack, but I'm still an alcoholic", one needs to take heed.
    Earlier in questions, it was pointed out that the strategy on alcohol abuse will be available in the new year—in February, I understand. The police, local authorities and courts not only need to be mindful of the impact of binge drinking but to get the message across in schools and to our young people about the dangerous outcomes that can result and about being completely unable to cope after taking huge amounts of alcohol. We need to look into the matter, to ensure that licences work and that those who sell alcohol, whatever the venue, take some responsibility for their actions.

    Road Safety
    Mr. David Kidney: What guidance he gives to police forces on the priority to be attached to road traffic law policing. [142097]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Caroline Flint): Both the first national policing plan, for 2003–06, and the current plan, for 2004–07, specifically expect the police to give attention to effective road policing, to contribute to the achievement of the road safety strategy, and to include in local plans strategies for reducing road deaths and injuries. We take that aspect of policing seriously, which is why we plan to get it across to all police forces.
    Mr. Kidney: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Does she agree that although safety cameras at dangerous locations are saving lives, there is also great value in police officers patrolling our roads, visibly enforcing road traffic laws? Will she ensure that national guidance reflects that great value?
    Caroline Flint: The safety camera scheme is having an impact and will continue to do so. The results from the two-year pilot of the scheme in eight areas show that, on average, the number of people killed or seriously injured at camera sites has gone down by 35 per cent. I know that will be heartwarming news for my hon. Friend, as he is co-chair of the all-party transport safety group.
    We take seriously the involvement of police officers; a visible police presence is important. We have also considered whether other people can be engaged in such work, which is why some powers have been provided for community support officers. We shall also be working with the Highways Agency to ensure that it can deal with the management of roads at accident scenes while the police get on with finding out what happened and with following up any criminal action. Those are all important parts of ensuring that road safety enforcement works effectively.
    Mr. Nick Gibb: Given that we have some of the safest roads in Europe, should not far greater priority be given to putting police officers on to our streets, rather than on to our motorways?
    Caroline Flint: Such matters are for police forces to determine in their areas, but I do not think that it is an either/or issue. We must ensure that we use the technology that is available. On average, a police officer using automatic number plate recognition technology makes 110 arrests a year, compared with 10 a year without the technology. That is making the best use of 21st century technology and making sure that we put police where they are needed: on our streets and in our communities.

    Antisocial Behaviour Orders
    Mr. Dave Watts: How many antisocial behaviour orders have been issued since their introduction. [142098]
    The Minister for Crime Reduction, Policing, and Community Safety (Ms Hazel Blears): ASBOs were introduced in England and Wales from 1 April 1999. The number of notifications received by the Home Office of ASBOs issued in England and Wales at all courts from 1 April 1999 to 30 June 2003 is 1,337.
    Mr. Watts: I have been meeting police and magistrates in St. Helens to discuss antisocial behaviour. Does my hon. Friend agree that some magistrates courts and some police forces clearly do not give ASBOs the serious attention that they should? Will she talk to the Lord Chancellor about how to make the policy more effective in future?
    Ms Blears: I understand that six ASBOs have now been granted in my hon. Friend's area, and there are plans to make sure that more of those who commit antisocial behaviour are targeted in future. He is right to say that all parts of the criminal justice system, including the police and the courts, need to take the agenda seriously; that is precisely what we are working on. I am delighted that, for the first time, the Magistrates Association has issued sentencing guidelines on antisocial behaviour, so that there is consistency in the sentencing process. I hope that my hon. Friend agrees that, increasingly, police, local authorities and the courts are taking the tackling of antisocial behaviour seriously, because it is the public's top priority.
    Miss Anne McIntosh: Does the Minister accept that ASBOs are failing to work in the villages around York? Skelton, Rawcliffe and Clifton Moor have been made to pay £14,000 this year, rising to £16,000 next year, for private security guards to assist the police in tackling antisocial behaviour. Surely that is privatisation by the back door, and totally unacceptable.
    Ms Blears: I do not accept for a moment that ASBOs are failing. The hon. Lady should take a look at Leeds, where 66 interim ASBOs were obtained over the course of a weekend to reclaim an estate that was completely out of control. She should come to my Salford constituency, where we now have more than 50 ASBOs, 25 of which were obtained on conviction after the new powers were brought in—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) put a question to the Minister; she must allow the Minister to reply and not butt in.
    Ms Blears: We like to start off gently, so we start with an acceptable behaviour contract; perhaps we should have one of those in relation to our proceedings. By using the range of tools available—acceptable behaviour contracts, ASBOs and parenting orders—local authorities and the police can successfully tackle antisocial behaviour, which is an extremely important issue to the people whom we represent.
    Mr. John Smith: Just a thought: perhaps you, Mr. Speaker, should consider issuing antisocial behaviour orders from time to time. What about the problem that we have with our local authority, Conservative-controlled Vale of Glamorgan

    775
    council, which refuses to co-operate in the issuing of antisocial behaviour orders, even when residents demand them to solve the most difficult problems on some of our most difficult estates?
    Ms Blears: My hon. Friend knows that, under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, there is a duty on local authorities and the police to co-operate. Those authorities have a responsibility to work together to tackle such issues. We in Government have put on the statute book a range of tools for local authorities to use in tackling those problems, and we are determined that they will be encouraged to use the tools available and tackle deep-seated problems in our communities. That is why we have the Together action plan, Trailblazers, the Together Academy, bringing practitioners together, and the Together ActionLine, to make sure that we can all tackle the problems together.
    Mr. Graham Brady: Does the Minister accept that sometimes, by barring offenders from the place where they commit offences, the effect of ASBOs can be to move them to another community, where they can cause serious problems that did not previously exist?
    Ms Blears: The evidence shows that displacement does not occur as a result of ASBOs. With such innovative legislation, it is important that there should be exclusion areas around the place where people are allowed to go. If they breach that, they can get a custodial sentence, which is increasingly happening. We have included in the Act a provision to widen the exclusion area from the area where the offences were committed so that the problems of displacement do not occur. The legislation is innovative and forward looking, and I commend it to the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Michael Jabez Foster: Nigel Barry, the antisocial behaviour officer of Hastings borough council, tells me that one of the problems is the criminal test that is being applied to the obtaining of ASBOs. Does my hon. Friend intend to restore the balance of probabilities evidential test, as was originally intended, so that such orders can be more easily obtained?
    Ms Blears: I understand the point that my hon. Friend makes, but I reaffirm and put it on record that the antisocial behaviour order is a civil order. Its rules of evidence are governed by civil rules of evidence, which means that we can use professional evidence. Local people do not have to stand up and be intimidated and harassed, as they have been. The evidential requirement for proof is the highest standard. These matters are serious, and it is acceptable to have the highest standard of proof, but at the same time we must retain the civil rules of evidence so that victims and witnesses can be supported when they come forward and make the case.

    Prisons
    Gareth Thomas: If he will make a statement on his assessment of likely changes in the prison population over the next five years.[142100]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Paul Goggins): The prison population is expected to grow over the next five years, which is why the number of prison places will be increased to 78,700 by 2006. At the same time we anticipate that a greater use of community penalties will reduce the number of less serious offenders who are given a custodial sentence.
    Gareth Thomas: Given the fact that the vast majority of prisoners go on to reoffend once released, what assurances can my hon. Friend give that those worrying increases in the prison population will not affect the ability of the Prison Service to carry out rehabilitation programmes to stop reoffending?
    Paul Goggins: My hon. Friend is right that some people who leave prison do go on to reoffend. We place emphasis on improving education in prisons and making sure that there is a better connection to Jobcentre Plus so that people leaving prison stand a better chance of getting into a job. We must ensure that when people leave prison they can adopt a lifestyle that means they do not have to return to crime.
    Mr. Nigel Evans: Does the Minister accept that if someone is arrested for a first offence for burglary, the chances are that it is not their first offence but merely the first time that they have been caught? Is the Government's policy, therefore, for first-offence burglars to go to prison? If so, what assessment has he made of the extra places needed for that?
    Paul Goggins: The court can deal only with the offences before it; it cannot second-guess the crimes that an individual may have committed. In the light of the information before it and the offence of which the person has been convicted, the court must choose the penalty deemed appropriate for that individual.
    Mr. Hilton Dawson: Is it not a shocking fact that 25 young people have died in young offenders institutions over the past 13 years? Is it not time that the Government made a principled stand and arranged for all children to come out of custody?
    Paul Goggins: Like Members on both sides of the House, I deeply regret the death of any young person in custody, or of anybody in custody. The Prison Service is working mightily hard to reduce the incidence of people taking their own lives or engaging in self-harm. The use of custody for juveniles has fallen in the past year by about 13 per cent. as we have developed intensive and appropriate programmes for young people in the community. However, some young people commit extremely serious offences, and for their sake and because of the need to protect the public they sometimes need to be in custody.

    Speed Cameras
    17. Mr. Hugo Swire: How many prosecutions have been brought as a result of speed cameras in Devon and Cornwall since cameras were first introduced. [142103]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Caroline Flint): Cameras were first used in Devon and Cornwall in 1992. The latest year for which data are available is 2001. In that period there were 22,902 prosecutions for speeding offences detected by camera.
    Mr. Swire: In the run-up to Christmas everyone is interested in road safety. In her earlier answer to the hon. Member for St. Helens, North (Mr. Watts) I think that the Minister added to the general confusion surrounding speed cameras by overstating their importance. When I recently asked the Secretary of State for Transport about SPECS digital speed cameras, which, as far as I am aware, we do not have yet in Devon and Cornwall, he said that the revenue from the cameras went to cover the cost of their operation, with all surplus moneys going to the Treasury.
    That seems to be the case in some parts of the country but not in others. Chief constables in some areas say that speed cameras are not an effective way
    778
    of policing, and in some areas revenue is reserved by the chief constable and in other areas by the Treasury. Is not the real case—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I call the Minister.
    Caroline Flint: Devon and Cornwall want the cameras because they joined the scheme in October 2002. They did not have to join the scheme, but they did so. That must say something about why they want the cameras. As I said earlier to my hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, North (Mr. Watts), we must use the latest technology and police officers to tackle offences on our streets and roads. There is no doubt that speeding is a serious criminal offence. When people are speeding or not driving at the appropriate speed according to the conditions, they can affect lives. That is what needs to be dealt with. That is why the scheme is so popular, that is why police forces want it, and that is why they want the resources to assist them in dealing with road safety.

Points of Order
3.33 pm
John Mann: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. On 4 December I received from the Secretary of State for Transport an answer to a written question of which I had given the Department prior notice, in which I sought to clarify what a specific piece of legislation stated in relation to car parking fines—an issue that I have tested successfully in court. As I have not received an answer concerning what the law is in relation to private operators of local authority car parks fining or attempting to fine people, what advice would you give me, Mr. Speaker, as to how to clarify what the law of the land is?
Mr. Speaker: I would strongly advise the hon. Gentleman to go to the Table Office and persevere, to make sure that he gets the reply that he is looking for.
Tony Lloyd: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I draw your attention and that of the House to the parliamentary convention whereby one Member advises another when he or she visits another Member's constituency? In particular, may I draw your attention to the fact that the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), also known as the Leader of the Opposition, visited my constituency over the weekend without having the courtesy to let me know? My constituents were quite happy to welcome him—indeed, most of them were pretty oblivious to his visit—but they were surprised that he offered no apology for the damage that he did as Employment Secretary, which led to increasing unemployment in the area, or for the crime that took place as a result of that damage when he was Home Secretary.
Mr. Speaker: I replied in depth to a similar point of order made by the hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall), and I urge all hon. Members to read that in Hansard, where it is recorded for the benefit of every hon. Member.
Mr. Peter Lilley: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will recall that on Wednesday I raised with the Prime Minister the issue of hospital-acquired infections, which kill more people every few months than died in New York on 9/11. One would normally be gratified if within a couple of days the Government had come out with a policy response—except that the Secretary of State for Health chose to announce his new policy for dealing with this terrible problem on the "Today" programme on Friday, a day when the House was not sitting, and does not appear even to have tabled a written ministerial statement today. Would you advise me whether you have received any request from the Secretary of State to come to the House to give Members an opportunity to question him on that policy to establish whether it is, as I hope, a substantive contribution to one of the most serious issues facing our constituents, or whether it is, as I fear, another ineffective gesture? Will you confirm this is an
780
issue of immense importance that should be treated not as the NHS's dirty little secret but as a dirty great issue that is of concern to us all?
Mr. Eric Forth: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker—
Mr. Speaker: Order. Let me reply to the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley).
I recall the right hon. Gentleman raising the matter, which is obviously important to him. I shall not be drawn into the argument, but when a Minister has an important matter to announce, I expect it to be announced in the House. Tomorrow is Health questions, when the right hon. Gentleman may catch my eye.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I apologise for not following my usual practice of giving your office notice of a point of order.
It may have been brought to your attention that in the Scottish press this morning there is much discussion of the issue of certification of Bills, as to whether they pertain simply to England or to Britain as a whole. I do not wish to make any party point of this, because it was raised quite properly by the Leader of the Opposition on his visit to Scotland, but I raised this question with Mr. Speaker Selwyn Lloyd many years ago, and he said benignly that he and his office would consider the matter. Well, I suspect that they are still considering it.
My point of order is this. In the light of what is said in the Scottish press this morning, and in the light of what the Leader of the Opposition has said in Scotland—he is quite entitled to say it—I ask that, after consideration, there should be some statement from the Speaker's Office saying how practical or otherwise it is. I do not ask for an immediate answer; I merely hope that the consideration that Mr. Speaker Selwyn Lloyd began will be brought to some kind of fruition.
Mr. Speaker: I inform the hon. Gentleman that I have a responsibility to certify Bills that relate exclusively to Scotland. I hope that that is of some help to him.
Mr. Forth: Further to the point of order made by my right hon. friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley), Mr. Speaker. Do you share my frustration that on the wireless this morning we heard the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry answering questions about consumer credit, and on the Order Paper today under written ministerial statements, I find that very matter: "consumer credit, Secretary of State for Trade and Industry"? Why do Mr. Humphrys and Mr. Naughtie get to question the Secretary of State on the radio, while we do not get the same opportunity here in this Chamber? Something is going badly wrong, Mr. Speaker, and it really is time that a grip was got on the matter, so that we stop this appalling habit of Secretaries of State and Ministers answering questions on the radio, but refusing to come here to answer them in the Chamber.
Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman brings to my attention a matter in relation to which Ministers are

781
clearly acting within the rules of the House. A written statement has been made, and I have no other powers in this matter.
Mr. Dalyell: Further to the point of order that I raised earlier, Mr. Speaker. In the light of your reply, would it be impertinent to ask whether your office was approached on the question of certification in relation to the proceedings of the House on foundation hospitals? Was the Speaker's Office ever asked for a ruling on this matter?
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman should remember my words. I referred to Bills relating exclusively to Scotland, and I do not think that foundation hospitals featured in a Bill relating exclusively to Scotland—far from it.
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin (West Derbyshire) (Con): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I ask you to reflect on the reply that you have just given to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth)? Surely, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, like the Secretary of State for Health on Friday, answered questions on the radio before a statement had been made to Parliament. I thought that a statement to Parliament should be made first, before a statement to the news media.
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I think it is important for us all to remember that the idea of having written statements, on which you have expanded several times, was that it would regularise a habit of tabling written questions that were planted. However, it will be difficult for the House if people use the arrangement as a means of avoiding making statements that should be questioned. I know that you would deprecate that, and I hope that that will be made clear.
Mr. Speaker: I say to the hon. Lady and to the hon. Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin) that the health statement and the statement on trade and industry that have been mentioned are two different
782
matters. On the health statement, I repeat that the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) had expressed deep concern as early as Wednesday about the matter to which he referred. I would hope that a Minister would come before the House and not only make a statement but give the House an opportunity to question it. On the other matter, a written statement was given to the House. Therefore, as a custodian of the rules, I can say that there has been no breach of rules. If the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) feels that this matter should be tightened up, it is up to her and others to take it before the appropriate Committee.
Mr. Forth: Further to the previous point of order, Mr. Speaker. If I may say so, I think that that is a very helpful ruling on your part. Without it, surely Ministers could start to take refuge in hiding behind the written ministerial statement procedure, knowing that they could not be questioned in the House. If are not very careful, Ministers could see that procedure as some sort of substitute for making a proper statement here and subjecting themselves to questioning. I am sure that you will want to make it clear that you would not expect them to use that dodge.
Mr. Speaker: I am glad that my replies are helpful; I would only hope that the points of order will be helpful.

Points of Order
  BILL PRESENTED
    HOUSING
    Mr. Secretary Prescott, supported by Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Secretary Blunkett, Secretary Margaret Beckett, Mr. Secretary Darling, Mr. Secretary Reid, Ms Secretary Hewitt, Mr. Secretary Clarke, Mr. Paul Boateng and Mr. Peter Hain, presented a Bill to make provision about housing conditions; to regulate houses in multiple occupation and certain other residential accommodation; to make provision for home information packs in connection with the sale of residential properties; to make provision about secure tenants and the right to buy; to make other provision about housing; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed. Explanatory notes to be printed. [Bill 11].

Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill (Programme)
3.43 pm
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Keith Hill): I beg to move, That the programme order of 17th December 2002 shall be varied as follows:
Consideration and Third Reading

1. Paragraphs 4 and 5 of the Order (Consideration and Third Reading) shall be omitted.

2. Proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading shall be completed in two days.

3. Proceedings on Consideration on the first day shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption.

4. Proceedings on Consideration on the second day shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion two hours after their commencement on that day.

5. Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion three hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Bill on the second day.

6. Proceedings on Consideration shall be taken in the following order: New Clauses standing in the name of a Minister of the Crown, remaining New Clauses, remaining proceedings on the Bill.

As the House will know, the Bill has received detailed scrutiny in Committee, both in its initial three-week consideration, and later, in the two weeks when it was recommitted so that the new provisions that we sought to introduce to cover the removal of the Crown's immunity from planning controls and some further provisions to improve the system of compulsory purchase could be considered. Recommital meant that, in total, the Bill was debated for some 55.5 hours in Standing Committee. I am grateful to all hon. Members who participated in consideration of the Bill for their constructive contributions.
Anxious as I am to make progress on the substantive rather than the procedural aspects of the debate, I should respond to the observations that the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) made last week in his point of order, in which he complained about lack of notice on the amendments relating to planning contributions. The hon. Gentleman acts as though this is a dark plot to spring the amendments on him, but it is the end of a process that began back in December 2001, when we consulted on four options for reforming planning obligations. Our preferred option was the tariff. In July last year, having received and considered more than 500 responses to that consultation, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister announced that although the objectives of the tariff proposal were widely welcomed by a majority of respondents, many could be delivered without legislative change.
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: Will the Minister give way?
Keith Hill: Of course—how can I resist giving way to my former opposite number?
Mr. McLoughlin: Can the Minister tell us how much of the Bill is in the original form in which it received its Second Reading in this House?
Keith Hill: The greater part of the Bill remains in its original form—subject, of course, to sensible
784
amendments, many of which were made in the light of sensible representations on the part of the loyal Opposition. Additions to the Bill were properly debated and scrutinised on its recommittal. We are now bringing forward new material that I will try to deal with in the course of this short debate.
Mr. Eric Forth: Who decides what is sensible?
Keith Hill: Members of the House of Commons when they vote on the provisions of the Bill: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman would entirely agree with that.
Work continued on the issues, especially in the light of the many representations that we continued to receive. We continued to explore how to offer developers and local authorities a straightforward way in which to shorten the time taken on negotiations. The proposals are a development of our earlier consultation about the tariff—they are nothing new; and they are optional, not mandatory.
I announced our proposals in a written statement to the House and published the consultation document on 6 November. In both I explained that we intended to take enabling powers in the Bill. I made a particular point of ensuring that the Opposition were in immediate receipt of the consultation document. If the hon. Member for Cotswold and his Liberal Democrat counterpart, the hon. Member for Ludlow (Matthew Green), happened to miss my statement and the consultation document, perhaps they had a chance to read about it in their daily newspapers. The Financial Times, The Daily Telegraph and The Times covered my announcement extensively, explaining that we intended to legislate, what we intended to legislate for, and that the detail of the proposals would be subject to further discussion. I do not know what the weekend reading matter of the hon. Member for Cotswold might be, but I am sure that, as a chartered surveyor, he takes the opportunity to catch up with specialist publications such as Property Week, Estates Gazette, Regeneration and Renewal and Housing Today, all of which made it clear that we intended, as I said on 6 November, to take enabling powers in the Bill.
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Of course, I read all those publications avidly, because I try to get into them as often as possible. However, what the Minister says is a travesty. Although we knew in principle that the new clauses were on the way, until we saw them in detail there was no possibility of our being able to table counter-amendments. The Minister sat on the matter for a month and tabled the amendments just two days—not even two full days—before all amendments had to be in or end up being starred and therefore unable to be debated. That is a manipulation of parliamentary procedure and a sloppy way of carrying on.
Keith Hill: Notwithstanding the hon. Gentleman's protestations, he succeeded in tabling no fewer than 20 amendments to two new clauses, so it appears that he

785
did not find the process of responding to the possibly late tabling of the new clauses a particularly arduous process.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: Although I do not have an entire ministerial team behind me, I was up very late into the night drafting amendments to try to ensure that the Minister and Government did not get away with it.
Keith Hill: I do not want to take away from the assiduousness of the hon. Gentleman, but his amendments' redolence of the midnight oil means that, unfortunately, I shall have to reject quite a lot of them.
The consultation document invited views on the general principles of reform. It was clear that we intended to legislate by making provision for a new optional planning charge that will give developers a choice between the current negotiated approach and the alternative of paying a predetermined fixed amount. I want to make it clear that we will publish the results of the consultation and our response to the points raised, as well as more detail on the form that the regulations will take, in order to inform the debates in the other place during January.
Sir Paul Beresford: The Minister will be aware that, in July last year, the Select Committee condemned most of the draft planning Bill, including the part dealing with tariffs. Considering that it did so on the basis of what had been said by the many people who came before it, and of the many memorandums that it received, would it not be more appropriate for such a delicate issue to be delayed—or at least for the relevant part of the Report stage of the Bill to be put off—until the results of the consultation are in and have been seriously considered by the Government?
Keith Hill: I do not think so. Our earlier consultation received precisely 505 representations on this subject. The broad outlines of the issue have been sufficiently adumbrated up and down the country, although of course we continue to discuss the matter with interested parties. In the circumstances, and in the light of the fact that these are enabling measures which will be subject to further detailed consideration in consultation, guidance and regulation, we feel that this is the right moment to introduce them.
We intend to issue a second, more detailed consultation document in spring 2004, which will be a draft circular setting out firmer and more detailed proposals. After that second consultation period, we will publish a new, revised circular to replace circular 1/97. I accept that we have shortened the consultation period to nine weeks from the 12 weeks that we usually allow. In this case, the period is shorter because we are looking for broad views on the general principles. As I have said, a further consultation document will set out our proposals in detail, and we expect to consult for longer at that time. In a nutshell, we have decided that we want to take advantage of this rare legislative opportunity to introduce the optional planning charge. Planning Bills are not introduced frequently, and the opportunity might not arise again for years.
786
I hope that these explanations will satisfy the House, and the hon. Member for Cotswold in particular. As I have said, the Bill has already enjoyed a lengthy Committee stage, in which there has been ample opportunity for the Opposition to scrutinise all its aspects. Moreover, it is precisely because we recognise that we are bringing new material to it, in the form of three new clauses and four amendments, that we are proposing this motion to increase even further the time available for debate. The programme motion tabled in the name of the Deputy Prime Minister and the Leader of the House provides that we consider the new material first. It is therefore entirely in the hands of the Opposition to decide how long we need to consider this new material. There will be no knives.
The Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) and I eagerly anticipate an interesting day and a half of debate, and I hope that we can now move quickly to address the substance of the Bill without any excessive expenditure of energy on procedural wrangles.
3.53 pm
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Thank you for allowing me to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker.
The Minister is skating on pretty thin ice, considering the chronology of the Bill. I shall go through that in some detail, so that anyone listening to this debate or reading the report of it later can see the mismanagement of Government business that the Bill exemplifies par excellence. The programme motion provides that we shall finish our proceedings at the moment of interruption today, giving us just six and a half hours. Tomorrow, we shall have just two hours on further consideration, giving us a total of eight and a half hours. Points of order and the ministerial statement have taken up half an hour, so we will have in effect only eight hours to debate 23 new clauses and 78 amendments, most of which—certainly the substantive ones—are Government new clauses and amendments. These amendments are very technical and extremely important to the development industry.
What a way to carry on! I apologise for my point of order last Thursday, which was marginally incorrect. The Bill started its Second Reading on 17 December 2002, which is almost a year ago. The Government rushed it through Second Reading and Committee on a timetable of 12 sittings between 9 and 28 January, which meant that on the first go at this in Standing Committee only 30 clauses out of 90 and only I schedule out of six were discussed.
The Government were not content with rushing the Bill through at that huge pace. The whole thing went to sleep until June, when they introduced an unprecedented recommittal motion to recommit it to Standing Committee. That took place, and despite the fact that we had argued strongly for 12 sittings we were given only eight. Even on the second go, only 29 clauses out of 90 were discussed, and four schedules out of six were not even debated.
Despite the fact that the Government have had two goes at this legislation in Standing Committee, there are still huge chunks of the original Bill that have never been discussed. On top of that, during the second Standing

787
Committee stage, the Government introduced two new huge portions, which I estimate add about 20 clauses to the existing 90 on important matters to do with Crown immunity and compulsory purchase.
No sooner had that second Committee finished and while the ink was hardly dry, the Government announced that they wanted to add another huge bit on to the section 106 procedure—the alternative procedure that the Minister has outlined—in the highly complex clauses 1,2 and 3. Yet we are being allowed only one and a half days for debate on Report—in fact, not even one and a half days. That is totally inadequate. I suspect that at the end of Report stage huge chunks of the original Bill will not have been discussed, and neither will the other new clauses and amendments. I draw hon. Members' attention to the new list of amendments. There are 40 pages of amendments, which include 23 new clauses and 78 amendments. That shows the huge interest of a large number of Members who want to discuss various aspects of the Bill, yet we have this timetable motion. At the very least, we should have two days for Report.
There is no reason at all why we need to finish at 10 o'clock today. There is no reason why discussion of the Bill should not go on after the moment of interruption. That would allow Back Benchers to present the new clauses that they have tabled and to raise all the issues that pertain to the Bill.
I must express our serious reservations about what we will discuss today. The Government say that they had a consultation document way back in December and that they had 505 responses. That consultation paper led the Government to conclude that the tariff system was unworkable, yet for some extraordinary reason they have decided to bring it back in these new clauses. Not only is that an extraordinary way to go about things, given that we thought this whole tariff idea had been dropped, but the Government are bringing it back in the middle of their new consultation, which does not end until 8 January. Many experts wonder whether it is possible to subject this whole procedure to judicial review. The Government have introduced clauses not only in the middle of the consultation but at a time when the Treasury-sponsored Barker report is still not available in full. I thank the Minister for acceding to part of my request by ensuring that some of the responses are available on the website. However, we still have not seen the full Barker report, which touches on this matter.
The new clauses are both wide in scope and vague. I have no doubt that the other place will want to give this whole Bill huge scrutiny. It is reprehensible to bring forward these new clauses in such a vague form and in such a hurry.
There is no reason why these matters could not have been specified in the Queen's Speech, and subject to a separate Bill.
We all rely on the planning system in this country, but the Government have ripped up the present system and made the new system even more complicated. Once we have added to that the further complication that will be raised in today's debate, the system will probably be unable to cope.
788
These are important matters that touch on all our lives, and not least on the country's economic development, but the timetable only allows us about eight and a half hours in which to discuss them. This is a monstrous travesty of parliamentary procedure.
4 pm
Mr. Andrew Mitchell: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak briefly. The Minister knows how deeply some of the issues in the Bill concern us in Sutton Coldfield and it worries me that insufficient time has been allocated to them. The Minister was good enough to reply to a late night Adjournment debate about some of those issues in the summer, within minutes of taking up his post. He will therefore know that planning decisions and the way in which they are made is one of the most important issues.
I am particularly concerned about two matters that the motion may prevent us from discussing. The first is misuse of brown land. I have always suspected that the Minister feels some sympathy for us in Sutton Coldfield where that is concerned. Under current legislation, developers can wilfully misinterpret the definition of brown land. They can knock down large houses with large, mature gardens—I gave the Minister a specific example last summer—and replace two or three of them with enormous blocks of flats. They can increase density in areas where that is wholly inappropriate. I suggested to the Minister that he might like to undertake a journey from Sutton Coldfield to Birmingham, as en route he would see what both he and I would consider proper and legitimate brown-land development. But I fear that the wilful misinterpretation that I have described cannot be discussed adequately in our debates.
The second issue is that of appeals. Under current legislation, a developer whose application is turned down by a planning committee can appeal if he can persuade the appeal authorities that he has been denied the opportunity of proceeding with his development. The problem is that when a developer is given permission under the current legislation—even when the planners would have preferred not to give permission, but the planning department believes that it must do so under the legislation—my constituents have no right of appeal.
When the matter was discussed at length in Committee, the Government's response was that it was an extremely difficult issue. that they would think about it, but that they had no plans to act. If more time were available today, we might have had an opportunity to consider ways of redressing the balance more in favour of our constituents and less to the advantage of developers. It might, for instance, have been possible to argue that when a large number of local people object to a decision in favour of a developer—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman can advance these arguments at a later stage. We are discussing the programme motion, which is very tightly and strictly drawn.
Mr. Mitchell: I am most grateful for that guidance, Mr. Speaker, and I am about to bring my remarks to a conclusion. If this programme motion were more extensive—if it gave us greater opportunity to raise such

789
points—the very important issues of appeals, and of the current injustice affecting my constituents and the developers, could be addressed.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: My hon. Friend will be aware that I argued very hard in Committee for our amendment on this issue. Indeed, I tabled new clause 9, which would have achieved precisely what his constituents are asking him to achieve, but because of the constraints of the timetable motion that we are discussing it will not even be discussed. That is yet another example of why the timetable motion is inadequate.
Mr. Mitchell: My hon. Friend makes the point extremely well. The timetable motion is so tightly drawn that his excellent new clause, which I fully support, cannot be discussed. That is a cause of dismay to my constituents, who will of course hold the Government absolutely to account for not enabling my hon. Friend's new clause to be debated.
I draw my remarks to a close by making one final point. I have yet to decide whether to vote in favour of, or against, the programme motion, so I shall listen with great care to the Minister's response. He has been most helpful. He has agreed to visit my constituency and to take tea with me and others to discuss these very matters, and I look forward to that occasion. There is no more important issue in Sutton Coldfield than this one, and the question of whether I shall support the programme motion will depend on the Minister's response.
4.8 pm
Matthew Green: I am relieved to hear that the Minister is so worried about losing votes these days that he is offering to take tea with Conservative Members to ensure that they vote with him on programme motions. Unlike Conservative Front Benchers, I shall not express indignation. The Bill spent a long time in Committee—some 55½ hours, as the Minister said—and virtually all its substantive elements were covered at one time or another.
If we had considered the Bill on Report immediately after last January, I, too, would have argued against the programme motion, because the way in which business was conducted in Committee at that time was appalling. The Bill was simply pushed through and there was no real attempt to have a debate. However, the new Ministers have taken a completely different, much more welcome and open approach during our recent Committee proceedings. There were no knives, and we were able to deal with all the substantive business with which the Government and the Opposition wanted to deal. Again, there are no knives in this programme motion—
Mr. Clifton-Brown: Will the hon. Gentleman clarify what he just said? In view of what I said about the number of clauses and schedules that were not discussed in either Committee, his observation that we were able to deal with all the Government's and the Opposition's business is simply not true.
Matthew Green: I will clarify what I said. Because of talks conducted through the usual channels, we were
790
able to move up the order those elements that we considered most important so that we could discuss them. That is a very agreeable and sensible way forward. Frankly, many clauses would not have detained the Committee because they were minor or required no amending; indeed, no one indicated that they wanted to speak against them.
Mr. Andrew Turner: The hon. Gentleman may be aware of amendment No. 26, which is on today's amendment paper but was not reached in Committee, even though it deals with a very important issue. That clearly demonstrates that we were unable to move everything up the agenda. Indeed, it is quite impossible to move some things up the agenda without moving others down it—even the hon. Gentleman must recognise that. Some planning authorities are very concerned that they will get their consultation process on the local development framework under way, only to find that they have to go through it again.
Matthew Green: The hon. Gentleman may have a point in respect of a particular amendment, but we were able in Committee to discuss many of the new clauses and amendments tabled by both Opposition parties, and to deal with the Government's new clauses.
Mr. John Hayes: I understand that the hon. Gentleman thinks that he is making a reasonable case, but—notwithstanding the fair point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown)—does he think it reasonable that there will be very little time to debate the measures added on Wednesday regarding section 106? These are matters of fundamental importance; surely they concern him just as much as they concern us.
Matthew Green: I understand that there would have been one day for Report but for the introduction of the section 106 measures, which has resulted in the addition of another half-day. Once again, that is reasonable. This is a complex and detailed Bill, but it is not one of high politics. It is a Bill best dealt with in Committee. I am sure that, in the other place, their lordships will pore over it and table many amendments. It is a different sort of Bill from those concerned with foundation hospitals and tuition fees.
The Government's recent handling of the Bill has been satisfactory; they have placed no knives and allowed us to move around the order. I should like to see such an approach used with other Bills—compared with others Bills that I have experienced during the past year, I find the Government's approach to be satisfactory. I hope that we will get through the business. I suspect that whether we do or not will depend largely on the length of speeches from Conservative Members, the factor that probably had the largest impact in Committee.
The Liberal Democrats will not be opposing the motion, which we believe gives sufficient time to deal with the major salient points. We would have liked some proposals to be selected, but they were ruled out by the Clerks. With that proviso, we are happy to support the motion.
4.11 pm
Sir Sydney Chapman: I shall detain the House for as short a time as possible, and I can do so particularly because I agree almost entirely with what my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) has said. It is worth referring back to the original Bill, which had its Second Reading almost exactly a year ago. We were told by Ministers—not the same Ministers who are on the Front Bench now—that this was an important, fast-track Bill that needed to be on the statute book as quickly as possible. It was rushed through Committee—only 26 out of 90 clauses and only three out of six schedules were examined. Last June, we heard that instead of bringing the Bill to the Floor for Report, the Government were going to send it back into Committee, which was a unique experience in my time in the House since 1970. I note that the Bill now has 117 clauses and nine schedules.
I disagree with the hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. Green). There is not enough time to consider the new clauses and those clauses that were not examined at all during last year's Committee stage. The Government are represented by two courteous, fair and considerate Ministers, and I do not blame them. However, rather than deciding to bring the Bill back to Committee with the intention of adding new clauses on planning contributions, the Government managers should have let the original Bill proceed normally last June. Then, after consulting on planning contributions, they should have proposed a second planning Bill, suitably named, either later in this Session or in the next one.
I do not believe that fewer than six hours today and two or three hours tomorrow—depending on how long we spend on Third Reading—is sufficient time to deal properly with 117 clauses and nine schedules.
The Government's latest topical spin phrase is "the big conversation". I say to them that what we badly need in this House is more conversation and more scrutiny of Bills, so that the other place does not have to work overtime to deal with all those matters that cannot be considered tonight.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: My hon. Friend is making a cogent case. He has not only architectural but planning and other professional experience, so he knows a great deal about these matters. Does he, with his long experience in this House, agree that the Report stage of any Bill is the only opportunity for those Members who were not members of the Committee to table amendments and new clauses, so the effect of this timetable will be to squeeze out many of those Members?
Sir Sydney Chapman: I entirely agree, and that was the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Mitchell).
Returning to what the hon. Member for Ludlow said, it may be that on some clauses there are no party political divisions. I do not know that, but I suspect that in general terms there are no such divisions. However, whether or not any of the clauses are non-contentious and will not divide the parties, they all concern matters that are important to many outside organisations.
792
Planning affects each and every one of us. It is a sensitive issue and we really should have had much more time to deal with these important matters.
Mr. Andrew Mitchell: My hon. Friend has put his finger on precisely the point. There may not be a political divide, but he has made it clear that 64 of the 90 clauses were not discussed in Committee—that is a phenomenal figure. Many outside professional bodies, in which people earn their living and have a great expertise in these matters, need to see in Hansard what the effect of the clauses will be. They need us to ventilate the issues in the House, and the fact that we are unable to do so today is a retrograde step. The business managers should think again.
Sir Sydney Chapman: I entirely agree, and while I am on that winning streak I shall resume my seat.
4.16 pm
Andrew Selous: I wish to express my concern that the programme motion may not allow us to come to new clause 17, tabled by my Front-Bench colleagues. I raise the matter because it is of great concern to my constituents, and it would provide a remedy for the unauthorised development of land by Gypsies and travellers. I have seven such sites in my constituency and feeling is running extremely high among my constituents on this issue. I find it surprising that the Government have not seen fit to deal with the matter in the Bill or to table an amendment, and I am extremely concerned that the time allotted to us today may not allow us to reach this vital new clause.
The new clause would allow the enforcement of stop notices, preventing the continuing development of sites. At present, people who develop sites illegally are able to play the appeals system until the site is fully developed. I can think of nothing more calculated to cause disharmony between the settled community and the travelling community than such a state of affairs. It is a matter of great regret that the programme motion will very likely not allow us to reach new clause 17, and I am extremely concerned that the Government have not seen fit to propose measures on this subject.
4.18 pm
Keith Hill: With the leave of the House, Mr. Speaker, I shall briefly respond to some of the points that have been made.
I say immediately to the hon. Members for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Mitchell) and for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) that, as far as the Government are concerned, there is no reason why the issues of concern to the hon. Gentlemen should not be reached. The Government will certainly not seek to delay the proceedings—it is not in our interests to do so—but of course we shall certainly endeavour, in an entirely proper fashion, to expound our proposals and our responses to the amendments tabled by the Opposition.
The hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield said that he had an open mind about how he should vote in the event of a Division on the programme motion.
As a former deputy Chief Whip, I am not sure that I approve entirely of such an approach, even by an Opposition Member. In an attempt to win him over, however, perhaps I can deal with the issue of scrutiny in Committee.

793
I was grateful for the kind remarks from several Opposition Members, and particularly for those from the hon. Member for Ludlow (Matthew Green), and I agree totally with his observation about scrutiny in Committee. Ultimately, the fact is that as a result of the five weeks that we spent in Committee, all the substantive provisions of the Bill were scrutinised. Hon. Members can play this numbers game how they like. The Bill has 117 clauses, but the House ought to be aware that many of them are of a procedural, interpretive and/or technical nature: 47 clauses are of that character; four clauses relate to the slip rule, which is about the correction of errors, on which I have been very broad-minded; 15 clauses are general provisions, regulation-making powers, supplementary or interpretation provisions, repeals or provisions relating to commencement, extent and so on; 19 clauses relate to Wales; and nine clauses simply apply provisions to Scotland and are the same as the English ones in principle and application.
Today, we are talking about only three new clauses for debate. The remainder of the Government amendments are of a minor and technical nature. I would bet my bottom dollar that the Opposition will not wish to take any length of time to debate our new provisions on tree preservation orders. There are a large number of those, and I shall of course endeavour to describe properly the new provisions. I would be extremely surprised, however, if that large number of amendments were the subject of much discussion.
The simple fact is that we can play games with numbers however we want to do it, but in this case the numbers bear no relation to reality. I very much hope that we can now get on to the substance of the Bill.
Question agreed to.

Orders of the Day

  Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill
  [1ST ALLOTTED DAY]
  Considered.

  Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill
    New clause 1

      PLANNING CONTRIBUTION
      (1) The Secretary of State may, by regulations, make provision for the making of a planning contribution in relation to the development or use of land in the area of a local planning authority.
      (2) The contribution may be made—

      (a) by the prescribed means,

      (b) by compliance with the relevant requirements, or

      (c) by a combination of such means and compliance.

      (3) The regulations may require the local planning authority to include in a development plan document (or in such other document as is prescribed)—

      (a) a statement of the developments or uses or descriptions of development or use in relation to which they will consider accepting a planning contribution;

      (b) a statement of the matters relating to development or use in relation to which they will not consider accepting a contribution by the prescribed means;

      (c) the purposes to which receipts from payments made in respect of contributions are (in whole or in part) to be put;

      (d) the criteria by reference to which the value of a contribution made by the prescribed means is to be determined.

      (4) The regulations may make provision as to circumstances in which—

      (a) except in the case of a contribution to which subsection (3) (b) applies, the person making the contribution (the contributor) must state the form in which he will make the contribution;

      (b) the contribution may not be made by compliance with the relevant requirements if it is made by the prescribed means;

      (c) the contribution may not be made by the prescribed means if it is made by compliance with the relevant requirements;

      (d) a contribution must not be made.

      (5) The prescribed means are—

      (a) the payment of a sum the amount and terms of payment of which are determined in accordance with criteria published by the local planning authority for the purposes of subsection (3) (d),

      (b) the provision of a benefit in kind the value of which is so determined, or

      (c) a combination of such payment and provision.

      (6) The relevant requirements are such requirements relating to the development or use as are—

      (a) prescribed for the purposes of this section, and

      (b) included as part of the terms of the contribution, and may include a requirement to make a payment of a sum.

      (7) Development plan document must be construed in accordance with section 36(3).'.—[Keith Hill.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      4.22 pm
      The Minister for Housing and Planning (Keith Hill): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment (b) to the proposed new clause, in line 3, at end insert—
      '(1A) Both the payments under section 106 (planning obligations) and the planning contributions will be in the form of the planning condition and therefore both procedures will have the same provisions providing for an appeal to the Secretary of State.'.
      Amendment (c) to the proposed new clause, in line 12, leave out 'consider accepting' and insert 'accept'.
      Amendment (e) to the proposed new clause, in line 18, at end insert
      'but this cannot be wider in scope than the current "necessity test" as currently applied in the section 106 procedure.'.
      Amendment (f) to the proposed new clause, in line 20, at end insert
      '(which where this includes the provisions of a benefit in kind this may not be a higher value than the alternative monetary payment).'.
      Amendment (g) to the proposed new clause, in line 20, at end insert—
      '(3A) The criteria referred to in subsection (3) (d) may amongst other matters set out—

      (a) the charge per dwelling;

      (b) the charge per square metre of all other developments;

      (c) the minimum size of development to which the charge will apply;

      (d) whether different charges will apply to "greenfield" and "brownfield" land;

      (e) the percentage of affordable housing that must be applied to each development;

      (f) the will not be any R.P.I. escalator attached to these charges.'.

      Amendment (h) to the proposed new clause, in line 25, leave out paragraph (b).
      Amendment (i) to the proposed new clause, in line 27, leave out paragraph (c).
      Amendment (j) to the proposed new clause, in line 43, at end add—
      '(8) Provided the planning authority have complied with all the regulations relating to planning contributions the Secretary of State may not cause a plan to be rejected or revised on the grounds that the authority have set the charge at too low a level.'.
      Amendment (k) to the proposed new clause, in line 43, at end add—
      '(8) Provision may be made to enable periodic adjustment of the criteria mentioned in section (Planning contribution) (3) (d).But nothing in these regulations will permit any change in the quantum of the planning contribution unless there is a revision of the development plan document in subsection (7) above and any such change will be the subject to full community involvement.'.
      Amendment (1) to the proposed new clause, in line 43, at end add—
      '(8) The Secretary of State will fully reimburse any local planning authority where it can demonstrate that there is a net cost to them in preparing these regulations.'.
      Government new clause 2—Planning contribution: regulations—
      (1) This section applies for the purpose of regulations made under section (Planning contribution).
      796
      (2) Maximum and minimum amounts may be prescribed in relation to a payment falling within section (Planning contribution) (5) (a).
      (3) Provision may be made to enable periodic adjustment of the criteria mentioned in section (Planning contribution) (3) (d).
      (4) The local planning authority may be required to publish an annual report containing such information in relation to the planning contribution as is prescribed.
      (5) If a document is prescribed for the purposes of section (Planning contribution) (3) the regulations may prescribe—

      (a) the procedure for its preparation and the time at which it must be published;

      (b) the circumstances in which and the procedure by which the Secretary of State may take steps in relation to the preparation of the document.

      (6) Provision may be made for the enforcement by the local planning authority of the terms of a planning contribution including provision—

      (a) for a person deriving title to the land from the contributor to be bound by the terms of the contribution;

      (b) for a condition to be attached to any planning permission relating to the land requiring the contribution to be made before any development is started;

      (c) for the enforcement of a planning contribution in respect of land which is Crown land within the meaning of section 293(1) of the principal Act.

      (7) The regulations may—

      (a) require the local planning authority to apply receipts from planning contributions made by the prescribed means only to purposes mentioned in section (Planning contribution) (3) (c);

      (b) make provision for setting out in writing the terms of the planning contribution;

      (c) make provision in relation to the modification or discharge of a planning contribution.

      (8) The regulations may—

      (a) make different provision in relation to the areas of different local planning authorities or different descriptions of local planning authority;

      (b) exclude their application (in whole or in part) in relation to the area of one or more local planning authorities or descriptions of local planning authority.'.

      And the following amendments thereto:
      Amendment (a), in line 4, at end insert—
      '(2A) But nothing in these regulations shall enable either the Secretary of State or the local planning authority to raise the quantum of the planning contribution once—

      (a) planning permission has been granted;

      (b) that permission remains in force; and

      (c) any condition relating to planning contribution has been agreed with the applicant.'.

      Amendment (c) in line 5, after 'adjustment', insert 'either upwards or downwards'.
      Amendment (e), in line 10, leave out subsection (5).
      Amendment (f), in line 18, at end insert
      'unless the local planning authority certify that the terms of the contribution have been fully met prior to any transfer of title taking place.'.
      Amendment (g) in line 22, leave out from 'made' to end of line 23 and insert
      'at agreed stages of the development;'.

      797
      Amendment (h), in line 34, at end insert—
      '(7A) The Audit Commission will have a specific duty to ensure value for money in any case to which subsection (7) (a) applies.'.
      Amendment (i), in line 37, at end insert—>
      '(7A) The planning contribution referred to in subsection (7) (b) must take into account any additional cost which the developer may be required to undertake at the request of any statutory body. If this occurs after the grant of planning permission the applicant will have the right to ask the local authority to reduce the amount of the contribution.'.
      Amendment (k), in line 41, at end add—
      '(c) state the grounds on which a local authority will decline to accept an amount agreed under subsection (2).'.
      Amendment (j), in line 41, at end add—
      '(9) Subsection (8) applies where two or more local planning authorities have prepared joint local development plans under the terms of section 27.
      Government new clause 3—Planning contribution: Wales.
      Government amendments Nos. 21 to 24.
      Keith Hill: I want to begin by describing the contents and purposes of new clauses 1 to 3 and amendments Nos. 21 to 24, and then set out the reasons for introducing these new provisions at this time and deal with some of the concerns that have been expressed about them.
      New clauses 1 to 3 and amendments Nos. 21 to 24 will replace sections 106, 106A and 106B of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, as amended by the Planning and Compensation Act 1991, as the legal basis for planning obligations. It is worth noting that the new clauses use the term "planning contribution" rather than "planning obligation". The effect of the amendments is to pave the way for the new approach to planning obligations that I announced to the House on 6 November 2003 and on which the Government are consulting.
      A wide range of interests agree that the current system needs reform because it can be slow, uncertain and opaque. The Government's objectives are therefore to provide greater transparency and certainty for all stakeholders in the development. Our proposals also recognise that the ability to use negotiation to tailor contributions to the circumstances of an individual site is important. We want speed and certainty where possible, and flexibility where necessary.
      New clause 1 allows the Secretary of State to make regulations that will enable local planning authorities to provide for and to accept a planning contribution in relation to the development or use of land in its area. We will publish draft regulations to inform debate in the other place, once we have considered the response to our consultation. The clause allows the contributions to be made by the provision of an amount set by the planning authority, known as "the prescribed means"—in the Government's consultation document the prescribed means are described as a new optional planning Charge—by a negotiated agreement, known as "the relevant requirements", or by a combination of the two.
      The regulations may require the local planning authority to set out in a development plan document, or in another document, the types of developments in
      798
      respect of which they are likely to seek contributions; developments where a contribution by payment of the amount set by a local authority will not be sought; how funds obtained through planning contributions will be used by the local planning authority; and how any contribution will be calculated. The regulations also provide for the developer to state, where a contribution is payable, whether he will pay the amount set by the planning authority or whether he will negotiate. Where the developer has made a contribution by one method, he may not be required to make further contributions relating to the same matters through the other method. The developer will therefore not be required to pay twice.
      In some circumstances, a contribution must not be required by the local planning authority. A contribution made by the "prescribed means"—in other words, the charge—may consist of the payment of a sum calculated in line with criteria set by the planning authority in the development plan document or other document prescribed for this purpose or by providing a benefit in kind, again calculated in accordance with the criteria set out in the development plan document, or a combination of these two.
      Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: The fact that the proposals in the new clauses will be an optional alternative to the present section 106 agreement procedures is a critical point. Will the Minister make it clear that that is the case and confirm that nothing in the regulations will enable him, at any subsequent stage, to withdraw the present section 106 procedure?
      Keith Hill:To the first question, I give an unequivocal undertaking that the new proposals will be optional. The developer will have the choice. As for the second question, I must say that however important a statutory provision may be, no statutory provision is for ever. It is impossible for any Minister ever to give the sort of undertaking that the hon. Gentleman appears to be encouraging me to give.
      Mr. Clifton-Brown: Of course a Minister cannot bind his successors. I was asking the Minister to give an absolute assurance that the regulations contain nothing that would give him any powers to abolish the present section 106 arrangements.
      Keith Hill: There is nothing in these regulations that would give the Secretary of State powers to abolish the section 106 regulations, subject to the provision that I explained about any future decision. We must recognise the realities and remember that single Administrations, never mind succeeding Administrations, may seek to change their minds in certain circumstances.
      Where contribution is to be made by a negotiated agreement, the agreement must comply with the relevant requirements, and these will be set out in regulations. It is envisaged that, where the contributor opts not to contribute through the prescribed means, the negotiation will be able to cover all the matters that are currently covered.
      New clause 2 sets out the types of matters that regulations providing for planning contributions may contain. Those include specifying the maximum and

      799
      minimum amounts a planning authority may set as a planning contribution made by the prescribed means, and allowing for periodic adjustment of the criteria for determining the value of planning contributions by the prescribed means—for example, the periodic adjustment could be based on the retail prices index, which would avoid the need for planning authorities to constantly change their documents setting out the planning contribution in order to ensure that the amounts retain their value. The regulations may also require planning authorities to publish an annual report, which could contain information on matters such as how the planning contributions have been implemented, the amounts obtained, and how contributions paid have been used.
      4.30 pm
      Sir Paul Beresford: The Minister said that he was looking for clarity and I agree that the section 106 system should be adjusted. However, a section 106 system will remain, with new tariffs introduced as an option, and it is not clear whether the choice will be made by the applicant or the local authority. There will be methods to vary or change the system according to the type of development that is requested, depending on the land and so on. Now the Minister tells us that under new clause 2 there could be adjustments in the value of the tariff. That sounds like a much more complicated procedure than the previous one, which was adjustable.
      Keith Hill: The procedure is really not as complicated as the hon. Gentleman imagines. The developer will face a simple choice: to pay a charge set by the local planning authority, after a public consultation in relation to the character of the site or development; or to undertake a traditional section 106 negotiation. That is a simple and straightforward arrangement. Furthermore, where there is a charge, rather than the local planning authority having to be involved in an elaborate procedure for recalculating the charge, in the light of changing costs, it is suggested—it is merely a suggestion at this point; there is a consultation process—that one means of ensuring that such a periodic adjustment could occur would be to base it on the retail prices index.
      Mr. David Curry: What would happen when a planning development straddled local authorities or had a major impact on more than one local authority? Would there be a system of pooling? What would happen if two authorities opted for a different system and one decided to stay with the section 106 arrangements while the other decided on the tariff proposal?
      Keith Hill: I can provide a straightforward answer to the first part of the right hon. Gentleman's question: there is provision for pooling, and we would encourage it where a development straddles two authorities. He raised a serious point about the possibility that local planning authorities might adopt different policies and
      800
      I cannot offer him a flip answer at present. There is a consultation process and we shall want to look into those matters carefully.
      Mr. John Hayes rose—
      Keith Hill: I give way to the hon. Member for South Holland and the wonderful Deepings.
      Mr. Hayes: I am grateful to the Minister.
      I gather from what the Minister said to my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) that he is willing to take advice and to listen to comments on this matter. In two-tier authorities, the county council may have a responsibility for some aspect of local government that it shares with a district authority, or a number of district authorities, each of which may take a different view. The matter could thus be even more complex than my right hon. Friend suggested, because a development could straddle many authorities in one area; it is a question not only of horizontal boundaries but of vertical boundaries between different tiers of authority.
      Keith Hill: The hon. Gentleman tempts me down the path of tierism, which is dealt with elsewhere in the Bill. In the example that he cited, county councils will continue to retain planning responsibilities for specific matters, notably waste and minerals. On the whole, however, the material consideration in any planning policy devised by a local planning authority will be the regional spatial strategy. Obviously, no policy will be advanced by a local planning authority that does not take cognisance of the regional spatial strategy, so to that extent, when we are dealing with a possible section 106 negotiation, under the terms that I am attempting to set out for the House, we shall be considering a policy in relation to the development that has already been established in the local plan by the local planning authority, having taken into account all the proper influences to be considered in finalising such a policy.
      It will be in the light of a developer's response to the policy set out for a particular area that the application will be made and the negotiations that we are discussing will take place.
      Mr. Clifton-Brown rose—
      Keith Hill: I see that the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) wants to get in on the act.
      Mr. Clifton-Brown: The Minister has just raised an interesting issue. What role will the regional planning body and the regional spatial strategy have in the new tariff proposals and, indeed, in the existing section 106 procedure?
      Keith Hill: I think that I am right in saying that it is anticipated that the regional planning body will have no direct bearing on the procedures that we are debating. They are essentially for the local planning authority to deal with, subject to the usual scrutiny by the Secretary

      801
      of State that applies to most planning matters. There is no direct role in the process for either the regional planning body or the regional spatial strategy.
      Sir Sydney Chapman rose—
      Keith Hill: I cannot resist giving way to the hon. Gentleman.
      Sir Sydney Chapman: I am trying to save the House time by asking this question now. I cannot determine for sure from reading new clauses 1 and 2 whether a local planning authority will have complete power to decide the spectrum of planning applications in respect of which the planning contributions may be made, or whether the rules or the areas where they apply will be set by the Secretary of State. It might help the House to know the definitive answer to that now.
      Keith Hill: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising an important issue. Perhaps I can put the matter in perspective by pointing out that it is estimated that no fewer than 98.5 per cent. of planning applications are not subject to a section 106 negotiation. In other words, we are dealing with a minuscule minority of planning applications, albeit the larger applications within the major application umbrella. Having said that, in some circumstances, in relation to a particular site or development, the local planning authority may decide that it will not impose a planning obligation. For example, the local planning authority may well decide that, in respect of a site that has a high level of contamination, where the costs of remediation will be extremely significant, it would be inappropriate to impose any sort of planning charge on the process.
      To give another example, if a site has a multiplicity of owners, the local planning authority might deem the development to be sufficiently complex to discourage it from wanting to impose a planning obligation. However, it will be for the local planning authority to identify the sites and developments on which it will expect the negotiations to take place. In no sense will that be rocket science: such considerations will apply to the sorts of site in respect of which the negotiation takes place now. The House must remember that the point of the new arrangements is to provide all the stakeholders, to use the jargon—the developer, the local planning authority and the local community—with a high level of predictability and transparency about what will occur in terms of charges relating to a particular development.
      Sir Sydney Chapman: I am grateful for that answer, but. I remain concerned. The Minister says that 98.5 per cent. of planning applications do not involve section 106 agreements. However, because the measure is a money—raiser for a local planning authority, it might want to extend the area in which it can introduce this alternative to a section 106 agreement. May I have his assurance that, if necessary, the Government will issue regulations ensuring that the present area in which section 106 agreements apply cannot be extended?
      Keith Hill: It certainly would not be the Government's intention or desire to permit a manipulation of the
      802
      existing arrangements. Those are fairly well defined. The considerations that need to be taken into account in relation to a planning obligation negotiation are fairly well understood in the planning community, so to speak. The hon. Gentleman is greatly experienced in these matters and more familiar than I am with the usual considerations that need to be taken into account. We are consulting, initially on the principles of the matter and subsequently on the detail. The Government will play their full part and consider what limitations they want to impose on the process.
      Mr. Andrew Turner: I have followed with care and interest the Minister's argument and the interventions of my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir Sydney Chapman). When a negotiation is taking place, it is possible for the applicant's agents to see how the money is to be spent. It might be spent on a school, a road, a work of so-called public art or a social housing obligation, but when money is simply handed over against a tariff to the local authority, there is no knowing what it will be spent on. How do the Government intend to ensure that money that is handed over is spent on such projects, and does not simply release resources to be shifted from the budget where they would have been spent, rather like some people have suggested tuition fees might be, into another budget?
      Keith Hill: Or, one might say, into keeping down the council tax, for example. I take the hon. Gentleman's point, which is extremely important. We have made it clear throughout our consultation and proceedings that we expect the local authority to define in advance the purposes for which the charge will be used, and we propose an annual report that will contain information on how matters such as the planning contributions have been implemented, the amounts obtained and how the contributions paid have been used. The hon. Gentleman is right that it is fundamental that there should be maximum clarity on the matter.
      Several hon. Members rose—
      Keith Hill: I could say that I ought to get on with describing the provisions, but as we are in a quasi-Committee stage, I give way to the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry).
      Mr. Curry: The subject of housing is central to the debate. It is probably true that a majority of social housing is built through planning gain. Would the provision supersede the arrangements whereby, if a developer wishes to build market houses, he must build a certain proportion of social houses or affordable houses as well? If that is the case, what guarantees are there that the planning authority will choose not to put its receipts into social housing, so that the social housing sector might be left with difficult developments while the market housing developer might opt to pay the tariff in order to concentrate on the simpler development?
      Keith Hill: It will be open to the local planning authority to define the purposes for which the charge will be imposed. If it were the desire of the local planning authority, that could include an element for affordable

      803
      housing. Indeed, part of the terms of the charge could be that that element of affordable housing could be provided by means of either a financial contribution or an in-kind provision on site. It goes without saying that it will remain open for local planning authorities to attach the usual conditions on affordable housing to planning permission.
      Mr. Curry: If a developer develops a site of a certain size, the rules require a mix of market and affordable housing. Will the proposals remove that requirement and leave planning authorities the discretion to use some of their funds for affordable housing? It is a structural aspect of the system at the moment that the building of market housing triggers the construction of affordable housing.
      4.45 pm
      Keith Hill: The right hon. Gentleman raises an issue of serious concern to which I shall refer later. Let me give him an assurance that no part of the arrangement should impede the extent to which current provisions for affordable housing would be part and parcel of the system for planning permission and developments relating to section 106 negotiations and the proposed charge. The arrangement will simply facilitate the process and make it more transparent and predictable. I propose to deal with that matter in more detail toward the end of my remarks.
      Mr. Hayes rose—
      Sir Paul Beresford rose—
      Keith Hill: I see that two further Conservative Members are anxious to intervene. I shall take their interventions on the House's understanding that I will then move on.
      Mr. Hayes: The Minister is showing his customary courtesy and generosity. I want to pin him down on what would happen to local authorities if they did not use the money in the way in which he and local people would wish, which was made clear in the earlier description that we heard. In reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner), the Minister said that local authorities would need to make their plans clear and that annual reports would be written on what they had done. However, I understand that there are no sticks—no real sanctions or powers—to oblige authorities to do what they say that they will, in detail or substance.
      Keith Hill: The hon. Gentleman needs to understand and frame the new provisions in the general context of the far more open and engaged process in the planning sphere that we anticipate as a result of the Bill. We welcome his presence on the extended Office of the Deputy Prime Minister Conservative Front-Bench team. I do not know whether he is billed as a shadow Secretary of State in that team because there seem to be quite a lot of them. As he has come to these issues only recently, there is no reason why he should know that, as a result of the measure, every local authority will be required to produce a statement of community involvement. It is the Government's desire to ensure
      804
      that there is maximum community involvement and front-loaded engagement with any planning development or set of planning developments under the measure.
      The hon. Gentleman's anxieties about the possible non-use—I shall not say misuse—of funds arising from the arrangement need to be set in a local, political and electoral context. If the moneys were not used for the purposes for which they were intended, we would all anticipate a strenuous local response, which would exert great local control on the situation. Having said that, we shall have to give serious consideration to the possibility of giving the Secretary of State a reserve power in such circumstances, but that is a matter for consideration and consultation after which we may come forward with firmer proposals.
      Sir Paul Beresford: Bearing in mind the Government's reaction to the pooling of capital receipts and redistribution, if there is a local authority, or a group of local authorities, where there has been considerable development, and if this tariff or betterment tax turns into a windfall tax, how sure can the House be, particularly in the light of the Minister's previous answer, that it will not be reflected in either redistribution or reflected directly in the grant to those local authorities in the ongoing years?
      Keith Hill: That is a good try on the part of the hon. Gentleman, but there are no intentions along those lines.
      I was saying that planning authorities will need to set out their planning contributions policy in a document. New clause 2 allows the Secretary of State to set out the procedure for preparing and publishing the local planning authority's policy on planning contributions. Where the local planning authority fails to prepare such a document, the Secretary of State will have powers to intervene.
      The ability to enforce any obligation to pay a contribution will be important. Subsection (6) of new clause 2 provides for that. A person who has derived title to the land after a commitment to make a planning contribution has been entered into will be bound by the terms of the contribution. That reflects the provision contained in section 106. There is also the attaching of a condition to a planning permission requiring payment of the planning contribution prior to the commencement of the development. The enforcement provisions may also apply to Crown land where a planning contribution has been agreed in respect of Crown land.
      Subsection (7) of new clause 2 enables regulations to require the planning authority to spend receipts from planning contributions made by the prescribed means—the amount set by the planning authority—on the matters set out in its planning contributions policy, set out in the development plan document or other document. This provides the transparency that Opposition Members have been correctly concerned about so that everyone—in particular those paying the contribution—will know how the contributions will be used. The regulations will set out the mechanism for setting out the terms of the planning contribution in writing.

      805
      Provisions can be made for the modification or discharge of a planning contribution. It is intended that such provisions will be similar to those contained in sections 106A and 106B of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. Subsection (8) of new clause 2 enables the Secretary of State to make different provisions for different areas or descriptions of local authorities and also to exclude particular areas or descriptions of local authorities. That power might be used where, for example, a smaller local authority was exempted from having to set prescribed means in its planning contributions policy because it rarely negotiates planning obligations under the existing system.
      New clause 3 applies the planning contribution provisions to Wales. It confers on the National Assembly for Wales the same powers in relation to the planning contribution as the Secretary of State has for England and it substitutes the local development plan for the development plan document as the document in which planning contributions should appear, unless another document is prescribed.
      Mr. Clifton-Brown: New clause 3 is breaking new ground. In effect, it gives the Welsh Assembly a large tax-raising power. What assurances can the Minister give us that, in devolving this amount of power to the Welsh Assembly, we will not suddenly find that obligations in Wales become much more onerous for developers than obligations in the rest of the United Kingdom, thereby stifling economic growth in Wales?
      Keith Hill: I think that the hon. Gentleman went a limited way to salvaging his position by his last observation, but I am rather shocked by his intervention. Why should we expect that the Welsh will abuse the system? That is an outrageous suggestion. We have no reason to believe that the Welsh Assembly will behave in anything other than an entirely proper manner. Amendments Nos. 21 and 22 provide that regulations made under the planning contribution provisions will be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. That means that the House will have the opportunity to see the regulations before they are made.
      Amendments Nos. 23 and 24 provide for the repeal of sections 106, 106A and 106B of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
      I come now to our reasons for introducing the proposals now. Planning Bills are few and far between, so we are taking the legislative opportunity that the Bill represents to reform an area of planning policy that stakeholders from all sides agree needs reform. Introducing the amendments now does not preclude a full discussion on how our reforms might work, nor close off debate on the matters raised in the consultation document. I assure the House that we are listening carefully to the interested parties. Already, we have consulted face to face with hundreds of people drawn from local authorities across the country, a diverse range of businesses and their representatives, and those who are interested in the provision of affordable housing, which is the single biggest use of planning obligations. We are encouraging everyone to respond to the consultation and we will proceed by means of
      806
      deliberation and discussion throughout. We will ensure that we put as much information as possible before Parliament as it considers our proposals.
      Mr. Clifton-Brown: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. He has been generous. His parliamentary answer to me said that, in the first lot of responses to the original consultation, by far the majority of developers opposed a tariff system. If his second consultation shows that by far the larger number of respondents, other than local authorities, oppose the proposals, will he withdraw them?
      Keith Hill: I could not possibly give that undertaking, but looking at the responses to the tariff proposals, the proportion within the industry was about 60:40 in favour. We have begun our discussions, and our impression is that we are receiving a positive interest on the part of the industry, the housebuilders and developers, in the proposals. I have no reason to expect a negative response on these matters. We are a listening Government, but if we think it right, we will proceed with our proposals, and we should do no other. I can tell from the hon. Gentleman's body language that he agrees with me, and in the unlikely event that he were ever in my position, he would do exactly the same thing.
      I want to deal with two concerns that have been raised about the proposals. The first is that this is in some way a tax on development. That is untrue. The charge will have to relate to planning matters, as the existing system of negotiated obligations does now. Under our proposals, the level of the planning contribution can be set out in advance and in public, which will allow it to be tested. New clause 2 ensures that we have a power to require that the charge be applied only to the matters identified in the local authority's planning contributions policy, and the developer can opt not to pay the charge at all, but to negotiate over what level of contribution to offer.
      The second concern, which has already rightly been raised by the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon, is that in some way the new arrangements might undermine provision of affordable housing. I recognise that that is a matter of importance to Members on both sides of the House. The Government are determined to drive forward their agenda for mixed, socially inclusive and sustainable communities. Our consultation document invites views on the best way to provide affordable housing within the reforms.
      The House will know that the Government have also issued a consultation on changes to their policy on planning for housing. Our proposed provisions place a new and vital emphasis on planning for the housing needs of the whole community. Planning obligations are one tool that local authorities can use to develop the housing that they need. The House will note that we are not precluding what is currently possible in our new approach. I draw attention to the possibility, which we have provided for, that the charge could be sought either in kind or in cash. One can draw parallels between this and the two main ways in which affordable housing is currently provided through section 106. Precisely how the new arrangements can best be used to deliver our affordable housing objectives is something that we will want to work through as part of our consultation, and we are already talking inside the Government and beyond about how that can be achieved.
      5 pm
      Mr. Jim Cousins: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
      Keith Hill: How can I resist my hon. Friend—a lone voice from the Government Benches?
      Mr. Cousins: It is kind of my right hon. Friend to refer to me in that way.
      Can my right hon. Friend explain what he means when he refers to a contribution in kind? Might such a contribution mean that some of the housing to be created in a housing development could be dedicated for the use of a social housing provider?
      Keith Hill: If I may say so, my hon. Friend is a lone but valued voice on the Government Benches.
      Of course, it will be open to the local planning authority to stipulate in setting the terms of the charge the ways in which the developers will be expected to deliver on that charge, if it were to be a contribution in kind. It will be open to the local planning authority to indicate whether it would expect an element of contribution in kind. I fully expect the authority to set out in some detail the terms of that in-kind provision. I hope that that goes some way towards reassuring my hon. Friend.
      Mr. Curry: I see from the body language of the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cousins) that he, like me, feels a pall of incomprehension descending on him. What is the difference between a tariff delivered in kind and an old section 106 agreement?
      Keith Hill: There is none in principle, but it would certainly be open to a local planning authority to stipulate that its charge could be delivered in the form of a financial contribution, a contribution wholly in kind or a contribution that is partly in kind and partly financial. That is matter for the authority to set out as part of the charge.
      Mr. Curry: In that case, a charge defined as in kind and not in cash might well refer to x number of affordable houses or x provision in education or community centres. Is that what the Minister means by "in kind"? Is he saying that the charge would specify the amount to be delivered and that, while section 106 involves a negotiation, the amount would be clearly set out? Is that the difference?
      Keith Hill: The right hon. Gentleman has it. Again, as part of the clarity, transparency and predictability of the arrangement, such a stipulation could be made as part of the charge set by the local planning authority, but of course, whether the developer takes that path or the traditional negotiated path remains a matter of choice.
      With those explanations and reassurances, I commend Government new clauses 1 to 3 and Government amendments Nos. 21 to 24 to the House.
      Mr. Clifton-Brown: I rise to speak in support of all the amendments standing in my name in respect of Government new clauses 1 and 2.
      808
      As I did not declare in the debate on the programme motion my interests as stated in the Register of Members' Interests, I should like to do so now: I am a fellow of the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors and I have property interests that are not currently likely to benefit from the provisions, but may conceivably do so in future.
      Having got that off my chest, I shall now seek to press the Government on a number of matters, as we are entering a very wide field in debating the new clauses. Despite the Minister's assurances, if what is proposed is not carefully controlled by regulation, it could become a tax by another name. Given that the planning obligations did not have to be published until 1 July 2002, the Government are proceeding with a whole range of changes to the planning system on the basis of information that they have received only since then. The only definitive study on the subject is by John Hennebury of Sheffield university, who, although drawing on information from only 45 local authorities, tells us that the average value of planning applications is £148,000 in the north of England and £753,000 in the south of England. He further says that it is common for negotiations on section 106 agreements to last from one to eight months, but a small number last for up to four years and a very few take five years or more. It would be interesting to see whether the Minister's alternative system will deliver a quicker route to the developer.
      My main concern is that the Government are producing a voluntary alternative that will require planning authorities to carry out a huge amount of work to set it up. The Bill is already exceedingly complex, with a raft of regulations several inches thick. Planning authorities will have enough difficulty in coping with those complexities, but the Minister proposes to lay even more on top by changing the section 106 procedure at a time when many authorities in the south of England are desperately short of planning officers. I would not be surprised if some authorities were simply to grind to a halt as a result. I predict that, far from delivering a quicker, more transparent planning system, the Government will deliver a system that leads some local authorities into chaos.
      Matthew Green: I am a little confused. I had understood Conservative policy to be in favour of decentralising powers to local councils, yet, although the proposal gives local councils decision-making powers on what is appropriate in their areas, the thrust of the hon. Gentleman's argument appears to be that that is far too complex a matter for local people to decide, and that it is better decided by the Secretary of State.
      Mr. Clifton-Brown: As usual, the hon. Gentleman is being mischievous. He knows perfectly well that the forthcoming regulations will prescribe exactly how the local authority is to fix the tariff.
      In the absence of my amendment (a), which was not selected, I am pleased that the Minister has categorically confirmed that there will be a voluntary option for developers and that the regulations will in no way withdraw the current section 106 procedure.

      809
      I therefore move rapidly on to amendment (b), which says:
      "Both the payments under the section 106 (planning obligations) and the planning contributions will be in the form of the planning condition and therefore both procedures will have the same provisions providing for an appeal to the Secretary of State."
      The Minister did not deal with appeals. Under the section 106 procedure, there is clearly a right of appeal for a developer who cannot reach agreement with the local authority on, for example, the level of payment. I can see nothing in these measures that provides for such an appeal. Will the Minister clarify that?
      Keith Hill: I assure the hon. Gentleman that there is a right of appeal.
      Mr. Clifton-Brown: That is excellent and positive news—we are making great progress.
      Amendments (c) and (d) are straightforward. Amendment (c) would amend paragraph (3) (a) of the new clause, which refers to
      "a statement of the developments or uses or descriptions of development or use in relation to which they will consider accepting a planning contribution".
      My amendment would clarify that by stipulating that they will accept, rather than consider accepting, a planning contribution. The converse of that is in the Government's wording of new clause 1(3) (b), which refers to
      "a statement of the matters relating to development or use in relation to which they will not consider accepting a contribution by the prescribed means".
      I have simply amended that so that it would refer to a statement of the matters relating to development or use in relation to which they "will not accept" a planning contribution. It would therefore be quite clear what they would or would not accept. I would be grateful for the Minister's observations on the re-wording set out in those amendments.
      Amendment (e) is perhaps the most important of the lot. It proposes to insert at the end of line 18:
      "but this cannot be wider in scope than the current 'necessity test' as currently applied in the section 106 procedure."
      I want to spend a little time on this because, if the Minister's assurances that this provision is not simply to be a tax by another name with an ever-widening scope, he must live up to the spirit of my amendments. I would like to outline the grounds for applying a section 106 agreement, and to ensure that the new procedure will cover the same grounds but no wider ones. If that were the case, we could make progress, and I shall seek assurance from the Minister on that matter.
      The following requirements have to be observed in the section 106 procedure: that the planning obligations should deliver
      "high quality, sustainable development…continue to provide affordable housing…help deliver the physical investment needed to secure high and stable economic growth and higher productivity…be more transparent to all stakeholders in the planning process…provide an effective mechanism for delivering desirable development without causing delays …not impose financial burdens on developers which in themselves deter desirable development; and be sufficiently flexible to reflect the circumstances of individual proposed developments."
      810
      I hope that we shall hear from the Minister that those seven key requirements of the section 106 procedure are to be followed when setting the new tariff procedure.
      The procedure originally set out in section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 involved a necessity test, which stipulated that it was necessary to compensate strictly for the development itself. Case law has widened that definition somewhat, in particular the Tesco case in 1995, which came up with a new de minimis test. That test provided that, if the compensation was in any way related to the development, such action would be in order. However, I do not see anything in the new clauses that would give us the clarity that developers need, and I make a plea to the Minister that, when he introduces the regulations, he should clarify exactly what can be expected from the current section 106 procedure and from the new tariff procedure. That would greatly help developers when they come to negotiate or pay the tariffs.
      Mr. Andrew Turner: I am being well educated by hon. Members on both Front Benches in this debate, and I thank them for that. Will my hon. Friend assist me by repeating the words in the necessity test, because I am rather surprised that it could be interpreted as requiring the provision of social housing?
      Mr. Clifton-Brown: As my hon. Friend knows, the provision of social housing is dealt with in the former Department of the Environment circular 1/97. That, too, forms part of the section 106 payment. If my hon. Friend will allow me, I will deal with that matter when I reach amendment (g) and, in particular, its reference to paragraph (e). I shall also be asking the Minister some questions on that point.
      It is important for developers to have clarity on what is required from this new tariff.
      My amendment refers to the statement in the new clause that the charge must be revised at regular intervals. That should include the ability to revise the charge upwards and downwards. We do not know what the economic situation is likely to be in the future. We hope that the rate of this country's performance will continue to grow, but supposing it does not and the economy goes into recession, it would be nonsense to have a system that ratcheted up section 106 or tariff payments just when we were going into recession. We must consider that carefully.
      My amendment (f), which is important, deals with the question of benefits in kind. I should like to quote the report on affordable housing that the Select Committee on Office of the Deputy Prime Minister: Housing, Planning, Local Government and the Regions published in the 2002–03 Session. I think that the Government have an inflated idea of how much section 106 or tariff payments will yield. In paragraph 41, the report states:
      "The supply of affordable housing through planning agreements is reliant on the development of profitable private housing. Many submissions argued that there was only a limited amount that could be demanded from developers in planning gain if their developments were to remain viable. There are increasing demands on developers to contribute to a wide range of 'planning gains' including transport infrastructure, social and community facilities and schools."

      811
      We need to know precisely what the Government have in mind when they say that the payment may be made in kind. Should the value be the same as if it was a cash payment, or will it be less? How will affordable housing be provided?
      David Wright rose—
      Mr. Clifton-Brown: It may be relevant to refer to some of the problems with affordable housing, and I shall do just that when I have given way to the hon. Gentleman.
      David Wright: Does the hon. Gentleman agree with me that one of the major problems is the fact that many local authorities do not carry out comprehensive housing needs and housing market assessments? They fail to translate calculations on the number of new homes that are needed into their planning strategies. They need to do that to make the system work. It is no good laying the blame at the Government's door. Local authorities need to get a grip of the issue.
      Mr. Clifton-Brown: I have some sympathy with the hon. Gentleman's comments. Under the present system, before the Bill becomes an Act, the Government lay down numbers in the regional planning guidance, and county councils negotiate with the authorities in their area or the unitary authorities, which are required to build that number of houses. Many authorities up north and, I suspect, in the hon. Gentleman's area do not achieve the numbers that they set out in their own plans: that is, if they have got a development or structure plan. There needs to be a much closer correlation between the numbers set out in the local structure and unitary plans. If those numbers are in the plans, they should be achieved. Some authorities in the south build more than they set out in their plans, which is what we all want to see, because if they build more housing, they will provide more affordable housing.
      Matthew Green: Not all local authorities struggle to build the number of houses that they are allocated. Sometimes the allocation is too small. In the South Shropshire authority there is a great need for a larger housing allocation, as has been identified by a housing need survey carried out last year. I am hopeful that the Minister will deal with that problem. I would not want the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) to leave the impression that the problem with housing numbers is purely one of local authorities being asked to build too many. The problem can be the other way round.
      Mr. Clifton-Brown: If the hon. Gentleman had listened to my reply to the hon. Member for Telford (David Wright), he would have heard me deal with exactly that point. Hansard will bear that out. Sometimes local authorities want to build more than the number of houses specified in the plan, and I see nothing wrong with a plan providing for greater numbers than are set out in the regional planning guidance, provided that it is carefully worded.
      I do not want to be sidetracked too much, as there may be other opportunities to discuss this issue. We should not concentrate entirely on numbers, although they are important, and the Bill will change the
      812
      procedure completely: the arrangements will be set out by the regional planning body in the regional spatial strategy and will, I understand, be more or less binding for each authority. Whether authorities will be able to deliver is, of course, another matter. I want to discuss how affordable housing can actually be provided.
      Paragraph 52 of the Select Committee report says:
      "Contributions towards affordable housing secured through the planning system so far have been modest and the potential is inevitably limited. The Government has unrealistic expectations about the contribution which planning gain can make to meeting the need for affordable housing. Demands on the developers are limited because the scheme has to remain commercial viable. The use of brownfield sites can reduce profitability and there are increasing demands on the developers to pay for a wide range of facilities. The major contribution by planning agreements is to promote mixed tenure development."
      We all agree with that, but the report goes on to say:
      "However, the value of the contributions from developers through the planning system can be increased. To achieve this, councils need to follow best practice. They also need powers to specify the balance between social rented and intermediate tenure housing on a site by site basis to take forward the conclusions of their housing need assessments."
      The question for the Minister, posed by amendment (f), is this. How will he ensure not just that the correct amount of affordable housing is provided through planning obligations, but that enough social rented and intermediate-tenure housing is provided? How will he ensure that the planning authorities can deliver the mixed-tenure estates that I have seen working so well in Manchester? Let me say in passing that the right to buy produces such estates.
      Amendment (g) deals with the criteria that must be specified. We need to hear from the Minister precisely what they are. In particular, we need to know how the section 106 and tariff charges will apply to not just residential but commercial developments. The amendment asks the Minister to specify whether there will be a "charge per dwelling" and a
      "charge per square metre of all other developments"
      We need to know whether there will be a charge in respect of the provision of social housing in the context of commercial developments.
      These are not academic questions; they are real questions, which developers are asking at this very moment.
      Paragraph (c) of the new subsection (3A) refers to
      "the minimum size of development to which the charge will apply".
      Paragraph 47 of the Select Committee report tells us:
      "Planning Circular 6/98 limits the negotiation of planning gain to housing developments of at least 25 dwellings or one hectare in urban centres and 15 dwellings or 0.5 hectares in London."
      Can the Minister confirm that the new regulations will continue those arrangements so that smaller developments are not caught in the net of the new tariff procedures? Many small builders throughout the country will want to know the answer to that question.
      Mr. Mark Field: Is it not rather hamfisted to legislate for arrangements in London as a whole, apart from the rest of the country, rather than applying different restrictions to inner London or other parts of the built-up south-east?
      Mr. Clifton-Brown: Indeed. Each local authority will need to set a different tariff, and flexibility will be needed

      813
      within it. But the regulations do not yet make it clear whether that will be possible, or whether just a single tariff will be applied in a local authority area. If that proves so, it could lead to some very worrying results. In many authorities throughout the country, particularly the bigger ones, part of the authority is experiencing economic growth and another part is either stagnant or declining. Whatever tariff level is set, it will be too high for one part or too low for the other. My hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field) therefore makes a very good point.
      David Wright: I am trying to be helpful to the hon. Gentleman, but I am now somewhat confused by the amendment. He has just suggested that we would need to examine the issue on the basis of each local authority, and that some flexibility would be needed. However, his amendment specifies in great detail what is required and asks the Secretary of State to set that out. I cannot understand where he is coming from in this regard.
      Mr. Clifton-Brown: My hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster was asking about a more general point.
      David Wright: I am trying to be helpful.
      Mr. Clifton-Brown: The hon. Gentleman is being very helpful. As I understood it, my hon. Friend's question was a general one that did not relate to this particular amendment. He will doubtless say if that is not the case, and if so I shall answer the alternative question that he may put to me.
      Proposed new paragraph (d), in amendment (g), deals with different charges for greenfield and brownfield land. It is essential that this issue be dealt with if we are to encourage the development of brownfield land. Paragraph 39 of the consultation paper states:
      "The charge could be set at different levels for different types of development—such as brownfield and greenfield development or for residential and commercial development."
      I ask the Minister simply to confirm whether that would be possible.
      The percentage of affordable housing is an issue that I have already dealt with in some depth, so I turn to an interesting matter that the Minister let slip today, although I was already aware of it: the question whether these charges will include a retail prices index escalator. I have never heard of an RPI escalator being applied to what is, in effect, a development tax. Let us suppose that, as I said, the economy was not growing but was in recession, and yet an RPI escalator was applied to the charges. Suddenly, there would be little if anything in the way of larger developments. That could produce an absolutely nonsensical situation.
      Mr. Mark Field: Surely it is rather idiotic to have any form of RPI escalator. At a given time, the RPI could be quite different from the rate of inflation in the world of development. As my hon. Friend rightly pointed out, the property market could be booming while the RPI is fairly static—indeed, one might argue that that happened in London and the south-east in recent
      814
      years; likewise, the two could move in opposite directions. Either way, we are talking about the use of a somewhat artificial option to try to ensure that a correct market is put in place. I shall be interested to hear what my hon. Friend has to say about the use of this RPI system, instead of a system that takes account of changes in regional property markets, or in the market in the country as a whole.
      Mr. Clifton-Brown: My hon. Friend makes a very good point indeed. Such charges ought to be adjusted through the annual report system, and thence through the development plan system.
      Keith Hill: Before the hon. Gentleman moves on, I should be fascinated to hear his response to the intervention of the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field). If I am not mistaken, the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) said that the suggestion made was a very good idea. Let us be entirely precise. The RPI is probably running at some 2.5 per cent., yet house prices in London and the south-east are probably growing at a rate of 11 per cent. Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting, on the Opposition's behalf, that if such a system is to be applied, it probably ought to be based on the rate of housing price growth, rather than on that of retail price growth?
      5.30 pm
      Mr. Clifton-Brown: I am grateful to the Minister for muddying the waters still further. Personally, I do not think there ought to be an escalator at all. There is not one in the current section 106 procedure and the regulations provide a perfectly adequate mechanism for revising the charges upwards and downwards through the annual report, which is translated into the development plan and is subject to community involvement and discussion with developers. That seems to be the proper and fair way of dealing with the matter, rather than having an automatic escalator. If inflation went up—it may well do as a consequence of the Government's tax proposals—and the RPI escalator was in operation, no developers might come forward, to the significant detriment of this country.
      Mr. Mark Field: The Minister misunderstood my point. Ten years ago, the property market was moving quickly downwards and RPI inflation stood at 7 or 8 per cent. I am sure that the Minister will point out that that was under a Conservative Government. Nevertheless, my hon. Friend will agree that using an escalator at that time would have had a catastrophic effect on any new development proposals, as the tariff would have made them entirely uneconomic.
      Mr. Clifton-Brown: My hon. Friend is right to point to the fact that when economic circumstances are unstable and inflation is likely to be high, we are probably heading towards recession, which could put us in a difficult economic situation. At such a time, property development needs a boost, not the other way round. The RPI escalator could hasten a recession, rather than being a sensible measure to alleviate one. The Minister will need to examine the proposal carefully.

      815
      Amendments (h) and (i) are probing amendments to see what the Government mean by removing the clauses concerned. Amendment (j) states:
      "Provided the planning authority have complied with all the regulations relating to the planning contributions the Secretary of State may not cause a plan to be rejected or revised on the grounds that the authority have set the charge at too low a level."
      The House will be aware that the mechanism will work by negotiation—subject to community involvement and negotiation with developers—after which the local plan will be made. Under the Bill, the Secretary of State has reserved huge powers to himself to cause the plans to be amended. It would be reprehensible if, having gone through all that community involvement and negotiation with developers—that is likely to take some considerable time and to delay plans considerably—the Secretary of State said that the charge was too high or too low and that it should be set at a different level. That flies in the face of local democracy. I hope that the Minister will give us some reassurance on that point.
      Matthew Green: I am intrigued. I should be inclined to agree to limit the Secretary of State's powers to rule against what is decided locally, but why is the hon. Gentleman referring only to the charge being set too low? Why is he keen to leave the power to rule with the Secretary of State if the charge is set too high? If he wanted to leave it up to local people, surely he would favour removing the Secretary of State's powers in both directions.
      Mr. Clifton-Brown: The hon. Gentleman does try to distort the facts. If he had listened carefully, he would have heard me refer to the charge being set either too high or too low. The amendment has been drafted in this way because I am concerned that the Minister is more likely to ask local authorities to alter the plans if the charge is too low. If the charge is too high—for example, with regard to the Mayor's aspirations that there should be 50 per cent. provision of affordable housing in the larger housing developments—no developer will come forward.
      That is a good incentive for local planning authorities not to set these charges too high.
      Amendment (k) says that
      "nothing in these regulations will permit any change in the quantum of the planning contribution unless there is a revision of the development plan document".
      I am concerned that, by intervening through regulations or the annual plan, the local planning authority or the Secretary of State may arbitrarily raise or lower the charges. I want any changes to be subject to the proper plan-making procedure.
      Amendment (1) is important. This Government have loaded all sorts of responsibilities, obligations, powers and duties on to local authorities without fully funding them through the revenue support grant. We will find that there is an enormous amount of up-front work for local authorities in producing local plans and formulae, although the process may be quicker in the future, and I do not know whether it will be. I repeat that some authorities will find it difficult to cope with the Bill, particularly if they are short of planning officers. The Minister has told me informally that his Department will provide advice and consultancy. Perhaps he will clarify that, so that local authorities throughout the land
      816
      can be assured of what physical help, in the form of manpower, or financial help, in the revenue support grant, they will be given to deal with the expensive setting-up operation.
      New clause 2 deals with the regulations that will decide how payments are to be made. Amendment (a) is simple: it says that once planning permission has been granted and remains in force, and any condition relating to planning contribution has been agreed with the applicant, the contribution may not be altered. That seems to me perfectly straightforward. It would be monstrously wrong if the developer had got his planning permission and agreed the tariff with the local authority, that tariff was still in force, and it was then altered by periodic revision. The local authority should have a bite of the cherry when the application is being negotiated, and once the tariff has been agreed, it should be a binding obligation on both the Secretary of State and the local authority. Any property contract would have a similar effect.
      Amendment (b) is interesting: it would ensure that the maximum amount for the tariff would not be higher than if the case were an application made under the section 106 procedure. I should like to hear from the Minister how he thinks the levels of the new tariffs will compare with the payments under section 106. Will they be higher, because the developer may have greater certainty and speed—although I do not think that he will—or will they be lower, to encourage the applicant to opt for the new tariff procedure? Given that the Government and local authorities will put a great deal of work into the new tariff proposals, I hope that they will be lower, so that developers will, as a norm, opt for the tariff payments. It will be interesting to hear what the Minister has to say.
      Amendment (c) deals with whether adjustments to contributions may be made upwards or downwards, and the RPI escalator. Paragraph 39 of the consultation paper says that different charges could apply to different types of land in a local authority area, namely greenfield and brownfield land.
      Amendment (d) would ensure that—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. The hon. Gentleman is confusing me. Amendment (d) to new clause 2 has not been selected, so he may not refer to it.
      Mr. Clifton-Brown: I am grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I apologise. There are so many amendments in this large group. I now have the selection list in front of me, and I see that your advice is very helpful. I will therefore move on rapidly to amendment (e), which has been selected. It is a probing amendment, to leave out proposed new subsection (5), which states:
      "If a document is prescribed for the proposes of section (Planning contribution) (3) the regulations may prescribe…the procedure for its preparation and the time at which it must be published…the circumstances in which and the procedure by which the Secretary of State may take steps in relation to the preparation of the document."
      That, it seems to me, could cover almost anything under the sun. It is a very widely drawn clause, and I want the Minister to explain exactly to what he intends it to apply.

      817
      Amendment (f), which has been selected, is an interesting amendment that the Government might consider seriously. It relates to the land transfer provision under proposed new subsection (6), which states:
      "Provision may be made for the enforcement by the local planning authority of the terms of a planning contribution including provision…for a person deriving title to the land from the contributor to be bound by the terms of the contribution".
      I can see why the Minister has included that in the new clause, as he wants the obligations to be carried on, in so far as they are unspent, to the next owner or occupier of the land. My amendment allows for circumstances in which the tariff has been completely met and paid and the land is then transferred—a system should exist whereby the local authority can issue a certificate to say that the contribution has been fully paid and met, and the transfer of the property can then take place without the obligation clogging up the works.
      Amendment (g) is also interesting and deals with proposed new subsection (6)(b), which relates to the provision
      "for a condition to be attached to any planning permission relating to the land requiring the contribution to be made before any development is started".
      I can understand why that provision is included—it is an attempt to improve the cash flow of local authorities by making sure that the contribution is paid before the development starts. The problem is that that is not, in many cases, how the section 106 procedure works. Usually, the developer is allowed to make some money by building some part of the development before he is obliged to pay in relation to the section 106 agreement, because he has some money in the kitty to make the payment. If it is all done up front, however, that is an additional cost, which is unfair on the developer. It would be much more flexible if the same procedure that currently applies under section 106 could also be applied to the new tariff procedure, which is the purpose of amendment (g).
      In relation to amendment (h), we have heard concerns expressed in numerous interventions today about how the money is actually spent. We have dealt with what the section 106 procedure and the tariff can be used for—the necessity test and the de minimis test—under previous amendments. What is not so clear, however, is how the money is actually spent. There are anecdotes that in some authorities 90 per cent. of the money raised through planning obligation simply disappears into the general budget. That is not satisfactory, as I hope the Minister will agree, so I have tabled amendment (h), which states that the Audit Commission
      "will have a specific duty to ensure value for money in any case to which subsection (7) (a) applies."
      That seems to me to be eminently sensible, for two reasons. First, we want to ensure that the money is applied to the purposes for which it is paid. Secondly, even when it is applied to those purposes, we want to ensure that it has achieved proper value for money and that it has not been wasted or squandered. Giving the Audit Commission that duty is a sensible way of getting round that problem.
      To move on to amendment (i), currently, in relation to developments and the section 106 procedure, the amount is negotiated at the time of grant of planning
      818
      permission, or subsequently if it is a condition, but always before the development starts. Often, there are unforeseen costs produced by Departments, which are then taken into account in the section 106 payment, which can be adjusted accordingly. I have in mind such matters as archaeological digs, unforeseen contamination, problems with legal title, and so on. The amendment would provide the opportunity to go back to the local planning authority and have the section 106 agreement adjusted to take into account any extra costs that might be incurred. If there is no opportunity to change the tariff that has been set after the development has started, some developments could become unviable. We need some mechanism for certain narrowly defined categories to allow the tariff to be adjusted in the light of unforeseen circumstances.
      5.45 pm
      David Wright: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that the community contributions should bear the development risk? If a developer purchases a site, it should bear the risk as part of its commercial operation. Is he suggesting that, if circumstances change, the element of the costs that should bear the development risk is the community contribution?
      Mr. Clifton-Brown: I am grateful for that intervention, because it helps me to clarify my point. The amendment would apply only when local authorities or Departments imposed additional obligations on developers, such as an extended archaeological dig if some important remains were found during the course of the development. One can think of other unforeseen circumstances in which Departments could impose additional obligations, such as flood alleviation measures that were not foreseen when the development started. Other examples include contamination of land previously owned by the Government that was not fully disclosed at the time of purchase but became apparent after the development had begun. Therefore, we need some mechanism to adjust the costs—not to reduce developer risk, which should be borne by the developer—but to cover additional costs imposed by a local authority or Department.
      The Minister said that the local authority can decline to accept a tariff in some circumstances. Amendment (k) seeks to explore the circumstances in which the local authority may decline to accept the tariff, and I would be grateful if the Minister would elucidate further on that point.
      Amendment (j) covers the very point that my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) mentioned. It is often the case that two local authorities produce a joint development plan, and the Government hope that that will happen more often. Such a joint development plan, produced by two or more authorities, should allow for joint section 106 or tariff payments. The converse should also apply. If an applicant makes an application for a large development that spans more than one local planning authority, we should have proper arrangements to cover that.
      New clause 3 mirrors new clauses 1 and 2, except that it would devolve all the powers concerned to the National Assembly for Wales. I have no problem with the devolution of powers to the National Assembly,

      819
      except that in the devolution settlement this House reserved certain matters to the relevant Secretary of State, who is accountable to this House. One of those matters is taxation. Before we devolve the powers in the Bill to the Welsh Assembly, we need to be sure that it will produce similar regulations to those that will apply in England. The Minister needs to explain the time scale under which he will devolve the powers to the National Assembly and whether he will delay issuing a commencement order for new clause 3 until he has seen the proposed regulations and is satisfied that they are reasonable. Developers and Welsh communities need to be protected. As we have said many times before, if the charge is set too high, no developers will come forward, but if it is set too low—which is unlikely—the Assembly and the planning authorities in Wales will not get the planning contribution to which they are entitled.
      I have come to the end of my amendments. The Bill makes a large and important change, and the Government are rushing it with undue haste. The new clauses are far too general and they do not answer our specific points. I have put a large number of questions to the Minister and he may not be able to answer all of them in the time available, so I should be grateful if, before the Bill reaches another place, he would write to me with the answers to any questions that he cannot answer today, and put a copy of the letter in the Library.
      As this huge Bill is of a technical nature, I have no doubt that Members of another place will want to give it close scrutiny. I have major concerns about the tariff proposals, not least because they will put significant burdens on local authorities at a time when the authorities are already overstretched and when they will also have to deal with the onerous regulations in the remaining parts of the Bill. The Government are introducing an entirely new planning system, so it seems an act of folly to reintroduce new tariff proposals that were deemed unworkable by many people when the Government mooted them at the first consultation —that is why the Government withdrew them. Why not ensure that the existing section 106 procedure works properly before trying to provide an alternative?
      When the existing procedure does not work especially well, why are the Government trying to provide an alternative that will stretch local authority resources such that the planning system will be paralysed in some areas? In all seriousness, I offer the Minister this positive contribution: why not consider delaying the commencement order for these provisions at least until the current 106 procedure can be clarified and streamlined? When that is working, we can introduce the alternative system.
      I commend my amendments to the House.
      Matthew Green: I shall try to make a contribution that is a little shorter than 49 minutes. The Government have ended up falling into an unsatisfactory method of dealing with changes to section 106. I realise that planning Bills do not come along often, so I can see why the Government wanted to insert the provisions at this stage and have them enacted through regulations. However, many of the details that have caused concern on both sides of the House will be dealt with in those regulations, and that is unsatisfactory. It is also unfortunate that the Government are in the middle of the consultation process.
      820
      None the less, I suspect that the broad thrust of the changes is correct. They should enable local councils to define through a local development document the areas and types of scheme to which planning contributions—planning gain—will be expected.
      Mr. Andrew Turner: To what extent does the hon. Gentleman think that we can rely on the Minister's assurances about the regulations that might be made by the National Assembly for Wales? Although local authorities in England may have considerable scope, the Assembly could introduce incredibly rigid provisions.
      Matthew Green: The hon. Gentleman is right, but I welcome devolution of power not only to Wales but to local councils, and it seems to me that the proposals will take decision making to a lower level than the current system, which operates by ministerial diktat. I welcome that, whether decisions are to be made by the local council in the Isle of Wight or regulations are to be made by the National Assembly for Wales, so I have no problem with such proposals in principle. If the Assembly makes a hash of things, it is for the electorate to kick out the Labour Administration in Wales.
      The new provisions will provide a more satisfactory arrangement and will give power back to local councils, but I want to raise some detailed concerns so that the answers can be put on the record. First, section 106 is not used purely for planning gain—for example, in South Shropshire district council's affordable housing scheme, it is used to put a cap on the price of individual houses for resale. I know that the Government are looking with some interest at the development of that new policy. However, as the thrust of the debate has been about the use of section 106 in terms of planning gain rather than an agreement about a single dwelling, it is unclear how the changes will affect it. My understanding is that the local council could, through its local development document, continue to make stipulations exactly as, for example, the South Shropshire council does under its current policy. I understand that a similar scheme has been taken up on Dartmoor and in some other rural areas where affordable housing is a serious problem. My reading of the provisions is that it will be left to the local authority to deal with them in the relevant local development document, but I should like the Minister to clarify that point and confirm that it is correct.
      Secondly, I hope that local authorities will be left with their current freedom to stipulate, through the local development document, a fairly high percentage of affordable housing on a site. Currently, several local authorities, not least South Shropshire, require there to be 50 per cent. affordable housing on sites of two or more houses. That goes well beyond the Government's recommendation of 30 per cent. on sites of 19 or more houses. That is the current legal situation, so I hope that nothing in the regulations will curtail local authorities in the delivery of more affordable housing. Again, I seek reassurance from the Minister on that point.
      Sir Sydney Chapman: The hon. Gentleman raises an interesting point, but is not there a difficulty if a local planning authority has power to raise money through a planning contribution or a section 106 agreement? Obviously, the authority would be interested in

      821
      obtaining as much money as possible—that is human nature—so does not that make it less likely that the authority would insist on a higher proportion of social or affordable housing?
      Matthew Green: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point, but again it comes down to local decision making. I know that in Shropshire the priority would be to take little money from developers and to have affordable houses, as that is the overwhelming problem facing my constituency—as both local district councils now recognise. I suspect that the situation will vary throughout the country, but surely that is what we want: local decision making by local people.
      Will the Minister confirm that, through the local development documents, councils will still be able to specify a high rate of affordable housing and use that as a way of delivering such houses? Similar schemes could be used in London in the Thames gateway to provide housing for key workers, so I hope for reassurance from the Minister as a sign that the Government are moving in that direction.
      I have some concerns about the rates of the tariff and again I should like some reassurances from the Minister. Section 106 is often used to deliver small items of community benefit next to a housing development—for example, a community hall or a children's play area. Those are good uses of section 106. However, I am concerned that if the developer opted to pay the tariff it would be up to the local authority to do the work, to construct the play area or whatever the community needed. However, because the public sector acts more slowly than the private sector, by the time the council gets around to building the item in question it will cost more than it would have done when the tariff was calculated, with the result that either the community ends up with a smaller children's play area or the council tax payer is asked to pay the extra and thus subsidise the construction.
      6 pm
      The Minister will say that it is up to councils to calculate the tariffs correctly, so that they know that they will get the money they need, but I remain concerned that the route whereby developers can opt to pay the money will lead to more detailed work having to be done—calculations of what something might cost in a year's time, for example—rather than the contribution being made in kind. If the developer opts to produce it in kind, that is probably an appropriate way around that potential problem.
      The Minister dealt broadly with another of my concerns, but I would like him to reiterate his reply that it is not intended that the charge will be some form of tax that may be used to keep down council tax. I believe that there is broad agreement in the House that that is not the intention behind the measure. Community gain is the idea underlying planning contributions and it would be worrying if a local authority sought to tax development purely to keep down council tax.
      Mr. Hayes: I tried to tease the maximum clarity from the Minister earlier, and he was most helpful. However, what causes me anxiety is not that the whole sum will
      822
      transparently and obviously be spent on subsidising council tax or on a completely unrelated purpose, but that the money will be divided up and a more complex, more convoluted way found to do something that was not clear at the beginning of the process, that is not in line with local expectations, and that is not in the spirit of the arrangements that the Minister is hoping local authorities will put in place.
      Matthew Green: I share that concern. The council is to set out in the local development document what it will use the money for, on which sites or schemes the charge is likely to be an option, and what the levels of charge will be. My concern is that there is a danger of inaction by the local authority—not so much that it will literally take the money out of one account and put it into the revenue account to keep other services running, but that it will sit on the money and use the interest to subsidise other services.
      Even though I am not a huge fan of reserved powers, I was relieved to hear the Minister mention that reserved powers may be necessary in this respect. A council could create a local development document. then broadly ignore it. The problem is that we are dealing with fairly technical stuff. Not many members of the public will rush to the local council and ask to see the local development document setting out the charging regime for developments. Nor, dare I say it, will many councillors rush to read that part of the document: they will be far more interested in seeing whether some houses are to be built next to their homes or in their wards than in reading about the charging arrangements. Although I am inclined to agree that the electorate should be the best judge and that adverse publicity about a council that takes money and does nothing with it should be enough, I suspect that because of the technical nature of the matter, there should be some form of reserved powers in this instance. The Minister touched on that subject, but I would welcome hearing about what form the powers might take.
      Another of my concerns is probably best dealt with through guidance. We all know that people do not like new housing or industrial developments to be built next door. Often, community gain is used to assuage some of their fears: yes, there will be more housing in the area, but a roundabout will be installed at that really dangerous junction as a result, or the school will get a much needed extension, and the developer will pay for it. That can help to reduce local public opposition to a project, but I foresee problems arising. Let us suppose that a local development document is produced stating that all the charges will be taken from all the schemes in the area and the money used to build a new sports centre at one end of the council area. Although that would be entirely legal, it might excite great resentment in parts of the district, because the people in those areas would feel that the houses had been built next to them so that people 20 miles away could have a new sports centre.
      There is a danger of public discontent with that aspect of the system. As it is difficult to deal with such issues in legislation, and nearly impossible to do so in regulations, I hope that the guidance which I assume will accompany the new arrangements will encourage councils to bear in mind that the community that bears

      823
      the brunt of the development for which the planning application has been submitted should see at least some of the gain as a result.
      Mr. Hayes: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point on an important matter, and I have noticed the Minister acknowledging that through his body language. However, there is a more specific issue than just the opportunity costs of the inability to ameliorate local concerns about a specific project. It may be incorrectly assumed that the money is being filtered away, that it is disappearing altogether, or even that it is being used in an underhand manner. That would be untrue, but people who do not understand the system might easily perceive that to be the case. There is the potential not only to lose the ability to assuage people's fears but, worse, to undermine local people's faith in the system.
      Matthew Green: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. The key is not to lose sight of the original concept of planning gain, which is that the community local to the development derives some gain from it. That is how section 106 originated and I am certain that the Government envisage the changes leading broadly to the same end, but local authorities should be encouraged to bear that in mind. That will probably have to be done through guidance, because I do not see another way of dealing with it
      I shall not go into the detail of the Conservative amendments because I suspect that, with hindsight, the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) realises that most of them curtail local authorities' ability to decide for themselves what is best for their area, and I am sure that that is not what he intended. That he got the wrong end of the stick probably has a lot to do with the fact that he had only a couple of days, and had to burn the midnight oil. It just shows that we should work reasonable hours, because after working a certain number of hours one does not think straight.
      The new clauses offer a potential way forward, but I return to my point that the Government have not chosen a satisfactory means of dealing with the issue. My main concern is that the details of how the system will work will not be dealt with on the Floor on the House or in an extended Committee sitting—they will take the form of a statutory instrument, of which there can be little scrutiny. I struggle to see how the Government, in the circumstances in which they have landed up, could have found a different way of achieving their aims. However, when the next planning Bill is introduced in 10 years' time, I hope that the Government do not spring a similar Bill on us. Of course, the Government will be different by then, and if the Liberal Democrats are in government, we shall strive to avoid doing that.
      Sir Sydney Chapman: I am grateful for the opportunity to follow the hon. Member for Ludlow (Matthew Green) and agree with some of his comments. He spoke about the House sitting too late and Members perhaps getting confused. Clearly, his twilight hour is not the other side of 6 o'clock. He has done very well.
      I shall try to be brief. It may be helpful. as is conventional, if I begin by declaring some possible interests. As I said in Committee, the more I think about them, the more I believe they are reverse financial
      824
      interests. I do not receive a penny from any organisation outside the House or any part of my profession, but I am a member of the Royal Institute of British Architects and a fellow of the Royal Town Planning Institute, and I pay those bodies not inconsiderable amounts. I found that those sums have been going up so much that I have applied for retired status in both those prestigious professions. I should add that I am an honorary member of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, an honorary member of the Landscape Institute, an honorary fellow of the Faculty of Building and an honorary fellow of the Association of Building Engineers. If I remember any more, I shall add them later.
      I have long criticised aspects of section 106 agreements. In some cases, I believe they border on the corrupt—"You don't get your planning permission unless you give us this amount of money for that particular project"—but they are here to stay, and having listened to the debate so far and thought about these matters quite deeply, I share the worry of my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown), who questions whether it is a good thing to have two different mechanisms working in tandem, rather than trying to improve the present regime of section 106 agreements. I put that down as a marker.
      As the Minister kindly gave way to me twice on the matter, I shall not dwell on the possibility of local planning authorities, when making their regulations, extending the present area in which section 106 agreements can apply. The Minister rightly said that, in general, section 106 agreements apply to only 1.5 per cent. of the total volume of planning applications throughout the country, but of course, as he also said, they relate to the more significant planning applications. My fear is that, at least in the margins, local planning authorities might find an opportunity under the proposed new regime to extend the area in which permitted planning contributions would apply.
      I shall give a rather silly example, for a particular reason. At present, if a development requires a crossover from the highway to the curtilage of the property—say, somebody is building a garage as an extension on his or her house —the local authority might insist that it should carry out the work. Whereas, meeting the proper specification for a crossover, the work could probably be done for £700—I am using a typical example—the council might say that it costs £1,500 or £1,100, making its own profit. It is so easy, under a planning contribution agreement, for the council to set the tariff scale at£1,500.
      We are all human beings. I am not criticising local authorities or local planning authorities, but if an authority has the opportunity to charge money, it will seize that opportunity and milk it to its utmost ability. That is not a party political point, but a fact of human nature. It is extremely important that the Secretary of State prescribe the areas in which the new planning contribution can apply. It is a new opportunity for a tax, just as a section 106 agreement is, in effect, a tax. The proposed contribution is a tariff, so it is a tax. I shall not dwell on the matter or call it a stealth tax. There are already section 106 agreements in place. Because it is a tax on some developments, the ability to charge the planning contribution and the amount that can be charged must be carefully prescribed.
      6.15 pm
      My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) made a good point when, if I judged him correctly, he said that under section 106 agreements, the applicant—I would say generally, but now always—knew exactly where his financial contribution was going. It would be spent on a specific project in a specific place. Under the proposed planning contribution arrangement, it is obvious—again, this is human nature—that the local planning authority will hold on to the money for as long as it can.
      The hon. Member for Ludlow gave the example of a new sports centre on the other side of the borough. For such a project, the local planning authority will have to hold on to the money until it has sufficient to go ahead with what is, by any description, a pretty significant project. If the legislation goes through, and the regulations are issued, we must consider carefully how we can ensure that the local planning authority is required to specify the projects on which the money will be spent.
      Mr. David Drew: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way and apologise for not being present earlier, as I was serving on a Select Committee. Does he agree that section 106 agreements have been bedevilled by the lack of transparency—in particular, the fact that after a planning application has been agreed, it is often implemented through an individual officer talking to the developer? Communities often feel disempowered when they see that the outcome of the section 106 agreement is not what they expected.
      Sir Sydney Chapman: I am glad to tell the hon. Gentleman that I agree entirely. I had some criticisms of section 106 agreements, and the apparent lack of transparency was my main argument for criticising them. That is common ground between us. Unless the regulations are very tightly drawn, the receipts coming from the planning contributions could be even less transparent than the section 106 agreements. I need not pursue the point further.
      Mr. Hayes: Not only will the new arrangements be less transparent, but they will be less local, as they will not necessarily be tied to the particular development, and they will arguably be less likely to lead to the development of social housing. That is the view of those in the industry. Will my hon. Friend comment on those aspects?
      Sir Sydney Chapman: I cannot disagree with my hon. Friend, but the outcome will depend on the sort of local authority in question. If it is a scattered rural local authority, I think my hon. Friend has cause for concern. I represent a more suburban area, where the metropolis meets the countryside, with all sorts of development. My constituency is much smaller in size than my hon. Friend's. Mine is only about 15 square miles in north London, so there is more sense of community than would be the case 8 miles away or in my hon. Friend's constituency. It is a matter of degree. The Minister confirmed that, if the Bill is enacted, the applicant will be able to choose between a section 106 agreement route or a planning contribution route. We must bear in mind that the system is comprehensive and complicated.
      826
      The hon. Member for Ludlow was a little unfair about the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold. The hon. Gentleman might have been burning the midnight oil, but I imagine that my hon. Friend is with it 24 hours a day. There was a short time to consider the matters, so even if some of the amendments are found to be unnecessary, they have given us the opportunity to raise important points and get assurances from the Minister.
      Mr. Clifton-Brown: My hon. Friend has great knowledge of the subject and no doubt he has read the submission by the Law Society, which is worried about the new tariff proposals. The society says:
      "The new clause seems to envisage local authorities determining that in respect of some developments a planning contribution would not be appropriate."
      Does my hon. Friend agree that giving local planning authorities the power to say, "No, on these developments you must pay a tariff", is a step too far?
      Sir Sydney Chapman: I am trying to play devil's advocate to my hon. Friend to keep the quality of the debate high. There may be no fundamental difference between that arrangement and the procedure for section 106 agreements. I understand what the Law Society says but I do not necessarily agree. Section 106 agreements are negotiable, but the bottom line is that local authorities may say to applicants, "If you don't do what we want, you don't get what you want." Therefore, applicants might not get planning permission, although I suppose that they could still run off to the Secretary of State to appeal. Section 106 agreements are effectively compulsory, so I envisage no difference in principle compared with the arrangements for planning contributions.
      Keith Hill: The hon. Gentleman is making an interesting speech and was absolutely right to respond somewhat cautiously to the invitation of the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) to leap aboard the Law Society's bandwagon. Let me remind him of what I said about circumstances in which a local authority might say that a planning contribution would be inappropriate and not required. That would be a case if a development were proposed on a site with heavy contamination that would require costly remediation, or a site under multiple ownership if it were anticipated that there would be enormous complications when engaging in a land assembly exercise. It might be inappropriate to deem that either a section 106 or a planning contribution would be required for a large development in such circumstances. The Law Society has got the wrong end of the stick on this one, so I congratulate the hon. Gentleman, who has deep experience of these matters, on reacting in an appropriately careful, calm, calculated and cautious fashion to his colleague's suggestion.
      Sir Sydney Chapman: I hardly know where to put myself. This is all a matter of relativity. The Minister said that the planning contribution was not a tax on developments—he prefers not to use the word "tax" and we should not put words in his mouth, so let us call it a tariff. However, I could equally argue, without being spurious, that a tax on most developments exists

      827
      because people must pay a certain amount when they put in applications to local planning authorities. That requirement entered planning law only relatively recently. There is a movable shelf and people on both sides of the argument can properly make debating points because the situation is detailed and complicated.
      Although I had not intended to speak for so long, I shall make one or two other points. I thought that one of the Government's new clauses stated that the planning contribution must be paid up front—in other words, applicants who had been given planning permission could not begin developments before they had paid the planning contribution. One can relate that situation to a point about the retail prices index escalator. Incidentally, although amendment (g) to new clause 1 says:
      "there will not be any R.P.I. escalator"
      my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold could have added the words, "or any other building industry inflation escalator attached to the agreement on a planning contribution" to the amendment.
      A planning contribution might be agreed at a time when the building industry is booming, but that time could be a turning point before a recession. If there were a national economic recession or a building recession, the boom could go out of the housing market, which would mean that the developer might make a considerable loss. Developers speculate and make judgments, so there is already risk in the process. It is fair to say that an escalator on the contribution would represent an additional risk that developers would have to consider. I agree with my hon. Friend and believe that a planning contribution should not be changed in any way after it has been agreed, especially given that it must be paid up front.
      Matthew Green: The hon. Gentleman is making a valuable contribution. I would have more sympathy with his argument if it were not up to developers to decide whether to pay the tariff or to provide work in kind. My understanding of the new system is that a council will not be able to tell developers that they must pay the tariff. A council may say that it is appropriate to impose a tariff on a specific site, but developers will have a choice because a council will not be able to force them to pay rather than undertaking work in kind.
      Sir Sydney Chapman: There is little dispute among us. I understand that there may be payment in cash or in kind under a section 106 agreement. I can certainly tell the hon. Gentleman—I think that he knows already—that the new clauses provide that a planning contribution may be made in cash or in kind, or as a combination of both. I am glad to get that on the record.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold talked about new clause 3 and Wales. He properly said that through devolution under the Government of Wales Act 1998, specific powers were reserved by the United Kingdom Government. The Minister will not remember that during the Bill's first Committee stage I asked why we required provisions on Wales, because as Wales has been given devolved powers, what right has the UK Parliament to say how Wales should treat planning issues? I did not receive a satisfactory answer in Committee but I received one today from my hon. Friend because he rightly identified the fact that the
      828
      planning contribution is taxation—an economic matter—and that this House has the right to decide on such matters. The House owes a debt to my hon. Friend not only for tabling his amendments and making his contribution on new clauses 1 to 3, but for addressing the important aspect of the provisions for Wales.
      Mr. Clifton-Brown: I have been consulting the regulations and reading new clause 1 carefully since my hon. Friend mentioned the possibility of paying the obligation in kind. New clause 1(3) says that the local plan must state the "prescribed means" when it is drawn up, and subsection (5) says that the prescribed means are:
      "the payment of a sum…the provision of a benefit in kind…or…a combination of such payment and provision."
      I am not sure whether the tariffs will be set at a local planning or a more specific development level, so perhaps my hon. Friend will comment on that.
      Sir Sydney Chapman: If I may say so, it is for the Minister on duty to respond to that. I see any development in kind being given an amount of money, an allocation of money, and that is deducted from the prescribed fee or the prescribed tax, or the tariff, that will be put on the specific development. That is not a matter for me, but that is my reading of new clause 1(5). That provision underlines that payment can be made in cash or in kind, or a combination of both.
      6.30 pm
      Mr. Andrew Turner: One problem in dealing with a number of complex new clauses on Report is that our deliberations tend to degenerate, if that is the right word, into something more akin to consideration in Committee. I hope that the Minister will forgive me if I follow his example and probe rather carefully my understanding of some of the new clauses.
      I shall begin where my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir Sydney Chapman) left off, with new clause 1(5) and (6). Perhaps the Minister will correct me if I am wrong when I say that the developer can decide between subsections (5) and (6). If he opts for subsection (5), he must use whatever prescribed means the local authority prescribes, and if he opts for subsection (6), he must negotiate. That is my understanding of new clause 1. I see that the hon. Member for Ludlow (Matthew Green) shares my understanding, which makes at least two of us. That is good.
      It is a question of who should have the right to choose. If it were not the developer—the applicant—that had the right to choose, that would go some way to solving the problem illustrated by the hon. Member for Ludlow and my hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes). The problem concerns developers' contributions—I use a neutral term—being gobbled up and spat out by the local authority at some development at the far end of the district or borough that may not provide any compensation for the people in whose backyard the unwanted development had taken place. Why does the Minister feel it appropriate that that should be a developer's decision rather than a community one? People expect something to be provided locally, not at the far end of the borough. They will view with great concern the failure of the supposed benefit to appear.

      829
      The hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew), who is no longer in his place, questioned the operation of section 106 agreements. He said that, in many cases, there is agreement in committee, the officers are sent away to write a section 106 agreement, and it is hoped that something turns up that is acceptable to local people. I know that some local authorities behave in that way, but others will reserve the grant of planning permission until the members are content with the section 106 agreement. The members may have a much better focus on whether, for example, a roundabout or a play area is preferable to the people of a particular small village. I know that the people of my villages would prefer a play area to a roundabout, but it is not always the case. Surely it is reasonable that the local authority's development control committee should reserve that matter and make a decision on the basis of officers' negotiations with the developer.
      I say to the hon. Member for Stroud, in his absence, that it is unreasonable for local authorities to expect the right result if they do not make clear to their officers what results they expect. It is careless of local members, to say the least, to allow their planning committees to get away with that sort of thing, when doubtless those local members will suffer if they do not come up with the right community benefit.
      Mr. Hayes: I shall build on my hon. Friend's point. The position might be disadvantageous to the developer as well. Developers often get, properly, some kudos by having contributed to a local scheme that is popular and that people understand and regard as transparent. If money is given, it will not have the same impact in terms of the local community's understanding. It may not therefore benefit the local developer in quite the same way.
      Mr. Turner: My hon. Friend is right. I am sure that a new play area or an extension to a local school, or even some road humps, would be more popular with the local community than a sports centre that is inaccessible by public transport. In some areas, I know that some developers' contributions have been paid in the form of park-and-ride car parks, by payments to public transport and even by works of so-called public art, which in many cases are unrecognisable as either public or art. People resent their money being spent on such ill-chosen things.
      That brings me on to a response to the question of whether payments should be made up front. If a tariff is introduced, I understand that the payments are required to be made up front. An up-front payment for a developer may make the difference between the viability and unviability of a development. A payment down stream, if that is the opposite of up front, may be affordable because the profit has been realised on the development.
      Mr. Hayes: There are two other aspects. The first is that payment up front may be particularly disadvantageous to small developers as opposed to large ones with large budgets and turnovers. Secondly, high-risk developers may be discouraged. Developers will be
      830
      less likely to take chances if they have already paid in advance. I do not say that I am against payments up front, but these questions must be answered.
      Mr. Turner: Those points indeed have to be answered. I shall illustrate what may have been in my hon. Friend's mind, if I may presume to read his mind. A brownfield development may be close to a densely populated area of housing. The people living in that housing have just as much right to the benefits that might accrue from the provision of, for example, a play area as other people who live in areas that are less costly to develop. Yet the developer may not have the capital necessary to put up front into reclamation or remediation, as the Minister calls it, of the brownfield site, and for the provision of a tariff that can be translated into a community benefit. Will the Minister consider whether an up-front payment is the best and only way in which the tariff may be paid?
      Mr. Hayes: I do not want to interrupt my hon. Friend's flow any more than is necessary for the development of his own argument, but many in the industry support his point. The Chartered Institute of Housing and the House Builders Federation both draw attention to the problem of developers being unwilling to take risks specifically in respect of affordable housing on brownfield sites or on any site. They may be discouraged.
      Mr. Turner: I was about to pay tribute to my hon. Friend's fertile and inventive imagination, but now I understand that I must give credit to the august bodies that he cited. He is right that there is a problem that could mean that no community benefit is received because no development takes place.
      My hon. Friend gives me a cue to move on to the housing obligation—the socialist housing obligation, as some call it. My hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) referred to the obligation to provide affordable housing and the necessity test. I have no objection to the provision of affordable housing, but I am curious about how the necessity test applies. How can the construction of 24 luxury flats give rise to the need to provide so many units of affordable housing? The provision of additional units of luxury housing does not push up the price of local housing, and it may even have the effect of marginally pushing down the price of other housing. When the Minister replies, will he go into some more detail on the application of the necessity test, and whether it will be broadened as a result of the implementation of new clause 1?
      Mr. Clifton-Brown: My hon. Friend will be aware that, because of the Tesco case and others, case law has already broadened the necessity test to the de facto position where we have a de minimis test. I was gently chiding the Minister to suggest that the regulations should clarify the position—exactly the point that my hon. Friend is making.
      On a slightly different but related point, the local authority should be able to set different tariffs in different areas according to the existing infrastructure. Clearly, some infrastructure will be poor and some better, so it makes sense to be able to set different charges in different areas.
      Mr. Turner: Whether we use the necessity test or a broader test goes to the heart of whether the

      831
      contribution—or a section 106 agreement—is merely a form of taxation rather than a reasonable contribution to the cost of a particular development.
      What kind of applications should be free from any obligation to pay the contribution? The Minister has not stated what kind of applications he has in mind. It may be possible to speculate. It may be that he has given some opinion in the draft regulations on which he is consulting, but I hope that he will be able to clarify what kind of applications should be free—and, presumably, free at an England-wide level, rather than free at a local authority level—from a particular contribution.
      Mr. Hayes: My hon. Friend is being a little ungenerous to the Minister, because, in response to an earlier intervention, he said that the development of particularly difficult sites, or those that were unlikely to be developed without the enthusiastic involvement of keen developers who may be deterred by obstacles in their way, might not incur such a tariff. But will my hon. Friend test the Minister on issues such as parts of a local authority or regions and parts of the country that desperately need an injection of new development and that might as a whole be excluded from the tariff?
      Mr. Turner: I apologise to the Minister for not making myself sufficiently clear. He pointed out that certain sites may be difficult, but I was envisaging in the kind of applications that may be excluded from any obligation to make the contribution, developments such as hospitals, schools or railway undertakings—in other words, what would be erected on the site rather than the nature of the site. Perhaps the Minister could respond to that, and in so doing distinguish between schools and hospitals provided by public and private sector funds, if it is his intention that a distinction should be made in the regulations that he lays before the House.
      6.45 pm
      My hon. Friend prompts me to come on to whether there should be variable tariffs and variable exclusions within local authorities. Like many large authorities—and, I am sure, some small ones—my local authority has areas of relative wealth and relative poverty. The areas of relative poverty may need certain kinds of development more than others and developers of such developments might be dissuaded were the tariff set at a standard level throughout the authority. Does the Minister intend that there should be variable tariffs within local planning authority areas, and, as my hon. Friend prompts me to ask, that developments in certain councils should be exempt from any requirement to make a developer contribution?
      Many people see a section 106 agreement as merely a means of extracting money from a developer in return for a development that almost certainly would take place anyway, even though that it usually contributes to some local benefit, and sometimes to a benefit that is provided city-wide. A park-and-ride scheme is a good example of such a section 106 agreement. The developer's contribution set out in new clause 1—and to some extent the section 106 agreement—begins to look like a tax, rather than merely a payment made to the authority to compensate for the consequences of a particular development. Indeed, it begins to look so much like a tax that I am sorry that The Daily Telegraph
      832
      did not include it as No. 61 on page 3 this morning. This is a tax on development because it is not hypothecated to a particular purpose and it is not a charge because it does not compensate for a particular cost. I hope that the Minister will look carefully at whether the contributions should properly be defined as a charge or a tax. It appears to me to be a tax.
      I have only two other points, one of which is on the social housing obligation. In some places—many parts of London are good examples—the profit made from developing housing is so great that the social housing obligation can be met out of profit, and the marginal rate of return on the development is so great that the developer may suffer a bit but not hugely from its imposition. In other parts of the country—parts of my constituency are an example—the marginal benefit from building housing is still regrettably so low that developers wonder whether to go ahead, because they may not make sufficient profit. I am sure that that is even more the case in more deprived parts of the country.
      If the developer is not going to make sufficient profit, he will not go ahead, even with private housing, and there will be a dearth of such housing available in an area. Under those circumstances, the only way the developer can meet the social housing obligation is to raise the price of the housing that he builds.
      That means that the developer no longer meets the cost of the social housing obligation out of his pocket; in many cases, it is met by first-time buyers who purchase houses that he intended to build in the first place. The price of those houses can be driven up by the social housing obligation. Will the Minister address that issue and refer to the balance that local authorities might strike in drawing up a tariff, variable or otherwise?
      Finally, on Wales, the Minister has given us plenteous and generous assurances about the regulations that he intends to lay before the House setting out the details of the path that he wishes to take. For our part, Opposition Members will make a judgment on those assurances. I am sure that we will have faith in him and believe what he says. We may conclude that those assurances are not good enough, but at least a clear set of assurances will have been given. We have no such assurances from the National Assembly for Wales. Nobody has spoken in this House for the Assembly; indeed, nobody can do so. Have there been any discussions behind the scenes between his office and the Assembly that allow him to say that the Assembly concurs with the assurances that he has given?
      Matthew Green: Will the hon. Gentleman clarify his comments? He appears to be saying that he wants the Welsh to be protected against decisions that they take for themselves. Is that correct?
      Mr. Turner: Not at all. In deciding how to vote on the new clause, I wish to know the circumstances in which it may be applied throughout England and Wales. That is my duty as an English Member of Parliament in legislating for England and Wales.
      Mr. Hayes: The Welsh issue is even more complex than my hon. Friend suggests. We heard earlier from the Minister about provision that applied where local authorities of many types were involved in a particular planning application. The border between Wales and

      833
      England will sometimes be crossed in such cases, as developments may affect authorities on either side of it. Through my hon. Friend, may I invite the Minister to comment on those matters, which seem highly pertinent?
      Mr. Turner: I saw the hon. Member for Ludlow (Matthew Green) nodding; I assume that he did so on the basis of some local knowledge. I am unique among Members representing English constituencies in that my local authority area has no borders with any others, so I do not encounter the problem of cross-border planning applications. None the less, I would welcome the Minister's comments on developments that occur partly in England and partly in Wales.
      Mr. Clifton-Brown: Does my hon. Friend agree that I have suggested a sensible mechanism to the Minister? Setting up the tariffs will take a great deal of hard work. The Minister might wish to look carefully at the commencement order in that regard and consider the draft regulations proposed by the National Assembly for Wales to establish that they are, at least initially, in line with those in England. Of course, the matter would thereafter be one for the Assembly.
      Mr. Turner: That proposal would go some way towards solving the problem postulated by my hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings, but it would not solve—I am sure that it was not intended to—the more serious problem of what assurances the Minister is giving us. 'The Minister laughed merrily when I asked rhetorically whether there had been discussions with the National Assembly for Wales. [Interruption.] He is now muttering to my hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings. If we are entitled when we introduce legislation to know the direction in which the Government intend to proceed in respect of England, surely we are entitled to know the direction in which the National Assembly for Wales intends to proceed in respect of Wales. Our decision on whether to vote for or against the new clause may hinge on that issue. [Interruption.] The Minister's Parliamentary Private Secretary is now muttering. I did not hear what he muttered, but I suspect that he was telling me that I should not worry my little head about the Welsh, as they can look after themselves. Not at all; I am required to worry my little head about Wales, just as hon. Members representing Scottish constituencies are required to worry their little heads about foundation hospitals and tuition fees. I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold.
      Mr. Clifton-Brown: I was not seeking to intervene, but another thought has entered my head. Of course, there is a financial settlement for Wales each year. If the wrong level of contribution were set, it could have a material effect on the level of financial contribution given to Wales.
      Mr. Turner: From someone who was not seeking to intervene, that is a particularly clever intervention. I thank my hon. Friend for making that point, which I had not thought of.
      834
      The Minister and his Parliamentary Private Secretary still cannot give any assurances or reveal whether discussions have taken place with the National Assembly for Wales. Will the Assembly adopt the sensible, rational, honourable and clear position that the Minister has set out, or will it adopt some other position? Until we know that, we cannot come to a conclusion on how to vote on the new clause.
      Keith Hill: I am grateful to all hon. Members who have participated in this genuinely good and well-informed debate, which has been none the worse for being largely confined—I note the exception of my hon. Friend the Member for Telford (David Wright), whom I am delighted to see in his place—to the usual cast of characters in such discussions, who might be described as the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill repertory theatre. However, it has also been a long debate and I have no desire to protract it unnecessarily, so I give notice that I shall be reluctant to take interventions on the same extremely liberal scale as I did earlier.
      None the less, I wish to respond in detail to the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown), although many of his questions and those of other hon. Members relate to matters best dealt with in consultation. In many respects, it would be inappropriate for the Government to express views ex cathedra, as it were, when we are essentially in a listening mode. However, I give him the assurance for which he asked:if I do not fully answer his questions in the course of my response, which I hope will be fairly comprehensive, I shall write to him as far as possible.
      Mr. Clifton-Brown rose—
      Keith Hill: I advised the hon. Gentleman that I was reluctant to give way as much I did earlier. I shall immediately break my rule, but I hope that this will be a serious and substantive intervention.
      Mr. Clifton-Brown: It is a very important intervention. If the Government's consultation will not finish until 8 January and the Minister is saying that he will not give specific commitments or answers to questions because that consultation is taking place, but this House is being required to legislate on this matter in the absence of those answers, he should not be bringing these regulations before the House.
      Keith Hill: I am not bringing regulations to the House; I am bringing enabling amendments, and the House will in due course have ample opportunity to consider regulations relating to them when we bring those regulations before it.
      Before I move on to the amendments, let me deal with Wales, with which Opposition Members seemed to be developing an obsession. I have noticed before that such moods can develop in the House—a Member makes a suggestion, someone else picks it up, then everyone begins to think that it is a really good idea. I am sorry to have to dampen the ardour on this occasion.
      7 pm
      The hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir Sydney Chapman)—of whom, as the House will be aware, I am inordinately fond—made a sturdy effort to raise the spectre of taxation, and was joined by the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner). However, we are devolving these powers to Wales for a very simple and straightforward reason—the Welsh authorities already have the power to enter into planning obligations with developers, and they should also have the power to set planning contributions and to allow developers in Wales the choice of whether to opt for the charge. All that our approach amounts to is "fair do's" for Wales. If the Conservatives still had any friends in business, I am sure that those in Wales would be enthusiastic about that development; but, candidly, I have nothing more to add to the subject.
      Let me attempt to put some meat on the bones of the Government's proposals, which I outlined at the beginning of this long, but properly so, debate. As I explained, the planning contribution provisions set out a framework for planning contributions made in respect of development or use of land. The intention is to add to the provisions of section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 an additional provision to enable developers to choose to make a fixed contribution that is calculated in advance by the planning authority. The intention is not to get rid of planning obligations, but to provide speed and certainty where possible and flexibility where necessary.
      Planning authorities will be able to consider in advance the possible impacts on their area of increased development and what contributions will be appropriate to mitigate those impacts. The "plan-led" approach to planning obligations is a big improvement on the present, rather ad hoc, arrangements, to which I shall return later. Developers will have more certainty about the likely impacts of their proposed development on the area, will know in advance what contributions the planning authority is likely to require them to provide, and will be able to choose whether to make the contribution as set by the planning authority or to seek to negotiate a contribution more specifically tailored to their circumstances.
      In response to the hon. Member for Isle of Wight, new clause 1 provides for two types of contributions: those made by the prescribed means—that is, the charge—and those made by compliance with the relevant requirements under the traditional section 106 negotiations. We give the choice to developers because in some cases that will assist in accelerating the planning process, as I am sure we all desire. It is not inevitable that developers will opt for the charge. That is not because of difficulties associated with the scale of the charge, but because of the commitment that many developers bring to sustainable communities in terms of adding value through their developments. We also intend that local planning authorities should be able to secure full community value from choosing the charge.
      Contributions made by the prescribed means are the contributions that will be fixed in advance by planning authorities. Planning authorities will be required to put the detail of the contributions in a document, which may be a development plan document but will, in any event, be subject to consultation and public involvement. It will set out what type of development is likely to give rise
      836
      to contributions and exceptions, how the contribution will be calculated, and for what the planning authority intends to use the receipts from contributions. The document will show the link between the impacts of development on the planning authority's area and the payment of the contributions. The requirements of a planning authority will, therefore, be contained in an open document that is available for all to see. That provides transparency in terms of the way that contributions are calculated, when they are likely to be required, and what they will be used for; and, in turn, provides certainty and fairness for all involved in the planning process.
      Mr. Clifton-Brown: Will the Minister address the point that I raised with my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir Sydney Chapman) regarding the level at which the local authority will set the charges? Will they be applied across the whole local planning authority area? Will there be different charges for different areas—for example, if one is in growth, but another is not? Might there even be different charges for separate developments in a very large regeneration development?
      Keith Hill: As one would expect, the charge will differ according to the different impacts of the development. It is essentially a matter for consultation, however, and we expect a vigorous input from all interested parties. I am sure that in due course the hon. Gentleman and the House will have the opportunity comprehensively to examine the proposals.
      A contribution paid by compliance with the relevant requirements—that is, the traditional section 106 arrangement—enables contributions to be negotiated. As I said, that provides the flexibility to agree a contribution that is tailored to a particular development or its circumstances. It also enables planning contributions to relate to matters that are specific to the development site, such as provision of adequate access. It is intended that the relevant requirements will be similar to the provisions contained in section 106. Where the developer opts to pay the contribution by the prescribed means, our consultation document suggests that a residual negotiation may be necessary to cover matters that could never be covered by the charge. Where that is the case, and in order to ensure fairness, subsection (4) of new clause 1 provides that where a developer has paid the contribution by one means, the planning authority cannot seek more through the other method of securing a planning contribution.
      New clause 2 sets out in further detail the matters for which the planning contribution scheme will provide. It allows the Secretary of State to set the minimum and maximum amounts that the planning authority may set as a contribution, enables the planning authority to update the set amounts by reference to a criterion such as the retail prices index in order to avoid a reduction in their value, and requires planning authorities to produce an annual report so that we can all see how the contribution system is working. As in the case of section 106, agreements to pay planning contributions will be enforceable by the planning authority. It is envisaged that the powers that are made available will be similar to those contained in section 106. The contribution may be modified or discharged depending on the circumstances.

      837
      I am grateful to the hon. Member for Ludlow (Matthew Green) for his support for the broad thrust of the proposals, which he said are probably right and represent a more satisfactory arrangement. On his question about South Shropshire, the Government are considering that approach with interest, and I shall of course reply to him in due course. He also asked about affordable housing. I assure him that the last thing that the Government would want to do is to limit the ability of local planning authorities to secure more affordable housing.
      I turn to the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Cotswold. The fact that they deal with the detail of the provisions rather than general principles suggests that on the whole he accepts what the Government are trying to achieve—I am glad about that. I am concerned, however, that such amendments to new clauses 1 and 2 would fetter the flexibility that they provide in allowing us to respond effectively and sensibly not only to the consultation that we are undertaking, but to changing circumstances.
      I cannot understand, for example, why the hon. Gentleman should wish to tie us now, in primary legislation, to how the contribution should be calculated, as he proposes in his amendments (f) and (g) to new clause 1. It would surely be more appropriate to introduce such provisions in secondary legislation, which can be more detailed, and which would also be able to take on board matters arising from the consultation process and future proposals relating to the calculation of contributions. We would not want to be too prescriptive at this stage, and to find that we were bound by the criteria set out in the amendments. For example, requiring developers to pay our optional planning charge on a per dwelling basis might simply have the effect of encouraging developers to build large houses, which would not always be appropriate.
      Nor can I understand why the hon. Gentleman should have tabled amendments (h) and (i) to new clause 1, which, taken together, delete the provisions that we have proposed to ensure that developers do not have to pay twice in relation to the same matters. Our intention is that the regulations will ensure that, when a developer opts to pay the charge, he cannot also be asked to contribute through any residual negotiation in relation to matters that the local authority said were covered by the charge. These provisions are an essential ingredient of what we propose. I should also emphasise that, as with the existing system, it will be open to the developer to refuse to make any form of contribution whatever. In such a case, the local planning authority will still be required to consider the application on its planning merits, having regard to the development plan and other material considerations. So it is not necessary to introduce the additional appeal mechanisms proposed in amendment (b) to new clause 1; the existing appeal mechanisms will still be available when a developer feels that a planning contribution is unreasonable.
      I detect concern that developers should not be asked to pay more than was originally indicated in the local
      838
      authority policy on what it would seek through planning contributions. This appears to be the reason behind amendment (a) to new clause 2.
      Mr. Clifton-Brown rose—
      Keith Hill: I believe that I can offer reassurances on this point, if the hon. Gentleman will bear with me. We envisage that the local authority and the developer will need to come to some form of agreement, as they do now, on whether they opt to make the contribution by the prescribed means or the negotiated route. That agreement will bind the developer to pay, and the local authority to accept, the charge agreed at that point. The form of the agreement could be decided between the local authority and the developer, or could take a standard form that the Government may prescribe in regulations or issue as guidance. I accept that there are concerns about this issue, and I shall be happy to consider further whether we have the right mechanisms in place to ensure that we have the right balance of flexibility and certainty for all parties in the process.
      Mr. Clifton-Brown: I want to use the Brian Walden technique on the Minister to make sure that I have understood this. He has contradicted himself, because he said earlier that there would be an appeal mechanism against these tariffs, yet he now appears to be saying that there will be no such appeal, and that once they have been set in the local plan, that will be it. If that is the case, and if the developer cannot negotiate a satisfactory section 106 agreement and cannot appeal against a tariff, it could result in some areas remaining undeveloped.
      Keith Hill: The hon. Gentleman has got me wrong. I was asked a general question, as I recall—I have been asked scores, if not hundreds, of questions during the debate, many of which I have attempted to respond to—and I certainly said that there were appeal mechanisms. Let me also say, in relation to a charge agreed, that in certain cases the circumstances might alter, and that it would be utterly irrational to say that we should not take account of changed circumstances when it could be impossible—for good reason—for the charge, as agreed to be met. In such circumstances, there has to be flexibility in the arrangements and the possibility of the agreement being revisited. On the whole, however, we would not wish to encourage such a situation, and that is not an outcome that we expect to see as a result of our process of consultation or, ultimately, the drafting of regulations.
      7.15 pm
      I also detect concern that the criteria set by the planning authority for calculating the contributions should be certain, and that any changes should be consulted on. This seems to be the root of amendment (k) to new clause 1, which refers to the power to enable planning authorities to adjust amounts set by a criteria published in advance, for instance the retail prices index, and suggest that any changes should be made through the development plan document process. New clause 1(3) (d) provides planning authorities with the ability to

      839
      update amounts set out in a document setting out the contribution without the need to go through a fresh consultation, when the principle of how the sum was calculated and what it would be used for has been consulted on, discussed and accepted. Both the nature of the amount and the criteria used to update the amount will have been subject to the development plan document procedure or an equivalent process. There is therefore no need for the additional safeguard proposed in amendment (k) to new clause I.
      That also seems to be the root of amendment (1) to new clause 1. Again, the planning contribution document will set out what is expected. If the developer is of the view that other demands will be made of him in respect of similar matters, he will have the option to negotiate a contribution that could accommodate future demands from other statutory bodies. As I have said, the proposals we have put down provide flexibility.
      Mr. Clifton-Brown: Will the Minister give way?
      Keith Hill: This will be the fourth or fifth time that I have done so, and I did issue a health warning at the beginning of these exchanges.
      Mr. Clifton-Brown: I appreciate the Minister's giving way. These are complex matters, and when he does not reply satisfactorily to one of my amendments, it is helpful of him to give way. He has completely misunderstood the import of my amendment (1), which simply says:
      "The Secretary of State will fully reimburse any local authority where it can demonstrate that there is a net cost to them in preparing these regulations."
      That has nothing to do with what the Minister was saying. I ask him again what would happen if a local authority were overwhelmed by implementing these burdens. He has suggested to me privately that he would be prepared for his Department to provide advice. Will he now say what advice and consultancy the Department will be prepared to advance? Will it merely involve manpower, or will there be a financial contribution to help local authorities?
      Keith Hill: If I have misunderstood the import of the hon. Gentleman's amendment, of course I apologise, and I withdraw my strictures on the subject. In regard to any assistance that might be given to local authorities, the hon. Gentleman ought to recognise that we are engaged in a process of re-examining the whole ethos of support for the planning function in this country. As part and parcel of that, we now have in operation the so-called planning delivery grant, worth £350 million, to reward and incentivise local authorities in terms of their planning performance in the current three-year period, £50 million of which has already been allocated to local authorities. Although that investment is not ring-fenced, I am delighted to observe that, by and large, local planning authorities seem to be putting the grants into local planning resources. That has to be a good thing.
      There also seems to be some misunderstanding of the way in which the provisions will operate. I have explained that planning authorities will have to set out their contribution policy in a document, probably the development plan document, and new clause 1(3)
      840
      provides for this. The planning authority will set out the circumstances in which it will consider accepting a contribution, but there may be circumstances in which the criteria are met but the authority decides not to require any contribution. We have debated this issue at some length already. I would therefore submit that amendment (c) to new clause 1 is not appropriate.
      Similarly, amendment (e) to new clause 1 would be inappropriate. The "necessity" requirement is not a statutory requirement and would therefore not make sense if referred to in legislation. The connection between the development and the contribution should be contained in the planning authority's planning contribution documents setting out the impacts likely to be caused by the development and how the contributions would be used to mitigate them.
      The hon. Gentleman's amendment (j) to new clause 1 suggests that the Secretary of State should not be entitled to reject a local planning contributions policy except on grounds set out in regulations. This would be highly unusual and is not consistent with the Secretary of State's powers in relation to other planning documents or decisions. The Secretary of State is, I suggest, entitled to take exception to planning documents that are not consistent with his policy, even if they are consistent with regulations, especially as the Bill contains a provision that local authorities should have regard to that policy. The provision in the amendment, if inserted, would prevent the Secretary of State from calling in any contributions policy on the grounds that it was not consistent with his affordable housing objectives. I cannot believe that that is right.
      Amendment (i) to new clause 2 also relates to development plan documents and the cost of preparing such a document. I believe this amendment is unnecessary, as administrative mechanisms are already in place, as I have described, to take into account new burdens on local authorities.
      Amendments (c), (f) and (g) to new clause 2 deal with issues that are already provided for or are not needed. An adjustment of an amount may be up or down, and there is no need to state that explicitly. I have explained the intention that the planning contributions agreed should be contained in agreements setting out the amount and method of payment. That should satisfy the concerns about certainty raised in amendments (f) and (g).
      Amendment (e) would remove the Secretary of State's ability to set out a procedure for the preparation and making of a planning contribution document if it was decided not to use a development plan document. Such a power is necessary, and to remove it would curtail the Secretary of State's ability to ensure that such a document is a clear and transparent statement of the planning authority's policy. Amendment (k) is not needed. The planning contribution document will set out the planning authority's policy, and will give reasons why contributions will be sought and why they will not be sought in some circumstances.
      I assure the hon. Gentleman that I am happy to consider the relationship between our proposals and those measures in the Bill for joint local development documents. He and other hon. Members referred to that issue and I assure them that it will be dealt with in the

      841
      provisions relating to such plans. I am also happy to examine further the circumstances in which local land charges become satisfied, and the possibility that charge contributions could be paid at some point other than at the commencement of development. However, I do not think that the specific amendments proposed are necessarily the right way forward.
      Mr. Clifton-Brown: The Minister did not respond to my amendment (h), which is an important amendment that tracks how this money is spent by each local authority. There is anecdotal evidence that, in some cases, 90 per cent. of this money goes into the general budget. Will the Minister please give us an assurance that the Audit Commission will have some role in tracking this money and ensuring that proper value for money is achieved from these contributions?
      Keith Hill: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for drawing my attention to that oversight. I shall write to him in due course, although he stopped me in my tracks as I was precisely at the point of dealing with that amendment. I was about to say that this issue was raised by the hon. Members for Ludlow, for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes), and for Chipping Barnet, and by my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew), although he is not in his place at the moment. I recognise the concern raised by amendment (h) to new clause 2 that there should be proper accountability in relation to the spending of income raised by both the charge and negotiated routes. The Government have already taken action on this point by requiring local authorities to add information about planning obligations to their planning registers. I believe our new proposals should be welcomed.
      In our consultation document, we are proposing that the local authority should set out, in public and in advance, its policies on contributions in relation to the development for which it would seek a contribution and the matters it spends income on.
      Secondly, I want to make it entirely clear that we propose to take a power to enable the Secretary of State to insist that receipts are spent in the way envisaged in the public planning contributions policy. I hope that that offers particular assurance to the hon. Member for Ludlow, who has rightly raised this issue persistently.
      Thirdly, we propose a power to require local planning authorities to make an annual report on matters relating to planning contributions. Fourthly, we propose that the Secretary of State should be able to prescribe the procedure by which the charging policy is developed, and to take steps if he believes it is not being done appropriately or at all. Those are all sensible new steps, and they are on top of the existing requirements for probity and accountability in local government finance, for which the Audit Commission already has powers.
      As we move forward with this policy, I undertake to keep Members of both Houses fully informed of developments. I emphasise that these enabling amendments pave the way to a new approach to planning obligations and are the right way forward. They are designed to tackle the problems that have bedevilled this aspect of the planning process for too long. As I said in my statement last month, they offer
      842
      speed and certainty where possible, and flexibility where necessary. I invite the hon. Member for Cotswold not to press his amendments.
      Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
      The House divided: Ayes 307, Noes 113.

      Division No. 5]

      [7:26 pm

      AYES

      Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

      Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

      Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

      Dalyell, Tam

      Alexander, Douglas

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      Allen, Graham

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Anderson, rh Donald (Swansea E)

      David, Wayne

      Atherton, Ms Candy

      Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Bailey, Adrian

      Dawson, Hilton

      Baker, Norman

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Barnes, Harry

      Denham, rh John

      Barrett, John

      Dhanda, Parmjit

      Barron, rh Kevin

      Dismore, Andrew

      Battle, John

      Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

      Bayley, Hugh

      Dobson, rh Frank

      Beckett, rh Margaret

      Donohoe, Brian H.

      Begg, Miss Anne

      Doran, Frank

      Bennett, Andrew

      Doughty, Sue

      Benton, Joe (Bootle)

      Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

      Berry, Roger

      Drew, David (Stroud)

      Best, Harold

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      Betts, Clive

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Blackman, Liz

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Edwards, Huw

      Blizzard, Bob

      Efford, Clive

      Borrow, David

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

      Farrelly, Paul

      Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E Wallsend)

      Flint, Caroline

      Flynn, Paul (Newport W)

      Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

      Follett, Barbara

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Foster, rh Derek

      Burden, Richard

      Foster, Michael (Worcester)

      Burnham, Andy

      Foulkes, rh George

      Calton, Mrs Patsy

      Gapes, Mike (Ilford S)

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Gardiner, Barry

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      George, Andrew (St. Ives)

      Campbell, rh Menzies (NE Fife)

      Gerrard, Neil

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Gibson, Dr. Ian

      Caplin, Ivor

      Gidley, Sandra

      Casale, Roger

      Gilroy, Linda

      Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

      Godsiff, Roger

      Challen, Colin

      Goggins, Paul

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

      Chaytor, David

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      Chidgey, David

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Clapham, Michael

      Grogan, John

      Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

      Hain, rh Peter

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      Clarke, rh Charles (Norwich S)

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

      Clelland, David

      Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

      Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

      Hancock, Mike

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Hanson, David

      Cohen, Harry

      Harris, Dr. Evan (Oxford W & Abingdon)

      Coleman, Iain

      Connarty, Michael

      Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Harvey, Nick

      Cooper, Yvette

      Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil & Rhymney)

      Cotter, Brian

      Cousins, Jim

      Healey, John

      Crausby, David

      Heath, David

      Cruddas, Jon

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Hendrick, Mark

      Cummings, John

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

      Heppell, John

      843

      Hermon, Lady

      Mole, Chris

      Hill, Keith (Streatham)

      Moonie, Dr. Lewis

      Hodge, Margaret

      Morley, Elliot

      Holmes, Paul

      Mudie, George

      Hope, Phil (Corby)

      Mullin, Chris

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N & Sefton E)

      Munn, Ms Meg

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Hoyle, Lindsay

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Hughes, Beverley (Stretford & Urmsdon)

      Norris, Dan (Wansdyke)

      Oaten, Mark (Winchester)

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      O'Hara, Edward

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Olner, Bill

      Iddon, Dr. Brian

      O'Neill, Martin

      Illsley, Eric

      Organ, Diana

      Ingram, rh Adam

      Palmer, Dr. Nick

      Irranca-Davies, Huw

      Perham, Linda

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Picking, Anne

      Jamieson, David

      Pickthall, Colin

      Jenkins, Brian

      Plaskitt, James

      Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

      Pollard, Kerry

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

      Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

      Pope, Greg (Hyndburn)

      Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Pound, Stephen

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

      Kaufman, rh Gerald

      Prescott, rh John

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Price, Adam (E Carmarthen & Dinefwr)

      Keen, Alan (Feltham)

      Keen, Ann (Brentford)

      Primarolo, rh Dawn

      Keetch, Paul

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Khabra, Piara S.

      Purchase, Ken

      Kidney, David

      Quin, rh Joyce

      King, Andy (Rugby)

      Quinn, Lawrie

      King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green & Bow)

      Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

      Raynsford, rh Nick

      Kirkwood, Sir Archy

      Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

      Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

      Rendel, David

      Kumar, Dr. Ashok

      Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

      Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

      Lamb, Norman

      Rooney, Terry

      Laws, David (Yeovil)

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Lazarowicz, Mark

      Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

      Lepper, David

      Ruane, Chris

      Leslie, Christopher

      Ruddock, Joan

      Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

      Russell, Ms Christine (City of Chester)

      Linton, Martin

      Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

      Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

      Love, Andrew

      Salter, Martin

      Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

      Sanders, Adrian

      Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)

      Savidge, Malcolm

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Sawford, Phil

      McCabe, Stephen

      Sedgemore, Brian

      McCafferty, Chris

      Sheerman, Barry

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Sheridan, Jim

      MacDonald, Calum

      Simon, Siôn (B'ham Erdington)

      McDonnell, John

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Singh, Marsha

      McIsaac, Shona

      Skinner, Dennis

      McKechin, Ann

      Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

      McNulty, Tony

      McWalter, Tony

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      McWilliam, John

      Smith, John (Glamorgan)

      Mahmood, Khalid

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Mallaber, Judy

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

      Mandelson, rh Peter

      Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

      Southworth, Helen

      Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

      Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Marshall, David (Glasgow Shettleston)

      Stevenson, George

      Stewart, David (Inverness E & Lochaber)

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Marshall-Andrews, Robert

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      Martlew, Eric

      Strang, rh Dr. Gavin

      Merron, Gillian

      Straw, rh Jack

      Moffatt, Laura

      Stringer, Graham

      844

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      Ward, Claire

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Wareing, Robert N.

      Tami, Mark (Alyn)

      Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

      Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

      Watts, David

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      White, Brian

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Whitehead, Dr. Alan

      Teather, Sarah

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

      Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)

      Tipping, Paddy

      Williams, Betty (Conwy)

      Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

      Williams, Roger (Brecon)

      Tonge, Dr. Jenny

      Willis, Phil

      Touhig, Don (Islwyn)

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

      Truswell, Paul

      Wood, Mike (Batley)

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Woodward, Shaun

      Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton Kemptown)

      Woolas, Phil

      Worthington, Tony

      Turner, Neil (Wigan)

      Wright, David (Telford)

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Wyatt, Derek

      Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

      Vaz, Keith (Leicester E)

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Vis, Dr. Rudi

      Vernon Coaker and

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Mr. Nick Ainger

      NOES

      Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

      Hogg, rh Douglas

      Arbuthnot, rh James

      Horam, John (Orpington)

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Jack, rh Michael

      Bacon, Richard

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Barker, Gregory

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Baron, John (Billericay)

      Johnson, Boris (Henley)

      Bellingham, Henry

      Key, Robert (Salisbury)

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Boswell, Tim

      Letwin, rh Oliver

      Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

      Liddell-Grainger, Ian

      Bottomley, rh Virginia (SW Surrey)

      Lidington, David

      Lilley, rh Peter

      Brady, Graham

      Loughton, Tim

      Brazier, Julian

      Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

      Burns, Simon

      McIntosh, Miss Anne

      Burt, Alistair

      Maclean, rh David

      Butterfill, John

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Cameron, David

      Malins, Humfrey

      Cash, William

      Maples, John

      Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

      Mawhinney, rh Sir Brian

      Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

      Chope, Christopher

      Clappison, James

      Moss, Malcolm

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Murrison, Dr. Andrew

      Collins, Tim

      Norman, Archie

      Curry, rh David

      O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

      Davies, Quentin (Grantham & Stamford)

      Osborne, George (Tatton)

      Ottaway, Richard

      Djanogly, Jonathan

      Page, Richard

      Duncan, Alan (Rutland)

      Paice, James

      Evans, Nigel

      Paterson, Owen

      Fabricant, Michael

      Pickles, Eric

      Fallen, Michael

      Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

      Flook, Adrian

      Robathan, Andrew

      Francois, Mark

      Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

      Gale, Roger (N Thanet)

      Robinson, Mrs Iris (Strangford)

      Garnier, Edward

      Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

      Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis)

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

      Rosindell, Andrew

      Goodman, Paul

      Ruffley, David

      Gray, James (N Wilts)

      Selous, Andrew

      Grayling, Chris

      Shephard, rh Mrs Gillian

      Green, Damian (Ashford)

      Shepherd, Richard

      Gummer, rh John

      Simmonds, Mark

      Hague, rh William

      Spelman, Mrs Caroline

      Hammond, Philip

      Spicer, Sir Michael

      Hawkins, Nick

      Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

      Hayes, John (S Holland)

      Spring, Richard

      Heald, Oliver

      Stanley, rh Sir John

      Heathcoat-Amory, rh David

      Swire, Hugo (E Devon)

      Hoban, Mark (Fareham)

      Syms, Robert

      845

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Wiggin, Bill

      Taylor, John (Solihull)

      Wilkinson, John

      Taylor, Sir Teddy

      Willetts, David

      Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

      Wilshire, David

      Tyrie, Andrew

      Yeo, Tim (S Suffolk)

      Walter, Robert

      Waterson, Nigel

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Watkinson, Angela

      Hugh Robertson and

      Whittingdale, John

      Mr. Mark Field

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New Clause 2

      PLANNING CONTRIBUTION: REGULATIONS
      (1) This section applies for the purpose of regulations made under section (Planning contribution).
      (2) Maximum and minimum amounts may be prescribed in relation to a payment falling within section (Planning contribution) (5) (a).
      (3) Provision may be made to enable periodic adjustment of the criteria mentioned in section (Planning contribution) (3) (d).
      (4) The local planning authority may be required to publish an annual report containing such information in relation to the planning contribution as is prescribed.
      (5) If a document is prescribed for the purposes of section (Planning contribution) (3) the regulations may prescribe—

      (a) the procedure for its preparation and the time at which it must be published:

      (b) the circumstances in which and the procedure by which the Secretary of State may take steps in relation to the preparation of the document.

      (6) Provision may be made for the enforcement by the local planning authority of the terms of a planning contribution including provision—

      (a) for a person deriving, title to the land from the contributor to be bound by the terms of the contribution;

      (b) for a condition to be attached to any planning permission relating to the land requiring the contribution to be made before any development is started;

      for the enforcement of a planning contribution in respect of land which is Crown land within the meaning of section 293(1) of the principal Act.

      (7) The regulations may—

      (a) require the local planning authority to apply receipts from planning contributions made by the prescribed means only to purposes mentioned in section (Planning contribution) (3) (c);

      (b) make provision for setting out in writing the terms of the planning contribution;

      (c) make provision in relation to the modification or discharge of a planning contribution.

      (8) The regulations may—

      (a) make different provision in relation to the areas of different local planning authorities or different descriptions of local planning authority;

      (b) exclude their application (in whole or in part) in relation to the area of one or more local planning authorities or descriptions of local planning authority.'. —[Paul Clark.]

      Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New Clause 3

      PLANNING CONTRIBUTION: WALES,
      In relation to land in Wales, sections (Planning contribution) and (Planning contribution: regulations) apply subject to the following modifications —

      (a) references to the Secretary of State must be construed as references to the National Assembly for Wales;

      (b) the reference to a development plan document must be construed as a reference to a local development plan (within the meaning of section 57).'— [Paul Clark.]

      Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New Clause 4

      COMPENSATION: ADVANCE PAYMENTS TO MORTGAGEES
      '(1) The Land Compensation Act 1973 is amended as follows.
      (2) In section 52 (right to advance payment of compensation)—

      (a) after subsection (1) there are inserted the following subsections—

      (1A) If the acquiring authority have taken possession of part of the land—

      (a) specified in a notice of entry, or

      (b) in respect of which a payment into court has been made,

      the compensation mentioned in subsection (1) is the compensation payable for the compulsory acquisition of the interest in the whole of the land.
      (1B) Notice of entry and payment into court must be construed in accordance with section 5A of the Land Compensation Act 1961.",

      (b) for subsection (6) there is substituted the following subsection—

      "(6) If the land is subject to a mortgage sections 52ZA and 52ZB apply."
      (3) After section 52 of that Act there are inserted the following sections—
      52ZA Advance payments: land subject to mortgage
      (1) This section applies if—

      (a) an acquiring authority take possession of land,

      (b) a request is made in accordance with section 52(2) for an advance payment, and

      (c) the land is subject to a mortgage the principal of which does not exceed 90 per cent of the relevant amount.

      (2) The advance payment made to the claimant must be reduced by the amount the acquiring authority think will be required by them to secure the release of the interest of the mortgagee (or all the mortgagees if there is more than one).
      (3) The acquiring authority must pay to the mortgagee the amount the acquiring authority think will be required by them to secure the release of the mortgagee's interest, if—

      (a) the claimant so requests, and

      (b) the mortgagee consents to the making of the payment.

      (4) If there is more than one mortgagee—

      (a) subsection (3) applies to each mortgagee individually, but

      (b) payment must not be made to a mortgagee before the interest of each mortgagee whose interest has priority to his interest is released.

      (5) The amount of the advance payment made to the claimant under section 52 and the amount of the payments made to mortgagees under this section must not in aggregate exceed 90 per cent of the relevant amount.
      (6) Subsection (7) applies if—

      (a) the acquiring authority estimated the compensation,

      (b) it appears to the acquiring authority that their estimate was too low and they revise the estimate, and

      (c) a request is made by the claimant in accordance with section 52(2).

      (7) The provisions of subsections (2) to (5) must be re-applied on the basis of the revised estimate.
      52ZB Advance payments: land subject to mortgage exceeding 90% threshold
      (1) This section applies if—

      (a) an acquiring authority take possession of land,

      (b) a request is made in accordance with section 52(2) for an advance payment, and

      (c) the land is subject to a mortgage the principal of which exceeds 90 per cent of the relevant amount.

      (2) No advance payment is to be made to the claimant.
      (3) But the acquiring authority must pay to the mortgagee the amount found under subsection (4), if—

      (a) the claimant so requests; and

      (b) the mortgagee consents to the making of the payment.

      (4) The amount is whichever is the lesser of—

      (a) 90% of the value of the land;

      (b) the principal of the mortgagee's mortgage.

      (5) The value of the land is the value—

      (a) agreed by the claimant and the acquiring authority, or (failing such agreement)

      (b) estimated by the acquiring authority.

      (6) For the purposes of subsection (5) the value of the land is to be calculated in accordance with rule 2 of section 5 of the Land Compensation Act 1961 (market value), whether or not compensation is or is likely to be assessed in due course in accordance with rule 5 of that section (equivalent re-instatement).
      (7) If there is more than one mortgagee, payment must not be made to a mortgagee until the interest of each mortgagee whose interest has priority to his interest is released.
      (8) But the total payments under subsection (3) must not in any event exceed 90% of the value of the land.
      (9) Subsection (10) applies if—

      (a) the acquiring authority estimated the compensation,

      (b) it appears to the acquiring authority that their estimate was too low and they revise the estimate,

      (c) the condition in section 52ZA(1) (b) would have been satisfied if the revised estimate had been used instead of their estimate, and

      (d) a request is made by the claimant in accordance with section 52(2).

      (10) The provisions of section 52ZA(2) to (5) must be applied on the basis of the revised estimate.
      (11) If—

      (a) the acquiring authority estimated the value of the land,

      (b) it appears to the acquiring authority that their estimate was too low and they revise the estimate, and

      (c) a request is made by the claimant in writing,

      any balance found to be due to a mortgagee on the basis of the revised estimate is payable in accordance with this section.
      52ZC Land subject to mortgage: supplementary
      (1) This section applies for the purposes of sections 52ZA and 52ZB.
      (2) The claimant must provide the acquiring authority with such information as they may require to enable them to give effect to those sections.
      (3) A request under section 52ZA(3) or 52ZB(3) must be made in writing and must be accompanied by the written consent of the mortgagee.
      (4) (Subsections (4) and (8) to (9) of section 52 apply to a payment which may be or is made under section 52ZA or 52ZB as they apply to a payment which may be or is made under section 52.
      (5) The relevant amount is the amount of the compensation agreed or estimated as mentioned in section 52(3).
      (6) If the land is subject to more than one mortgage, the reference in sections 52ZA(1) (c) and 52ZB(1) (c) to the principal is to the aggregate of the principals of all of the mortgagees.
      (7) A payment made to a mortgagee under section 52ZA or 52ZB—

      (a) must be applied by the mortgagee in or towards the discharge of the principal, interest and costs and any other money due under the mortgage;

      (b) must be taken to be a payment on account of compensation and treated for the purposes of section 52(10) as if it were an advance payment made under section 52;

      (c) must be taken, with effect from the date of the payment, to reduce by the amount of the payment the amount in respect of which interest accrues for the purposes of section 11(1) of the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965, any bond under Schedule 3 to that Act or section 85 of the Lands Clauses Compensation Act 1845;

      (d) must be taken into account for the purposes of determining any payments (or payments into court) which may be made for the purposes of sections 14 to 16 of the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965.

      (8) If the amount, or aggregate amount, of any payments under—

      (a) sections 52 and 522A, or

      (b) section 52ZB,

      on the basis of the acquiring authority's estimate of the compensation exceed the compensation as finally determined or agreed, the excess must be repaid by the claimant.
      (9) No payment must be made to a mortgagee—

      (a) if any of the circumstances mentioned in subsection (10) applies, or

      (b) if the compulsory acquisition is only of a right over land.

      (10) The circumstances are—

      (a) payment has been made under section 14(2) of the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965;

      (b) a notice under section 14(3) of that Act has been given;

      (c) there is an agreement under section 15(1) or 16(1) of that Act or the matter has been referred to the Lands Tribunal under that section.

      (11) The claimant in relation to settled land for the purposes of the Settled Land Act 1925 is the persons entitled to give a discharge for capital money."
      (4) In section 52A (right to interest where advance payment made) for subsection (2) there is substituted—
      "(2) If the authority make a payment under section 52(1) to any person on account of the compensation—

      (a) they must at the same time make a payment to that person of accrued interest, for the period beginning with the date of entry, on the amount of the compensation agreed or estimated under section 52(3) (the total amount), and

      (b) the difference between the paid amount and the total amount is an unpaid balance for the purposes of this section.

      (2A) The paid amount is—

      (a) the amount of the payment under section 52(1), or

      (b) if the land is subject to a mortgage, the aggregate of that amount and the amount of any payment made under section 52ZA(3).".'.—[Yvette Cooper.]

      Brought up, and read the First time.
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Yvette Cooper): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      New clause 4 deals with a proposal that we were keen to introduce in the Bill, but for reasons of complexity we were unable to get a complete draft of it in time for our deliberations in Committee. We have, however, circulated the details to members of the Committee, and to the Council of Mortgage Lenders and others, to ensure wide consultation.
      The new clause deals with situations where property is subject to compulsory purchase order, where agreement has not been reached about the final level of compensation, and where the owner has moved out but has a mortgage on the property. Currently, it is possible for advance payments of compensation to be considered and given. Acquiring authorities can pay up to 90 per cent. of the value of the compensation that they have proposed. However, if the owner has a mortgage, the situation becomes more complicated. The acquiring authority then has to withhold the amount that it estimates will be needed to pay off the mortgage. If the mortgage is still worth more than 90 per cent. of the estimated compensation, the acquiring authority cannot pay out anything at all. That is to protect acquiring authorities against having to pay out twice.
      If the owner does not use the cash from the advance payments to pay off the mortgage, and then disappears, the acquiring authority may still have to pay off the mortgage in order to get the property. The trouble is that the consequence of such protection is that property owners can find themselves removed from their home and still paying the mortgage—including the interest—until the matter is finally resolved. If the case has to go to the Lands Tribunal, it takes time. In the meantime, such people will probably need to pay new accommodation costs as well.
      New clause 4 aims to address those problems. It allows the advance compensation to continue to be withheld from the mortgage holder, but to be paid instead to the mortgage lender. The payments can go directly to the mortgage lender, and in many cases will pay off the mortgage entirely. Where they do not, they will still reduce the debt on which the owner has to pay interest. The new clause still distinguishes between cases where the outstanding mortgage is less than 90 per cent. of the estimated compensation, and those where it is more.
      In cases where the mortgage is less than 90 per cent. of the value of the compensation, the acquiring authority can still pay advance compensation of 90 per cent. of the value of the compensation in total, divided between the mortgage lender and the mortgage holder accordingly, but where the mortgage is worth more than 90 per cent. of the value of the compensation, the acquiring authority will need to pay out 90 per cent. of the value of the land to the mortgage lender. There is a reason for this. Where the mortgage is very high in
      850
      relation to the value of the compensation, other factors may need to be considered in resolving the final amount of the compensation to be paid to different parties. For example, if there is negative equity, section 15(1) of the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965 provides for the balance of what is to be paid to the mortgage holder and the lender to be determined, if necessary, by the Lands Tribunal, if it cannot be determined through agreement. We are not changing these provisions, so it is important that the advance compensation payments do not prejudge that process.
      7.45 pm
      I turn briefly to the detail of the new clause. Subsection (3)—the important part—inserts new sections 52ZA, B and C. The purpose of new section 52ZA is to deal with cases where the mortgage principal does not exceed 90 per cent. of the estimated total compensation due to the claimant. Subsection (2) requires the acquiring authority to reduce the advance payment to the claimant by the amount that it thinks will be required to secure the release of the mortgagee's interest. Subsection (3) requires the authority to pay that amount to the mortgagee if the claimant so requests, and if the mortgagee consents.
      New section 52ZB applies where the land is subject to a mortgage and the principal exceeds 90 per cent. of the total. Under those circumstances, subsection (2) specifies that no payment is to be made to the claimant. Subsection (3) requires the authority to make an advance payment to the mortgagee if the claimant so requests and the mortgagee consents. Subsection (8) specifies that the total amount paid out to mortgagees must not exceed 90 per cent. of the value of the land.
      New section 52ZC includes other provisions, such as a requirement for the claimant to provide such information as the acquiring authority may need to deal with a request for an advance payment to a mortgagee.
      These proposals command widespread support, certainly from those whom we have consulted. This is a sensible measure that simply allows us to deal with the current unfairness and the difficult situation in which mortgage holders whose property is subject to compulsory purchase orders find themselves. I therefore commend the new clause to the House.
      Mr. Clifton-Brown: This matter arose during the proceedings of the second Standing Committee. The right hon. Member for Streatham (Keith Hill) said that this clause would be introduced, and the Opposition welcome it. Where land is subject to a mortgage, whether it is above or below the 90 per cent. level, it is sensible that provision be made so that advance compensation of up to 90 per cent., depending on the circumstances, can be paid to the mortgagee or lender. Such a provision is eminently sensible and should be applauded. We also welcome new section 52ZC and the other measures. Provision should of course be made so that somebody who has information must provide it, be it the lender or the mortgagor. That way, we can see exactly what the situation is.
      There is one matter on which I am not clear, however, and perhaps the Minister would like to say a little about it. Where the mortgage is less than 90 per cent. of the value and the mortgagee and mortgagor cannot reach

      851
      agreement, who will arbitrate and decide where payment should be made to? Of course, that point also applies to cases involving negative equity. In such cases, both the mortgagee and mortgagor will suffer. Who will decide who is to suffer in what proportion? It would be helpful if the Minister could say something about the existing conciliation or appeal mechanisms in respect of these provisions. That said, this highly technical new clause is widely welcomed by the industry, and by the Opposition.
      Matthew Green: I rise briefly to add our support to the new clause. The Government are clearly right to introduce changes in respect of land to which a mortgage is attached. However, the new clause does not entirely deal with the issue of negative equity, and some concerns remain.
      Clearly that could cause considerable financial distress to the people concerned, so we should like to see further action on that. However, in so far as it goes, the new clause is welcome.
      Yvette Cooper: I welcome the support given by hon. Members to the proposal. The hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) made two points. The first concerned what happens when the mortgage is less than 90 per cent. and agreement cannot be reached. That is exactly the type of case we are talking about: where a matter may have to go to the Lands Tribunal, agreement has not yet been reached or overall compensation is being withheld. Those are the circumstances in which advance payment should be made.
      If the mortgagee does not consent to receive the money, there will he no advance payment. Advance payments can be made to the lender only if the lender and the holder agree that that should be the case. In many cases, that will be in the interests of the lender and the holder, so one would expect them to agree to the advance payments unless there were some special circumstances that required complex arrangements. Paying the advance payments to the lender requires the consent of both parties.
      The second question was what happens when there is negative equity. There are arrangements under the 1965 Act that provide that the overall amount of compensation to be paid to different parties should be agreed between the lender, the holder and the acquiring authority. We are not proposing to change the current procedures. The only important matter in terms of changing the advance payment arrangements is that we do not prejudge the process under the 1965 Act of resolving the final amount of compensation and who should receive it.
      Where there is a dispute about how much should be paid between the lender, the holder and the acquiring authority in a case where there is negative equity, the matter can go to the Lands Tribunal. The only additional relevance to the advance payment arrangements is that the amount paid out in advance to the mortgage lender will be restricted to 90 per cent. of the value of the land, rather than 90 per cent. of the value of the compensation, to ensure that we do not prejudge the final decision of the Lands Tribunal or the final negotiation and agreement between the different parties about the total value of the compensation and who should be paid.
      852
      The advance payment arrangements do not change the position in terms of negative equity: they recognise that this is a complex matter and try not to amend the arrangements. These are sensible proposals and will be in the interests of mortgage lenders and of holders who are in this situation.
      Mr. Clifton-Brown: Does the decision to refer the case to the Lands Tribunal apply to the 90 per cent. advance payment as well as to the eventual payment, in circumstances where there is negative equity, or are we talking only about the eventual payment and the split between the mortgagee and mortgagor?
      Yvette Cooper: Where the mortgage is worth more than 90 per cent. of the value of the compensation, only 90 per cent. of the value of the land can be paid to the mortgage lender; no money can be paid to the mortgage holder under those circumstances. The Compulsory Purchase Act 1965 applies to all circumstances in which the value of the mortgaged land is less than the principal, interest and costs secured on the land. Under those circumstances, the compensation payable is to be settled by agreement between the mortgagee, the mortgagor and the acquiring authority. Failing such agreement, the amount payable by the acquiring authority is to be determined by the Lands Tribunal. The tribunal should not he involved at the earlier stage in determining whether the value of the mortgage is greater or less than the 90 per cent. figure; that should be decided by the acquiring authority. The Lands Tribunal's role is to decide on the eventual payment if the parties concerned cannot reach agreement.
      I hope that that clarifies all the points raised, and I commend the new clause to the House.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New Clause 5

      TREE PRESERVATION ORDERS: FORESTRY COMMISSIONERS
      'For section 200 of the principal Act (Orders affecting land where Forestry Commissioner; interested) there is substituted the following section—
      "200 Tree preservation orders: Forestry Commissioners
      (1) A tree preservation order does not have effect in respect of anything done—

      (a) by or on behalf of the Forestry Commissioners on land placed at their disposal in pursuance of the Forestry Act 1967 or otherwise under their management or supervision;

      (b) by or on behalf of any other person in accordance with a plan of operations or other working plan approved by the Forestry Commissioners under a forestry dedication covenant (within the meaning of section 5 of that Act) which is for the time being in force or under conditions of a grant or loan made under section 1 of the Forestry Act 1979.

      (2) A reference to a provision of the Forestry Act 1967 or the Forestry Act 1979 includes a reference to a corresponding provision replaced by that provision or any earlier corresponding provision.".'. —[Keith Hill]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Keith Hill: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to deal with the following: Government new clause 21—Tree preservation orders: Scotland.

      853
      Government amendments Nos. 1 to 7, 25, 61 to 65, 8, 66 to 71, 10 to 12 and 74.
      Keith Hill: This very large group of two new clauses and 26 other amendments contains Government amendments to the Crown application provisions in part 7 of the Bill, together with some other associated changes. They could all be classified as fairly small-scale improvements and as tidying-up, but some will require more explanation than others.
      With your permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall endeavour to present my remarks topic by topic so that the House can keep track of what is going on. I hope that all hon. Members will bear with me in what will inevitably be a detailed exposition.
      New clause 5—together with new clause 21 and amendments Nos. 25 and 69—is about tree preservation and the Forestry Commissioners. In Committee, the Government tabled an amendment to section 200 of the principal Act that dealt with the effect of tree preservation orders on land in which the Forestry Commission has an interest.
      Given that the Crown will no longer be immune from planning controls, we included a provision in the Bill to ensure that the tree work carried out by the Forestry Commission in line with its statutory duties would not become subject to the controls of tree preservation orders. This would place the Forestry Commission in more or less the same position as private landowners, whose tree work is also unaffected by tree preservation orders when carried out in accordance with a management plan approved by the commission.
      The Government have looked again at the detail of section 200, as amended by clause 80, which, at subsection (1), also prevents local authorities from making tree preservation orders without first obtaining the commission's consent. Following consultation with the commission, we believe that this general restriction is unnecessary.
      New Clause 5 removes the requirement on local authorities to obtain the Forestry Commission's agreement before making tree preservation orders on land that has been placed at the commission's disposal, or on privately owned land that is subject to a management scheme approved by the commission.
      Mr. Clifton-Brown: Will local authorities still be able to make tree preservation orders on Forestry Commission land, or does the new clause effectively preclude that possibility?
      8 pm
      Keith Hill: I hope to come on to that in the course of my exposition. One never knows—inspiration may wing its way to me. Indeed, I believe that my next point may be germane to the hon. Gentleman's inquiry.
      In effect, local planning authorities will be free to make tree preservation orders wherever they believe it is in the interests of amenity to do so, both on Crown land and private land. I should emphasise that no order could in any way interfere with the tree work carried out by the Forestry Commission or by private individuals under commission-approved schemes such as the woodland
      854
      grant scheme. The new clause makes that absolutely clear. But an order might serve a useful and immediate purpose in cases where the commission's interest in the land comes to an end.
      Amendment No. 25 deletes clause 80, which new clause 5 will replace. New clause 21 makes the same change to the equivalent section of the principal Scottish planning Act, the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997. Amendment No. 69 deletes clause 90, which new clause 21 will replace.
      I now turn to the details of the appointment of special advocates when applications are subject to directions concerning national security. These are covered by amendments Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 61. I intend to speak mainly to amendment No. 1, the lead amendment of this sub-group. The amendment is in two parts, the first of which deletes new section 321(6) of the principal Act, the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, the original provision which was modelled closely on the requirements of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission procedure.
      In light of the concerns raised in Committee by the hon. Gentleman, who quoted representations from the Law Society, and the hon. Members for Ludlow (Matthew Green) and for Chipping Barnet (Sir Sydney Chapman), that the provisions were unduly restrictive, we have reconsidered this issue as I promised. We accept that competent planning specialists who have the appropriate experience and skills could carry out the function of a special advocate just as effectively as legally qualified representatives. Moreover, the Attorney-General will have responsibility for those appointments, which includes ensuring that special advocates have the necessary skills to do the job. We expect to set up a panel of suitably qualified and vetted people from which the Attorney-General can choose. That is yet another example of a listening Government responding to sensible representations.
      The second part of amendment No. 1 inserts a new subsection (6) into section 321 of the principal Act. That allows the Attorney-General to appoint a special advocate for the purposes of the planning inquiry after a section 321 direction has been made. That is in contrast to the situation envisaged in new subsection (5), where the special advocate is appointed before a decision is made and can make representations as to whether a direction should be made. The new provision adds flexibility where, for example, all the parties agree that a direction should be made. The Secretary of State can therefore make the direction without waiting for a special advocate to be appointed.
      Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 make parallel changes to the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 and the Planning (Hazardous Substances) Act 1990. Amendment No. 61 makes an equivalent change to the Scottish provisions in clause 86 on the appointment of special advocates.
      Amendments Nos. 4, 5, 62 and 63 deal with the way in which various requirements of the urgency procedure are prescribed. Amendments Nos. 4 and 5 make technical amendments to new section 293A in clause 77. At present, various requirements for publicising urgent Crown applications and the associated documents, and for specifying statutory consultees, are to be prescribed. Without any further qualification, "prescribed" means prescribed by regulations, as specified in section 336(1)

      855
      of the principal Act. We think that the correct place for specifying those requirements is in the general development procedure order, which specifies the requirements for publicising ordinary planning applications. The amendments will therefore enable the Secretary of State to specify the requirements in the most appropriate subordinate legislation. Amendments Nos. 62 and 63 make equivalent changes to the relevant Scottish provisions in the Bill.
      Amendments Nos. 6, 7, 64 and 65 deal with preventing disclosure of sensitive documents in cases subject to the urgent application procedure. Amendment No. 6 makes it clear that the Secretary of State will not be required to disclose documents relating to planning applications that are the subject of national security directions made under section 321(3) of the principal Act. It would be nonsensical to put into the public domain, under the urgency provisions, documents that are highly sensitive and cannot be disclosed at a public inquiry. Amendment No. 7 makes similar provision for the listed buildings provisions. Amendments Nos. 64 and 65 make equivalent amendments to the relevant Scottish provisions in clauses 87 and 88. The amendments remove a conflict in the legislation, and I commend them to the House.
      I turn now to some minor drafting amendments, Nos. 8, 10, 11 and 12. Amendments Nos. 8 and 12 amend cross-references that were rendered incorrect by printing changes to the numbers of the new sections to which they refer. Amendments Nos. 10 and 11 correct a grammatical error by removing the superfluous word "means" from the relevant definitions of "appropriate authority" in the listed buildings provisions.
      I now turn to some Scottish provisions on enforcement: amendments Nos. 66, 67 and 68. They introduce provisions that will supplement and clarify the enforcement mechanisms available against the Crown. Under each of the three main Scottish planning Acts, the planning authority will be able to apply to the Court of Session for an order declaring an act or omission of the Crown to be unlawful. The inclusion of such a provision is common in Scottish legislation, which exempts the Crown from criminal liability for contravention of statute. Its effect is that, although the Crown will be immune from criminal liability, the planning authority will none the less, in an appropriate case, be able to seek a court order to declare that any contravention is unlawful.
      Amendments Nos. 70 and 71 make minor changes for Scotland, simply ensuring that provisions for the procedures for making statutory instruments appear in one clause rather than two. Amendments Nos. 74 and 78 correct an omission from the existing redundant provisions of the principal Scottish planning Act repealed by the Bill. The repealed provision in question relates to agreements relating to Crown land. A saving provision is not required to preserve the legal effect of such agreements.
      Mr. Clifton-Brown: Although the wording and tidiness of new clause 5 are better than what is in the Bill, if the Bill had not been rushed through Committee, we might have improved it to the extent that new clause 5 would have been unnecessary. Having said that, it obviously makes a great deal of sense to remove Crown immunity from the Forestry Commission.
      856
      I am still slightly concerned that local authorities' role in making tree preservation orders on commission land will be quite impossible, but perhaps the Minister will be able to reassure me on that. Of course, similar provisions apply in Scotland.
      On the whole, the commission manages its land pretty responsibly. When I have been involved in woodland grant schemes, among other things, on my own land, those have been administered properly. I would not normally see a need for tree preservation orders in those circumstances. How many orders have ever been placed on commission land? I imagine that there have been very few.
      I am delighted to see amendments Nos. 1 and 2 because, as the Minister points out, Opposition Members made a strong case for them. I made a strong case from my experience: having worked for the Property Services Agency and having been subject to the Official Secrets Act, I can see no reason why properly qualified surveyors should not be able to make just as good a case as a legal advocate in cases involving national security. Can the Minister say a little more about how this panel of qualified and suitable people will work? Will they, for instance, have to have signed the Official Secrets Act? That would seem to me to be a fairly good prerequisite. Clearly, in planning matters, it is important that there are no leaks of plans and so on. I therefore welcome amendments Nos. 6 and 7, which, as the Minister says, stop confidential plans being leaked inadvertently into the public domain. I also welcome the similar provisions in Scotland.
      On provisions in Scotland, can the Minister say a little about amendments Nos. 66 and 67? I understand that the Crown cannot be liable for criminal prosecutions in Scotland, but he said that an order may be sought that something done by or on behalf of the Crown was unlawful, and that a certificate can be obtained in those circumstances. If such a certificate were obtained, what sanctions would exist against that person acting on behalf of the Crown?
      I welcome amendments Nos. 70 and 71. Clearly, any simplification of the Bill must be desirable, so one statutory instrument to deal with two clauses rather than two separate statutory instruments must be good. Again, the tidying-up amendments Nos. 10 and 11, which remove the superfluous word "means", are clearly sensible.
      With the exception of the national security amendments dealing with persons who can appear at planning inquiries, and the new clause on tree preservation orders, the amendments are largely of a technical and drafting nature. The Opposition welcome the new clauses and amendments in this group, and we will not seek to oppose the Government on this occasion.
      Matthew Green: We, too, welcome both the new clauses and the amendments, particularly amendments Nos. 1 and 2, which, as the hon. Gentleman said, are in response to a point that several members of the Committee raised. I am glad that the Government have listened to that and that they have made it clear that it is not just legally qualified people who can be positively vetted—that is the simplest way of putting it. That is a

      857
      welcome step forward. The other amendments provide clarification in a number of ways, particularly on the issue of documents that could have an effect on national security being forced into the open by the Bill, which none of us would want. In that respect, we support amendment No. 7 in particular. I do not wish to detain the House further. Likewise, we will not oppose the Government on these matters.
      Keith Hill: I am grateful to both hon. Gentlemen for their support on behalf of their parties for the amendments, which I am pleased to acknowledge that they played an extremely helpful part in securing.
      The hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) asked two rather precise quest ions. He asked how many tree preservation orders had been placed on the Forestry Commission. I must confess that I do not have that information at my fingertips, but of course I shall undertake to write to him on that. In connection with amendments Nos. 66 and 67, which concern an application by a planning authority in Scotland to the Court of Session, declaring an act or omission of the Crown to be unlawful, he asked what sanctions were available in those circumstances. There are no extra sanctions, but the provisions give the local authority leverage in getting the Crown to comply, which is their purpose.
      The hon. Gentleman also asked about the proposed panel. Of course, matters in general relating to the panel are for the Attorney-General but he asked specifically whether members of the proposed panel will have had to sign the Official Secrets Act, to which the answer is yes.
      Finally, the hon. Gentleman asked for reassurance about the rights of local authorities to make tree preservation orders. Let me say, as I said earlier, that local planning authorities will in effect be free to make tree preservation orders wherever they believe that it is in the interests of amenity to do so, on both Crown land and private land. With those assurances, I hope that he will be content with the proposals.
      8.15 pm
      Mr. Clifton-Brown: The Minister will know that in discussions in Committee, the Crown takes many different guises. Sometimes it is land in the name of Her Majesty as well as land in the name of the Crown. Of course, the Crown immunity provisions discussed in Committee by and large treat both categories the same. Can I assume from what he has just said that the provisions in relation to tree preservation orders will treat both categories of land in the same way?
      Keith Hill: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for asking that question. I think that our general expectation is that the answer is yes, but we will have to look at the matter in more detail—as she is only too well aware, I do not support the theory of ministerial omniscience. I think that he almost answered his own question in that regard—we will check it out, I think that he is right, but I will write to him on that subject, too.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New Clause 21

      TREE PRESERVATION ORDERS: SCOTLAND
      'For section 162 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 (Orders affecting land where Forestry Commissioners interested) there is substituted the following section—
      "162 Tree preservation: Forestry Commissioners
      (1) A tree preservation order does not have effect in respect of anything done—

      (a) by or on behalf of the Forestry Commissioners on land placed at their disposal in pursuance of the Forestry Act 1967 or otherwise under their management or supervision:

      (b) by or on behalf of any other person in accordance with a plan of operations or other working plan approved by the Forestry Commissioners under a forestry dedication agreement (within the meaning of section 5 of that Act) which is for the time being in force or under conditions of a grant or loan made under section 1 of the Forestry Act 1979

      (2) A reference to a provision of the Forestry Act 1967 or the Forestry Act 1979 includes a reference to a corresponding provision replaced by that provision or any earlier corresponding provision.".'.—[Mr. Jim Murphy.]
      Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New Clause 7

      PLANNING PERMISSION FOR SUBDIVISION OF AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS FOR PURPOSE OF SALE
      'After section 57 of the principal Act (planning permission required for development) there is inserted the following section—
      "57A Planning permission for subdivision of agricultural holdings for purposes of sale
      (1) Planning permission is required for—

      (a) the subdivision of an agricultural holding for the purpose of sale; and

      (b) the sale of an agricultural holding which has been subdivided since the appointed date other than for the purpose of sale.

      (2) In this section—

      (a) 'subdivision' means land divided into one or more units of less than one hectare, and 'subdivided' shall be interpreted accordingly;

      (b) 'agricultural holding' has the same meaning as in the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986; and

      (c) 'the appointed date' means 1st July 1993.".'.—[Mr. Andrew Turner.]

      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Andrew Turner: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): With this it will be convenient to take new clause 18—Failure to comply with notice to ensure proper maintenance of Green Belt land—
      After section 219 (Execution and cost of works required by a 215 notice) of the principal Act there is inserted the following section—
      "Failure to comply with notice to ensure proper maintenance of Green Belt land
      (1) This section applies when a notice has been served under section 215 in respect of land which is designated as Green Belt land.

      859
      (2) If, within the period specified in a notice under section 215 in accordance with subsection (2) of that section, or within such extended period as the local planning authority who served the notice may allow, any steps required by the notice to be taken have not been taken, the local authority may acquire the land compulsorily.
      (3) Land which is compulsorily purchased under this section shall be made available for community use which is consistent with its Green Belt status.
      (4) In this section "Green Belt land" shall have the same meaning as in the Green Belt (London and Home Counties) Act 1938.".'.
      Mr. Turner: Members who attended the proceedings of the Committee will be familiar with my argument on this new clause, so I will not detain the House indefinitely on the subject. I want to start, however, by quoting what the Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, the hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), said at the end of the debate on what was then new clause 2 in Standing Committee A. I am glad to see her in her place, albeit with a cold, on which I sympathise with her. She undertook in Committee to write to the hon. Member for Ludlow (Matthew Green) on this clause but not more rapidly than on the subject of car boot sales, and I understand that she has written to him on the subject of car boot sales. She went on to say:
      "Hon. Members must recognise that to deal with the problem"—
      the problem with which my new clause seeks to deal—
      "we need a solution that will work. Many of the solutions that have been offered, albeit in good faith, could lead to other problems or have difficulties attached".—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 16 October 2003; c. 159.]
      She accepted that at the solution was provided in good faith, and I accept that it may lead to other problems, but that does not make it any less necessary that a solution be found to the problem of the division of agricultural land. As I said in Committee, that problem has arisen in my constituency and in those of my hon. Friends the Members for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) and for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous), and the hon. Member for Braintree (Mr. Hurst), as well as in many others.
      Agricultural land is a valuable asset, especially when it ceases to be agricultural. Many people find many ways of using agricultural land by avoiding the planning regulations and, in many cases, the planning process. Although ways have been found to address that, they have not been effective. Indeed, they have been slow and ponderous and have not given confidence to local people that the problem in their backyard or adjoining field—or, in my constituency, at a number of sites that have been widely advertised—will be remedied. I look forward to a remedy that will work.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere has previously brought the problem to the attention of the House and my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Richard Ottaway) has tabled a new clause that relates to greenfield land in particular. However, the mischief to which I refer takes place not only on greenfield land and areas of outstanding natural beauty, but in other parts of the country. One particular example in my constituency is Alverstone, where 10 acres of the east Yar flood plain have been split into 27 plots, ranging in size from 0.15 acres to 0.73 acres, and
      860
      advertised on the internet by a firm called Gladwish Land Sales. The site is important for nature conservation and within an area of outstanding natural beauty. It borders what the Environment Agency defines as a main river—Scotchells brook—and Alverstone Mead, a local nature reserve. It is a natural relict fen wetland area with peat-based soil, expanding reed beds and typical fauna, including water voles. One caravan has already been sited on a plot, without planning permission, and within 1 m of the brook bank, despite the lack of sewage disposal points, mains water supply or rubbish disposal. The public water supply intake is situated in the River Yar about 200 m away. That is a brief picture of one area in which the problem has arisen, but it is not the only area even in my constituency.
      In Committee, I said that Gladwish Land Sales advertised a wide range of sites around the country. People are persuaded to buy them, perhaps because they think that they will obtain some development value in the long term or because they want to situate a caravan there, perhaps to use for holidays. The problem is that planning applications seldom precede such subdivision of agricultural land. A summary of land available, which was taken off the internet in May 2001—I have no reason to believe that any less a quantity of land is available today—describes the availability of half a dozen plots in Ashmansworthy in Devon; two in Ashwater; one in Barnhurst, near Bexleyheath, which has been sold; 14 in Bellingdon; two in Bethersden in Kent; and several others in Lamberton wood near Bethersden. I could continue through the alphabet.
      We have heard about the methods used to address this problem, but they are not working. The Minister made it clear that the amendment that I had tabled would not deal with the problem satisfactorily, but she did not table an amendment that would. I hope that she will give us some comfort on that point tonight, because the practice is spoiling rural areas. Agricultural land is being abused for financial gain. I have no objection to financial gain, but in this case it is being achieved by avoiding the relevant regulations.
      I first heard of the practice when Barry Abraham, who is a councillor in my constituency, was quoted in the County Press as saying:
      "I don't know if there is anything we can do through the LGA about this practice of people buying land on its 'hope value'."
      Despite references to the Local Government Association, no satisfactory conclusion has been reached for dealing with that mischief.
      The National Farmers Union also agrees that the problem should be addressed. It wrote to me when the Bill was in Committee to say:
      "We have seen with interest your new Clause 2ߪThe problems arising from the legal—but in our view objectionable—business of subdividing and selling plots of agricultural land, often to purchasers who perceive almost certainly incorrectly that their land will increase dramatically in value, have been around for a number of years."
      The first occasion on which I was aware of the problem being identified was back in 1992 when the proprietors of Gladwish were named in this Chamber as the perpetrators of this mischief. Here we are, 11 years later, and still no solution has been found.
      Mr. Clifton-Brown: Will my hon. Friend clarify exactly what the mischief is that can be controlled by the

      861
      planning process? It is not the mere process of subdividing the land, because people have the freedom to do what they wish with their land. Surely the mischief is that when the plots are subdivided, fences, walls, gates, roadways, caravans and other paraphernalia are necessary. Before the subdivision, the plot is a clear grass field, but afterwards it is a complete mess.
      Mr. Turner: My hon. Friend is right. The mischief of subdivision, if we define it as development, could of course be dealt with under the planning Acts, but the mischief of the physical manifestation of subdivision amounts to development so it should already be covered by a requirement for planning permission. Obtrusive divisions such as the erection of fences, the positioning of caravans—even if they are occupied for only 28 days a year or less they are on the site for the whole year—the erection of patios or the planting of gardens can all transform a hitherto rural area into one that it would be generous to describe as suburban.
      The problem does not manifest itself only in the physical division of land but in the division of ownership. Maintenance of agricultural value and maintenance of landscape are much more difficult to enforce, even in an area of outstanding natural beauty, where ownership is divided into penny packets, so that is another reason to deal with that mischief—[Interruption.] see that my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) is nodding.
      No one has yet proposed a perfect solution, but I am sure that the Minister will agree that the issue needs to be taken seriously and dealt with urgently. In Committee, I received certain responses that indicated the difficulty of the issue so I have tabled the new clause so that, if possible, a solution might be found—I accept that it may be difficult—that is satisfactory and can be incorporated in the Bill before it leaves the other place.
      I commend the new clause to the House.
      8.30 pm
      Richard Ottaway:I rise to support my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner). I do not know whether it is relevant, but I declare an interest in that my wife has been engaged in successful litigation over a right of way on a piece of land that was originally sold by Gladwish Land Sales—in my view, in a deceptive way.
      As my hon. Friend said, the matter is extremely complex. My new clause was tabled as a probing clause and I acknowledge the Minister's problem in coming up with a solution. In my judgment, there is no easy solution.My hon. Friend set out the problem clearly. It is a scam—no less, no more. Large, attractive pieces of land are bought at prices that verge on the agricultural rate. The fields are marked out with pegs and subdivided into small plots in a way that suggests to the gullible and unsuspecting that they can be developed. It has to be acknowledged that the people selling the land do not actually say, "You will get planning permission and get through the development barriers"; they say, "You may get planning permission". As the House knows, many political issues turn on the word "may". Like my hon.
      862
      Friend and other colleagues in the Chamber, I have constituents who have found themselves subjected to such a scam.
      Matthew Green: The hon. Gentleman is being generous to some of the companies that sell such plots. For a time, at least one such company suggested on its website that it was unethical for prospective purchasers to approach the local planning department to find out about the development potential of the land before completing their purchase. I understand that that statement has been removed, but it shows the lengths to which some companies will go.
      Richard Ottaway: The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point. The whole history of such cases shows us how close to the wind those people operate. We only need to consider the sums of money involved.
      When I took the hon. Gentleman's admirable intervention, I was about to discuss a piece of land called Kenley pastures, which is next to Kenley house, a grade 2 listed building. There are not many such places inside the Greater London boundaries. The land is outstandingly attractive and the Greater London Authority has confirmed that it is not only in the green belt, but in a nature conservation site, so that gives some indication of its quality.
      The 37-acre site was used by the local community for recreational purposes. Local families rented plots where they kept horses or ponies. The land was a centre for equestrian activity. It was sold for just over £250,000, which was just above the agricultural rate. It was split into a number of small plots of about a quarter of an acre and marketed at £20,000 to £22,000 an acre. To save hon. Members the task of working it out, if all the land were sold at that rate it would raise £3 million—purchased for £250,000, sold for £3 million. Of course, unsuspecting people are funding that scam.
      It is said that a fool and his money are easily parted, and of course it is incumbent on anyone purchasing a piece of land to take legal advice. However, I understand that the companies tell people, "Don't worry, we will even pay your solicitors' fees for you. Better still, we will provide you with legal advice—you don't need to commission your own." Extraordinarily, people fall for that.
      Mr. Clifton-Brown: My hon. Friend has great knowledge of the company in question. Does he know of anyone who has tried to complain to the local trading standards office about misleading information given out in relation to the sales?
      Richard Ottaway: My hon. Friend pre-empts me. Inquiries have been made to the trading standards office, the Advertising Standards Authority and the Financial Services Authority. I shall deal with their replies shortly.
      It is clear that planning permission will not be given and that there will be no development of the land. People find out the hard way that they have been ripped off. In consequence, they abandon the land and what was well-maintained recreational land falls into disuse. That is the problem, and the thrust of my new clause is that in such circumstances the local authority should have power to order that the land be maintained.

      863
      My hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) asks whether the trading standards authorities have been involved, or whether they have any powers or controls in this respect. The admirable Kenley greenbelt action group raised the matter with Croydon council, whose reply was that the matter
      "is not covered by any legislation that Trading Standards enforces and claims about the sale of land is specifically exempt from the Trade Descriptions Act 1968."
      The council tried very hard—I take my hat off to it—to take up the case with the managing director of the company, who said that
      "no one can definitively say whether planning permission for the land will ever be granted."
      That is an example of the way in which such people sail close to the wind: the implication is there, but it is not specifically stated that planning permission can be granted. The trading standards office said, regretfully, that it could not intervene, but suggested that we try the Advertising Standards Authority.
      My diligent constituents in the action group took the matter up with the ASA. The advertisement in question is on the internet. The ASA replied:
      "After careful consideration, the Advertising Standards Authority has defined online advertising that is subject to the British Code of Advertising …and decided that the Code should apply to online advertisements…advertisements in commercial e-mails and sales promotions"
      but not to
      "organisations' claims on their own websites."
      The ASA has decided that a website constitutes "passive advertising". People have to log on to the website and go to the advertisement; the advertisement is not being projected outwards. Although the internet allows people to communicate, they do so in a way that is not relevant as far as the ASA is concerned.
      My ever resourceful constituents decided to take the matter up with the Financial Services Authority.
      Mr. Clifton-Brown: Before he moves on, will my hon. Friend provide some clarification? Is he actually saying that one can put any information one likes on one's own website and it is not subject to any form of control on misdescription from any authority?
      Richard Ottaway:I would hate to make a definitive statement, but it seems that any information contained on a website in such a manner is not subject to the authority of the ASA as enshrined in the relevant legislation.
      Reference was made to the Financial Services Authority to establish whether it had control over an investment in land. The FSA replied that investment in land was not within its jurisdiction and that it could not help either.
      It seems that the activity is almost completely unregulated, with very little protection for the consumer. I give credit to the Government for the fact that the Government office for London issued an article 4 notice, which prohibits the fencing of the land in the way that was happening, so all the pegs and so on had to be removed. That was much appreciated.
      I looked at the land the other day. It is beginning to get overgrown with weeds and ragwort. It is falling into disuse and people are being ripped off. As I said to the
      864
      Minister at the outset, it is hard to legislate for circumstances in which people do not look after their own interests and do not recognise the doctrine of caveat emptor. When the hon. Lady replies to the debate, I shall be interested to hear what the Government's thinking is and whether she can see a way out of the mess.
      Sir John Stanley: I am glad to follow my hon. Friends the Members for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) and for Croydon, South (Richard Ottaway) on an important and increasingly worrying planning issue. Both their new clauses would represent a considerable improvement on present planning legislation, and if either of them wishes to press his new clause to a Division, I shall be pleased to support him.
      The new clauses do not go far enough. My hon. Friends mentioned cases in their constituencies. However, the process to which they referred has been carried far further in my constituency in the locality known as Deer's Leap in the parish of Hever near Edenbridge. I gave a full account of what had happened at Deer's Leap in the Adjournment debate that I held on 5 June. That situation has exposed in a blatantly clear way the inadequacy of both the judicial protection and the planning legislation protection against those engaged in a deliberate, gross, large-scale abuse of development control.
      What happened at Deer's Leap was the division of green belt land into sub-plots. An application was made to the Secretary of State for article 4 directions. They were obtained but proved to be totally useless. A few days after the conclusion of the final land plot sale, what took place was nothing short of an invasion —an invasion of lorries carrying hardcore, fencing and then mobile homes on to the sub-plots.
      The inadequacy of the courts was rapidly exposed. Although Sevenoaks district council went for an injunction, that takes a little time, and the legal system works in such a way that if an injunction is obtained—and one was successfully obtained by Sevenoaks district council—it does not require the land to be returned to the state in which it was before the abuse of development control took place. It merely stops the development at the date on which the injunction is issued. That creates a perverse incentive for those minded to carry out such gross abuses of development control to maximise the development, for which there is no planning permission whatever, until such time as the injunction is obtained.
      Following that, the acute weaknesses of the existing planning system were exposed. As those in occupation put in a retrospective planning application —which, of course, was turned down—the local authority must now deal with the planning appeal. An enforcement notice was issued and appealed against, and the local authority is still waiting for an inquiry into the enforcement and planning appeals. We are nine months on from when the invasion took place and the local authority has already had to spend substantial sums of council tax payers' money to deal with the situation that has been created. As I said in the House on 5 June, if there is such a situation and
      "companies, partnerships or individuals knowingly connive in, are associated with or give effect to major breaches of development control",—[Official Report, 5 June 2003; Vol. 406, c. 380.]

      865
      the only proper recourse and deterrent will be the criminal law.
      8.45 pm
      I have raised the matter with the Under-Secretary and was grateful for her latest letter to me dated 21 November. It was a pity that representatives of Sevenoaks district council were not invited to the meeting that took place in her Department on 31 October because their presence would have been valuable. I am glad that she has told me that she remains open-minded about the possibility of applying the criminal law in such cases. That is the only alternative left to deal with land speculation companies such as Parker Fields and others that follow in their wake by trying to obtain development rights by force.
      I hope that the Under-Secretary will decide that applying the criminal law is necessary. Her letter said that we should focus on prevention rather than the penalties that might be applied. I, too, wish to focus on prevention, so I put it to her that the really worthwhile prevention would be the availability and application of criminal sanctions against such land speculation companies and those who set out blatantly to bust the planning control system. Such people are engaged in nothing short of robbery because achieving development rights by force is robbery and, like all forms of robbery, it must be met with a criminal sanction.
      Sir Sydney Chapman: I shall detain the House only briefly. I add my support to new clause 7, which was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner). I also listened with interest when my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Richard Ottaway) spoke to new clause 18, which he tabled.
      The problem is relatively new but very great. It has not been experienced in my constituency, where the metropolis meets the countryside—it is basically Suburbia—but it has affected Hertsmere, the constituency next door. The whole purpose of having unspoilt land is for it to remain unspoilt, and it should not remain unspoilt only for the enjoyment of those who live near it because townies as well as countrysiders should be able to access it. If there are deliberate attempts to visually ruin such land, I believe that we have the right to pass a measure to deal with that problem. I enter the caveat that new clause 7 refers to agricultural land, but the problem can apply to land in the countryside that is not necessarily agricultural.
      I emphasise a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South. Seventeen years ago, the Select Committee on the Environment held an inquiry into the metropolitan green belt. At that time, the average cost of an acre of land for agricultural use was about £2,500. I apologise, but I cannot metrically adjust the figure at my age, so I hope that the House will make allowances.
      If that land was subject to building or development permission, the price of £2,500 increased to about £250,000 an acre. Today, 17 years later, my guestimate is that on average the agricultural value of the land has decreased from £2,500 to £1,500. However, if that land
      866
      is the subject of development permission, the value will probably have risen to £5 million an acre. The temptation for developers to take whatever action they can—it is usually long term—to change the land from agricultural to development is great.
      Although this is not related directly to the new clause, one dodge in my constituency was to get a farm holding changed into a pig farm. That did not need any planning application because the change was from agricultural to agricultural. Unfortunately, it was on the windward side of part of my constituency so it was not long before many of my constituents complained about the smell. At the appropriate moment, a developer came in to try to get planning permission. Public opinion was evenly divided. I am told that, on the narrowest of cases, the Secretary of State, or the inspector appointed by him, decided to grant planning permission for a limited residential development. That had not been completed before the developer tried to enlarge his estate, but that was put paid to by the planning inspector turning down the subsequent application.
      As my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir John Stanley) said in an eloquent intervention, that sort of thing is a gross violation of the development control system. As, by and large, that system is subject not to criminal law but to civil law, I think that there are already exceptional cases where such violations should be made a criminal offence.
      I have read carefully the planning powers that are available to try to deal with these matters, either for the Secretary of State or the local planning authority. My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South referred to an article 4 direction. That is not sufficient because it is limited and can be applied only in certain narrowly defined situations. There is a possible alternative course that I think I mentioned to the Minister in Committee: to use powers that local planning authorities have in certain circumstances to require an owner of land to tidy it up if it has fallen into gross disrepair or become an unsightly plot. However, I believe that that is insufficient. Under an article 4 direction, fences can be put up to define the imagined or hoped for plots, but not in every case. A site is made unsightly not only by the possibility of caravans, for example, coming on to it, but also by the ability of the potential owner to dig up the turf and put a few bricks on to the land, if not built bricks, and thoroughly despoil the area.
      Even as a person who likes to think that we all fight for individual rights of freedom, I like to think that this is a case where the Government rightly should intervene to change the law to ensure that the practices that we have been talking about do not spread as they have in the recent past.
      Matthew Green: The hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) has done the House a service once again by tabling the new clause, but I suspect that the Minister will rightly say again that it is not the approach that will work. We are dealing with what is clearly a severe problem in many parts of the country. Indeed, 14 counties have had the problem. and it is spreading.
      There are essentially three different problems and that is why this approach probably will not work. First, there is the problem that has been touched on of how these pieces of land are sold. That might be a matter for trading standards legislation, but it is not really a

      867
      planning issue. Then there are two areas that are potentially planning issues. One is the physical subdivision of land—the putting up of fences —and the other is the degradation of the land within the fences. In a sense, they are two slightly different problems and probably cannot be dealt with in the same piece of legislation.
      One problem is that all the routes open to local authorities leave the authority bearing some considerable cost, which in turn is borne by the local council tax payer. Fences can be compulsorily removed using an article 4 direction, but then the local authority has to pay compensation to the people affected, costing the local tax payer a considerable amount. There is the possibility of using a discontinuance order by virtue of section 102 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, but again there is a liability to pay compensation to the people concerned. Therefore, there is no easy way of getting the fences removed without it costing the council a considerable amount of money.
      Degradation of the land is in many ways an even more serious problem. The council can issue an untidy land notice under section 215 of the 1990 Act, but that takes a considerable time, involves going to the magistrates court, places quite a cost burden on the local authority and is by no means a quick procedure. In some instances, particularly if the land involved was agricultural, change of land use enforcement notices can be used. Again, that is a slow procedure that involves considerable officer time and cost to the local authority. The only other option is compulsorily to purchase the land, for which there is a provision under section 226 of the 1990 Act if it is in the interests of proper planning in the area. Clearly, compulsory purchase will cost the local taxpayer considerable money. All those costs are forced on the local taxpayer by the profiteering of a handful of companies.
      The solution of the hon. Member for Isle of Wight is probably not the sensible way forward. The way to hurt the companies involved is by imposing a financial rather than a criminal sanction, although a financial penalty can be imposed in criminal cases. Where local authorities are being made to bear the costs of any of these methods we need some way to recover the costs from the people who have made the money out of the site, so reducing the attractiveness of taking such an approach.
      One of the easiest routes open to the Minister would be to remove the right to compensation under the article 4 direction. That might reduce some of the costs, but it would not give councils the means to pursue the companies involved for financial recompense for the costs involved.
      The hon. Gentleman has once again done the House a service in tabling the new clause, as has the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Richard Ottaway) in tabling new clause 18, but this is not a practical way of dealing with the matter. However, it has been forced up the agenda and I hope that the Minister will say that she will continue to look for ways to deal with it. I suspect that the removal of the compensation part of the article 4 direction will be the most immediate route to take.
      Mr. Clifton-Brown: My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) has, not for the first time during proceedings on this Bill, done the House a service
      868
      by raising the matter under discussion. My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Richard Ottaway) has also done the House a service by drawing attention to problems in his constituency and to the possible route of serving a section 215 notice under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to ensure proper maintenance of green belt land.
      9 pm
      As my right hon Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir John Stanley) and my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir Sydney Chapman) said, the real problem is that the planning system cannot react sufficiently quickly. One therefore has to consider solutions allowing local authorities to take quicker action to stop unauthorised development dead in its tracks and to require land to be reinstated. Not only the hon. Members who have spoken tonight, but other hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison), my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mr. Baron), who has made some proposals about this matter, and my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous), have experienced similar problems, and we must find a solution. If the Minister had any doubt that the problem that we are considering is serious, it has surely been well and truly drummed home tonight that action needs to be taken.
      I can propose number of solutions. Following the excellent debate initiated by my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling on 5 June, I raised the same matter in Westminster Hall having received information from my cousin, Antony Clifton Brown, who sent me copies of his correspondence with the hon. Member for Braintree (Mr. Hurst) about the activities of Gladwish Land Sales in the parishes of Stisted and Greenstead Green in Essex. Eventually, as in the case raised by my right hon. Friend, the council issued an article 4 direction and obtained confirmation from the Secretary of State.
      That is one method that the Minister could profitably consider, if she were listening to me. As I suggested in Committee, however, the presumption about an article 4 direction needs to be reversed. Currently, such a direction has to be confirmed by the Secretary of State once it has been issued by the local planning authority. I think that my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling said in his debate that it had taken his local authority six months to obtain the Secretary of State's confirmation. If the presumption were reversed, so that the direction took effect immediately after the local planning authority had issued it, whether or not it would remain in force, but then had to be confirmed by the Secretary of State, the situation would be considerably altered.
      Of course, compensation would be payable in such circumstances if the Secretary of State subsequently ruled that the direction had been applied unreasonably. In the cases raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling and other hon. Friends, however, the authorities would have issued directions in reasonable circumstances. The Secretary of State could, if necessary, take several months to confirm the directions, but the activities would have been stopped. That is one useful method that we could consider.
      There is also a second method that we could consider. There is a requirement on change of use involving planning permission when agricultural land is converted into gardens or amenity land. If former agricultural land has been converted into quasi-suburban, derelict or discontinued land, or land of whatever classification is given after it has been subdivided, I can see no reason why planning permission should not have to be sought. A fairly simple change could he made in planning law in that regard. If an applicant applies for retrospective planning permission that is not granted, as would happen in the cases that I have mentioned, and also fails at appeal, the council could have a right to ensure that enforcement action begins immediately. Currently, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling has made clear, developers can string a local planning authority along in respect of such difficult developments for months, if not years. Their appeal against the retrospective planning application has to be followed by their appeal against the enforcement notice. Those hearings each take several months, by the end of which a year or so could have passed. There is no reason why a small change in the law could not be made to ensure that if a retrospective planning application is refused on appeal, an enforcement action can start immediately.
      The problem is how to get the land reinstated. If the action is clearly in contravention of planning controls, a mechanism can be found to stop it immediately. Stop notices issued under section 188 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 might be useful, but require compensation. The mechanism adduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South—the section 215 notice—is fine, but it requires an appeal to a magistrate. That takes time, and even if the magistrate finds in favour of the local authority, the applicant receives only a level 3 fine. I have not had time to look up what that is—I shall probably be told that it is £3,000, which may be correct. That is inadequate, given that Gladwish Land Sales and others are making profits running into millions from the subdivision of fields.
      I have often suggested to my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling that it may become necessary to consider imposing criminal sanctions in certain exceptional cases. I say that with a heavy heart, because I am one of those who believe that criminal sanctions should be applied only in the most serious cases. There would have to be proper due process beforehand, because the threat of an indictable offence is a very serious one. An associated problem is that where criminal sanctions are involved, the burden of proof is increased to that of beyond reasonable doubt. It is not an entirely straightforward matter.
      As the hon. Member for Ludlow (Matthew Green) says. planning authorities can compulsorily acquire such land under a section 226 notice if it is in the interests of proper planning in their area. However, the problem is that the value of the compulsory purchase will be equivalent to the value of the land when the subdivision took place, so the local authority would have to pay the enhanced value, which it would find unacceptable.
      Sir John Stanley: My hon. Friend refers to the increase in the burden of proof where criminal law is
      870
      applied. Does he agree, however, that a gross use of development control is one of the most misuse easily demonstrable cases to prove in court? I have photographs of Deer's Leap as it was—a green belt meadow—and as it is today, covered with hardcore, fencing and mobile homes.
      Mr. Clifton-Brown: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, who is as lucid as always. His comments clearly demonstrate to the Minister the seriousness of such cases.
      The only other mechanism that I have come across for stopping this procedure —we should explore all the mechanisms, and I hope that the Minister will respond to them all—is to issue an injunction under planning law against a person or persons unknown by posting a notice on the land. My local planning authority has done that. We have to deal with two problems—first, stopping the unauthorised development from getting worse; and secondly, reinstating the land to something akin to its former rural agricultural state.
      In dealing with this problem, albeit only tangentially, the appropriate Department must examine the issue of how land sales are promoted on people's websites, although I accept that that might not involve the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. There seems to be a suggestion that the advertising code does not apply in such circumstances. I have here a letter—procured by my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South—from one Beverley Gibbs, a complaints handler at the Advertising Standards Authority, dated 28 August 2003. She states quite clearly:
      "The code does not apply to organisations' claims on their own website."
      I intervened earlier on my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South to suggest that anyone can put anything on their website, and that seems to be almost a fact. If that is the case, the Government need to address that large legal lacuna.
      I hope that one or two of the methods that I have suggested to the Minister will find favour. This is a serious matter, and I hope that she will be able to give the House some comfort tonight. This issue will not go away, and it will affect more and more Members. If the Minister does nothing about it, we shall find ourselves having more debates of this kind, so I appeal to her to find a solution to the problem.
      Yvette Cooper: As many hon. Members have pointed out, we have discussed these issues extensively in Committee. They have also been raised in Adjournment debates, in correspondence and in meetings between Ministers, hon. Members on both sides of the House, officials and local authorities. The Department is therefore giving them considerable thought, and I would like to set out for the House the point that we have reached in that regard.
      I raised concerns on new clause 7 in Committee because the planning system is intended to decide what land should be used for and has nothing to do with the sale of land. Planning permission is not required for the subdivision of land for genuine agricultural reasons, and there is no problem with someone selling off a plot of land if it will remain in use as agricultural land. An issue

      871
      involving the planning system will arise if the land is to be put to materially different use, in which case planning permission would be required.
      Hon. Members have put forward evidence that the subdivision of agricultural land can be unsightly and can lead to even more harmful longer-term effects. For example, if a developer buys a plot of land and planning permission is not granted for the use that he had in mind, there is a danger that the plot could fall into disrepair or neglect. Other problems can arise when a subdivision of land becomes the trigger for a series of unauthorised developments. That could involve something as simple as unsightly fencing pegs or posts being put up, or something far more substantial involving significant intensive development over a short period of time.
      Permitted development rights enable individual plots to be marked off by fencing pegs or posts without the need for planning permission. Local authorities can remove these rights by means of an article 4 direction, and the guidance sets out the circumstances in which such directions can be used. Many of the other examples to which hon. Members have referred involved cases in which permitted development rights would not apply because there was clearly unauthorised development and planning permission would be required.
      Sir John Stanley: Would the hon. Lady agree, however, that even when the Deputy Prime Minister issues an article 4 direction—as happened in relation to Deer's Leap—if the land speculation company, possibly acting in conjunction with those about to carry out the development, chooses to ignore the direction, that direction is effectively torn up?
      Yvette Cooper: The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that I cannot comment on individual cases, particularly those that are going through the planning system at the moment. However, I recognise that while there are cases in which article 4 directions can be appropriate and effective, and it is simply a question of introducing them in time, there are other cases in which people are simply determined to abuse the planning system and in which different issues arise. I shall come to that in a moment.
      Officials from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister have met representatives of local authorities to explore what more could be done in such circumstances, and to address the possible adverse environmental effects of subdivision and the sale of agricultural land. The hon. Member for Ludlow (Matthew Green) is right that there are different but related problems. Land may be sold off on its hope value, and the chances of planning permission for a change of use being granted may be misrepresented. Problems also arise if that land is later neglected because planning permission cannot be granted. There are problems involving the fencing, the pegs or the posts that may be erected under permitted development rights, and problems that occur when much more intensive and extensive development takes place, such as those related to the enforcement system, retrospective planning applications and so on.
      9.15 pm
      Mr. Clifton-Brown: In Committee way back in October, I suggested a mechanism to change the presumption on article 4 directions. I should be grateful
      872
      if the Minister said something about that, because an article 4 direction will remove the permitted development rights, and could act as a brake on the erection of gates and fences.
      Yvette Cooper: I shall set out the progress we have made so far and the issues that we are still considering and that we have yet to consider, and I shall come back to the point that the hon. Gentleman raises. The first thing we are considering is whether it is possible to introduce a cooling-off period in such circumstances. The seller of the land would have a duty to advise purchasers of that period, and would be required to notify the local planning authority of the proposed sale. The cooling-off period could enable the local planning authority to put in place any restrictions that it thought appropriate, and to ensure that the proposed buyer was aware of those restrictions, including article 4 directions. That would not apply to intensive development, but it might be a way of dealing with cases in which buyers of the land are deceived or have not understood the risk of failing to obtain planning permission. It also might be a way of ensuring that everyone has full information, and could prevent the purchase of subplots on their hope value, which are neglected when it is not possible to get planning permission. That may address one part of the problem.
      Mr. Clifton-Brown: As my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir John Stanley) said, the problem is that these things happen quickly. I suspect that by the time the local planning authority—or whatever Government agency would introduce the cooling-off period—was alert to the fact and was able to act, many of those plots would have been sold off and it would be difficult to reverse that process.
      Yvette Cooper: We are trying to deal with a range of different problems. For example, there may be deliberate, rapid and unauthorised development. We are not sure of the extent of that problem, but we have anecdotal evidence that it exists. Those cases are at one extreme, while at the other are the cases in which no unauthorised development takes place, but there are unsightly consequences for the land—the erection of fencing and such like—because it is divided up and sold off in the expectation that planning permission may be granted and that there may be a change of use. Pieces of land may be bought in the hope that planning permission may be obtained, but are then neglected and left to deteriorate and to become unsightly to the local community. Different consequences arise in different cases, and there may be different solutions to different parts of the problem, some of which may be easier to solve than others. The proposal relating to the possible cooling-off period would not deal with all the problems raised by Members, but it might be one way of addressing some of them.
      We also want to give further consideration to the proposal for article 4 directions to be served on site rather than in a newspaper, to bring them into effect more quickly. We are considering amendments to the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 for that purpose. We are also considering other changes to the order. We are trying to establish, for example, whether it would be feasible to

      873
      require prior approval from the local planning authority for the erection of fences on agricultural land. In some of the cases mentioned today, owners or others involved with the land are abiding by the planning system, but action is not speedy enough, or there are not sufficient warnings.
      We are preparing a note to be sent to local authorities throughout England clarifying the issue and the powers that they have to deal with it. There is evidence that some authorities deal with such problems more swiftly and effectively than others.
      The major difficulties arise in the event of unauthorised development. They may be triggered by the subdivision of land, but they may also occur when there is rapid, unauthorised development. Members have expressed doubts about the speed and effectiveness of the planning system in dealing with such development after it has taken place, and about the effectiveness of enforcement. The hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) asked about the presumption relating to article 4, and the hon. Member for Ludlow referred to compensation.
      A series of wider questions could be raised about the nature and speed of the enforcement system, and about the various powers involved. Some of those may be dealt with when we discuss later amendments. Much more difficult issues must be grappled with in this context. We are reviewing the enforcement system, and following what was said in Committee we have asked officials to prioritise matters relating to retrospective planning applications. We want to deal with that as quickly as possible, but I warn Members that these are particularly difficult problems.
      Mr. Clifton-Brown: The enforcement review was mentioned in Committee in October. Presumably it had been operating for some time by then. Can the Minister tell us when it began, when it is likely to end, and when we can expect some action from the Government?
      Yvette Cooper: I cannot give the exact timetable, but originally the review was not expected to feed into the Bill's time. We have consulted extensively on the wide range of issues involved, and many representations have been made. We have asked officials to consider specific enforcement issues raised in Committee, and have asked for them to be made a priority in discussion of the review as a whole. They are complicated, however, and cannot be easily resolved. We are having to work out how the enforcement regime will cope when people are determined to abuse the system, and also how to ensure fair and proportionate consideration of other cases. For instance, some people may not realise that they must apply for planning permission. So there is a wide range of issues that needs to be considered further, and as I said, we are keen to prioritise the questions that Members raised in Committee.
      New clause 18 aims to enable local planning authorities to purchase land compulsorily in a green belt where a section 215 notice requiring the remedying of land adversely affecting local amenity has not been complied with. Local authorities already have compulsory purchase powers to deal with derelict land, and to provide open space or community facilities in the
      874
      public interest. The Secretary of State would normally expect any statutory procedures to remedy derelict or unsightly land, such as section 215 notices, to have been taken as far as possible before the local authority resorts to compulsory purchase. However, I recognise the principles behind the new clause, and as I said, we are keen to consider them further.
      We are taking very seriously the points raised by Members on both sides of the House. I have set out the various ways in which we are trying to consider these issues further, in order to see what progress can be made. We will continue to do so, and to keep Members informed.
      Mr. Clifton-Brown: If my reading of section 215 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 is correct, it is concerned not with compulsory purchase, but with the serving of notices by the local authority on land adversely affecting amenity of neighbourhood. It also provides for a 28-day period after which such a notice must take effect. Section 216 states:
      If any owner or occupier of the land on whom the notice was served fails to take steps required by the notice within the period specifiedߪhe shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.
      That has nothing to do with compulsory purchase. Does the Minister think that new clause 18 has any merit?
      Yvette Cooper: Our concern is that new clause 18 would not necessarily add anything to local authorities' powers to deal with the problem of land in the green belt not being properly maintained. The new clause attempts to deal, for example, with development that takes place under permitted development rights, and with land that has been largely neglected when, contrary to people's expectations, the issue of planning permission has not been addressed. But, in fact, the new clause would not satisfactorily address the real problem that we have been discussing. Local authorities already have powers to deal with such land.
      There is a wider range of issues that we need to consider, but at this stage it would not be right to support the two new clauses, given that considerable work is already under way to address the problems to which they refer.
      Mr. Andrew Turner: It would be fair to begin by thanking the Minister—I hope that I do her no damage in doing so—for her powerful response to the two new clauses. She has demonstrated that her Department is taking the matter seriously. My right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir John Stanley) referred to what is by far the worst example of which I have heard in dealing with such matters. There are a couple of issues that still concern me, one of which is that, whether an enforcement notice, an article 4 direction or—as in most cases—an injunction or compulsory purchase order is being served, it is necessary to know the owner of the land. As we discussed in Committee, where land has been divided into penny packets, the process by which ownership is discovered is both difficult and expensive.
      I particularly commend to the Minister three measures, two of which were advanced by one of my colleagues. The first is to reverse the presumption on an

      875
      article 4 direction, and the second is to make it possible to serve an injunction against a person or persons unknown in relation to land. I also wonder whether ignoring an article 4 direction might be made a criminal offence. That would certainly seem possible.
      I warmly thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling, my hon. Friends the Members for Chipping Barnet (Sir Sydney Chapman), for Croydon, South (Richard Ottaway) and for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown), and the hon. Member for Ludlow (Matthew Green) for their contributions.
      We need to address the high costs that fall on local authorities—meaning, of course, local people—which have to be recovered somehow. I hope that the Minister will look at that matter in the enforcement review. She has demonstrated that a range of different possible solutions are being considered, and I hope that one, or perhaps more, will be found to be appropriate before the Bill completes its passage through the House.
      I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
      Motion and clause, by leave withdrawn.

    New Clause 8

      PLANNING: RETROSPECTIVE APPLICATIONS
      '.In section 73A (planning permission for development already carried out) of the principal Act after subsection (2) there is inserted—
      (2A) An application for planning permission made to a local planning authority under subsection (1) shall be assigned as a retrospective application.
      (2B) In considering a retrospective application the local planning authority shall—

      (a) consider the application as if work on it had not begun;

      (b) have no regard to any financial loss involved to the developers or others should the application not be approved.

      (2C) If planning permission is not granted the local planning authority may require that the site be restored so far as practicable to the state that it was in before development commenced.
      (2D) In determining any appeal from a refusal to grant planning permission in respect of a retrospective application, the Secretary of State shall be bound by subsections (2A) and (2B) above.".'.—[Mr. Andrew Turner.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      9.30 pm
      Mr. Andrew Turner: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:
      No. 33, in page 27, line 42 [Clause 43], at end insert—
      (c) The applicant shall have a right of appeal to an Independent Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State when an application is not determined under (a) or (b) above.'.
      No. 81, in page 36, line 14 [Clause 47], after 'years', insert
      'beginning on the later of—

      (i) the date on which the permission is granted, and

      (ii) the date on which the last of all associated consents, permissions or clearances in relation to the development has been granted or given by any
      876
      government or statutory body where application for such consent, permission or clearance was made as soon as reasonably practicable.'.

      No. 82, in page 37, line 13 [Clause 47], after 'three years', insert
      'beginning on the later of—

      (i) the date on which the consent is granted, and

      (ii) the date on which the last of all associated consents, permissions or clearances in relation to the works to which the listed building consent relates has been granted or given by any government or statutory body where application for such consent, permission or clearance was made as soon as reasonably practicable.'.

      Mr. Turner: Since I tabled the new clause—indeed, in the past two or three minutes—information has come to light from the Minister about the work that she is doing in the enforcement review. I am pleased to hear that. In a letter that I received on Friday, the Minister wrote that she was looking to make an announcement about the outcome of the enforcement review in the new year. I am grateful for that.
      I tabled the new clause because many would agree that a retrospective application appears to be an easy way of obtaining planning permission, and it is a way that people greatly resent.
      Mr. Hayes: My hon. Friend is right, but the situation is worsened by the fact that local authorities are not always confident about enforcement. When they do press to enforce, they do not feel that they have the necessary backing or that the law is sufficiently behind them. That has led to a culture in which they are reticent about enforcement. It is partly a question of time and resources, but it is also about that culture and that lack of confidence.
      Mr. Turner: I agree with my hon. Friend, and it is a matter that disturbs residents enormously, even when they see something small. One example from my personal history was when someone built a shark in the roof of their house, something that was greatly resented by my neighbours in my street, which happened to be the street in which the house with the shark was located. It took something like three years for the proper enforcement action to be taken, for a planning application to be procured and so on. I believe that the shark remains in the roof because Ministers eventually upheld the appeal against enforcement action.
      Richard Younger-Ross: I rather liked the shark. I hate to disappoint the hon. Gentleman, but I thought it was quite witty. However, I agree with the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes). In my constituency—100 yards from where I live—a retrospective application was made to raise a roof 600 mm higher than was in the original application. I persuaded the local authority to turn it down and to make the applicant appeal. They did, and guess what? The Minister supported the eyesore, which was then constructed. It is difficult for politicians to tell an authority to do something, because Ministers and the Government might not support it.
      Mr. Turner: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman had as much egg on his face as he usually appears to have on his

      877
      tie as a result of being overruled by the Minister. I sympathise. When one has gone to some considerable lengths to persuade a local authority to behave in a particular way, one easily can be undermined. I tabled the new clause because, on 23 October, in Committee, the Minister said that she had hoped to respond to the enforcement review before the end of the year.
      If the review has slipped for the good reasons that she mentioned earlier—to give officials the opportunity to consider retrospection and to ensure that the review can feed into the Bill—I forgive her absolutely for not meeting that self-imposed deadline. However, it is of considerable concern to residents that applications made retrospectively should not be seen as an easy way of getting planning permission.
      I gave some examples in Committee. I shall not go through those again; I am sure that those hon. Members who have read the Hansard report of the Committee proceedings will have seen those examples, and others may not be interested in them.
      Mr. Hayes rose
      Mr. Turner: I see that my hon. Friend is seeking to intervene.
      Mr. Hayes: I just did not want my hon. Friend to feel that he should not regale the House with examples. It is important that he emphasise his point with specifics. I could certainly give many examples from my constituency. We need to bring the issue into sharp focus.
      Mr. Turner: Let me give the example in Yarmouth. I referred in a previous debate to the River Yar: that was, of course, the East Yar. Yarmouth is at the mouth of the West Yar. There are only three main rivers in my constituency, and two of them are called Yar.
      The example in Yarmouth was of a house being built on a site that had planning permission—indeed, it was supposedly being built on the footprint of an earlier bungalow. Because the applicants furnished the committee with somewhat misleading drawings, it believed that the house was going to be of a certain height and that the ridge height would be the same as that of the adjoining houses. Eventually it was discovered that the ridge height was greater than that of the adjoining houses, and notwithstanding the fact that the height was much more generous than the committee would have liked to pass, the applicant went on to build something considerably higher than that. I hope that my local authority will take enforcement action in the same way as the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Richard Younger-Ross) has suggested to his local authority. I certainly hope that I will not end up with a yellow face or a yellow tie.
      Richard Younger-Ross: My tie is blue.
      Mr. Turner: I know that the hon. Gentleman's tie is blue today, and I congratulate him on his taste—today.
      The need is for certainty in the planning system, and I believe that proper implementation of the decisions of the enforcement review will add to certainty. I commend the new clause to the House.
      Sir Sydney Chapman: I support my hon. Friend on new clause 8. When he talked about the shark in the
      878
      roof, I wondered whether it was a contender for the Turner prize. If it was, I suggest that the penalty ought to be £20,000, an exact match for the prize itself.
      I want to draw one point to the Minister's attention. My hon. Friend referred to a place by the River Yar. In that case, the person got planning permission but did not build according to the plans. I note that my hon. Friend tabled a new clause 6, which was not selected—I do not quarrel with that at all. However, it seems to me that when we are dealing with enforcement matters, we should consider not only those edifices that appear without any planning permission but buildings for which permission has been given but which are not built in accordance with the plans, usually because the wrong measurements have been given on the plans accompanying the application. In my view, that is an equally serious situation.
      Mr. Hayes: I suggest to my hon. Friend that that is not an occasional aberration. There are areas—I shall not say which exactly—where that is continually an issue. Developers will deliberately and systematically use that approach to get what they want, and the problem needs to be dealt with on that basis.Sir Sydney Chapman: I take that point absolutely. The sad thing, from my point of view as a professional person, is that if the plans are prepared by a professional person, that professional person has some responsibility in the matter.
      Richard Younger-Ross: I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman has the same experience as me, but we have shared a profession, as I have worked in architectural industries for most of my life. In one case in the London borough of Merton, a client deliberately and knowingly made an extension far larger than the plans that I had submitted. When I spoke to the local authority to point that out, it was not interested, although it was a deliberate breach of the planning consent given.
      Sir Sydney Chapman: That is a fair point, and I eagerly support the hon. Gentleman's view that it is not necessarily the professional who has made a mistake but the client not carrying out the plans drawn up by the professional. Sadly, there have also been cases in which the measurements on the plan have been inaccurate. We discussed that at length in Committee, so I need not continue the discussion now. It is a serious and important matter, however, and it is not just about building without any planning permission but building, getting permission, and not carrying out the building in accordance with the permission given.
      Richard Younger-Ross: I want to speak in favour of the proposition of the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) in relation to buildings that are built without consent. In Committee, he questioned whether the process of building without consent should be considered illegal. He asked whether anybody had read what he had said in Committee, and I happen to have it to hand. He said:
      I have come under some pressure—I would not be surprised if other hon. Members have, too—to make development without permission against the law".

      879
      Yes, many of us have come under pressure when a building has gone up to say, "How can they be allowed to do that? How can they live in that building for X years, or use it to trade, without consent? We know that they are abusing the system." However, he went on to say:
      We have to adjust the balance of perception in the public mind, without going so far as to make it illegal to develop without permission."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 23 October 2003; c. 327—28.]
      The balance of that is probably just about right. As he, and, I am sure, other Members are aware, however, there are cases in which doing work without a planning application is illegal and a criminal act—demolition of a listed building without consent is a criminal act. Therefore, if we cannot succeed in persuading people to stop constructing without consent, there would be recourse to that at a later date, which would not be inappropriate. We ought to put that in reserve for consideration later if such activity cannot be halted.
      In Committee, however, the Minister rejected what the hon. Member for Isle of Wight was trying to say. She said:
      It also would be contrary to the principles of administrative law, which require a decision maker to have regard to all relevant matters.—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 23 October 2003; c. 330.]
      I would not try to argue legal points—my background is in architecture, not law—[Interruption.] I am unlike the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Pound) in that. I would, however, question the use of the word "relevant" in that case. If a person knowingly constructs a building without consent, by and large they have done so knowing that they required consent. They have knowingly done something that they know that they should not have done. One does not accidentally happen to build a building or an extension to one's house. One does it by deliberate forethought. By and large, one will ask someone qualified, or not qualified, to draw up some plans for a builder to construct it. It would be rare for someone to manage to build something with no plans whatever, although I appreciate that there are some areas in which that may occasionally happen. Most cases, however, are not like that.
      There was a case in the London borough of Wandsworth in which a person tried to build an entire office block without consent, and wondered why the local authority objected. In that case, the local authority continued to object, turned it down, and was eventually supported by the inspector. That building was four houses long and four storeys high. It was hardly a standard small extension that could be ignored. However, many other cases with different circumstances also need to be addressed.
      If someone has deliberately and methodically built something, why should that be taken into consideration in the planning application? Why should that be relevant to the decision? I know, as will other hon. Members who have been in the profession, that once a building has been constructed, consent usually follows. The owner claims that he has no money to knock it down, or has used all his savings to construct it. However, those are not relevant matters. The relevant matters are the planning issues. An extension or building should be judged simply on its merits and on whether it complies with planning legislation, the local
      880
      authority's plan for the area and the context of its environment—and not on whether the owner can afford to knock it down. I support the new clause for that reason.
      9.45 pm
      Mr. Clifton-Brown: I am glad to address this group of amendments, which includes several that I have tabled. I shall address those, as well as new clause 8, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight. He raised a similar issue in Committee and the general tenor of the debate supported what he was trying to achieve. We all know from our constituency postbags that retrospective planning applications are more likely to be granted than not. If someone has failed to comply fully with the provisions of a planning application, or fails to apply for planning consent at all, and builds a property, some strong sanction should be applied to require retrospective planning permission to be obtained. That retrospective application should be treated on exactly the same basis as one made before the construction of the property. That is what new clause 8 seeks to achieve.
      Most planning authorities are too understaffed to carry out enforcement properly. That is a real problem for many local planning authorities and will worsen once the Bill, with all its complexities, comes into operation. It is all very well for my hon. Friends to say that the professional who devises the scheme—the architect or surveyor—should bear some professional responsibility if a development is not carried out entirely in accordance with the plans, but in many cases the professional's involvement in a scheme ends with drawing up the plans and he has no responsibility for supervising the development thereafter. The client has the responsibility to ensure that the development is carried out properly.
      My other concern is that after four years nothing can be done, because a certificate of lawful use can be obtained. In a large, complex rural area, such as my constituency, which is more than 1,000 square miles, it is almost inevitable that some unlawful developments will take place and the planning authority will not find out about them until after the four-year period is up. That is a real problem.
      The hon. Member for Teignbridge (Richard Younger-Ross) said that the decision maker must take into account all material points. Of course he must do so, but the balance should lie in favour of planning law being applied. One of the worst planning cases that I have had to deal with was within a couple of months of my being elected, when my constituency was known as Cirencester and Tewkesbury. A builder, who should have known better, had built a house out of pre-cast concrete blocks, but the planning application specified that it should be built of Cotswold stone. The local planning authority required him to demolish the house. I fully supported the local planning authority and he had to take down the whole outer skin of the building. The house has now been built in Cotswold stone and is thoroughly in keeping with its surroundings.
      Planning law must be enforced, and we need to consider carefully how we deal with enforcement and retrospective planning applications. If a retrospective planning application is taken to appeal and the appeal fails, enforcement action should be immediate; it should not be subject to a separate hearing and possible further

      881
      appeals, as the whole process could cost the local planning authority a large amount of money—as has been pointed out—and could take a large amount of time.
      My amendments take us back to the original Bill at long last, and to some of the matters that were discussed only in scant detail in Committee. Amendment No. 33 would amend clause 43, under which local authorities are allowed to decline to determine similar applications—the so-called twin-tracking procedure. Where the conditions under subsections (1) (a) and (b) are satisfied, my amendment provides that there should be an appeal to an independent inspector appointed by the Secretary of State.
      Under article 6 of the European convention on human rights, a citizen under the jurisdiction of the convention has a fundamental right of appeal to an independent hearing. It seems to me that if someone makes two similar appeals, or even two appeals that have only marginal differences, and the local authority decides that it does not want to determine one of the appeals, that is to deny that person their human rights. Even if that were not so, let us debate whether the clause is sensible.
      Under current planning procedures, if a person makes an application and the local authority does not determine it within the eight weeks allowed, the person can put in a second, similar application that they take to appeal. The idea is that the person should continue to negotiate with the planning authority, which should either give good reasons for its definite determination to turn down the application—as even if it went to appeal it would not succeed—or grant the application. If we abolish that sensible system, I predict that developers will take many more cases to appeal because the local planning authority has not made a determination within the eight-week deadline.
      The Government are cutting off their nose to spite their face; they will be landing themselves with many more appeals as a result of the provisions. Of course, they may reply that they will make the planning system work so well that 90 per cent. of planning applications will be determined within the eight-week period. I do not believe that that will happen—or not for some considerable time, given the complexity of the Bill. The Government ought to think again. I am certain that if they do not do so while the Bill is in this place, Members of another place will need to consider the clause very carefully indeed.
      Amendments Nos. 81 and 82 deal with clause 47, which covers the duration of consents. The Town and Country Planning Act 1990 already includes powers for local planning authorities to grant planning permissions with a three-year consent, which can be varied to five years. There is also a further category that I cannot remember. Clause 47 cuts the duration of consents from five years to three years, as, according to the Government, significant large sites, often in city centres, remain undeveloped for far too long. Nobody condones that, but the problem is that it can often take three years or more just to obtain compulsory purchase of such large, complicated sites, let alone anything else.
      My amendments are supported by the British Property Federation, whose comments make a great deal of sense. The amendments state that if the
      882
      Government cut down the duration of all consents the three-year period should run from the date on which all statutory consents, permissions or clearances in relation to the development was granted
      or given by any government or statutory body where application for such consent, permission or clearance was made as soon as reasonably practicable
      Richard Younger-Ross: My understanding is that local authorities may, especially in respect of complex developments that require compulsory purchase orders, allow consents to run to five years or longer. Would not strong guidance—[Interruption.] Is the hon. Gentleman listening? Would not strong Government guidance be better than the provisions of his amendment?
      Mr. Clifton-Brown: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman for the discourtesy of talking to the Minister. I chided the hon. Member for Ludlow (Matthew Green) for doing exactly the same thing. The Minister for Housing and Planning was giving me some guidance—and very useful it was too. Bearing in mind his strictures, and in view of the fact that I have dealt with the matter expeditiously, no doubt the Minister replying will accede to my amendments Nos. 81 and 82.
      Yvette Cooper: I shall deal first with the issues around retrospective planning applications. As I said in Committee, we are keen to look further at those issues, especially in the context of the enforcement review. We have asked officials to prioritise consideration of the points made by hon. Members in Committee. We have to recognise that a wide range of cases is involved: there are cases in which someone simply did not realise that they needed planning permission, for example, to extend a wall; there are cases in which someone is fully aware and is deliberately abusing the system; there are cases in which there is simply a difference of view. Hon. Members mentioned the shark, which I really liked, having passed it on a bus on many occasions.
      If someone has not applied for planning permission, a wide range of enforcement actions can be taken, including enforcement notices, stop notices, and injunctions. In many cases, those powers are sufficient and the retrospective application is dealt with perfectly properly, with the planning application granted or not granted, as the case may be. Cases were cited in Committee and in the House today in which—admittedly after some months have passed and local people have become concerned about the time the case has taken—the application has been turned down and the builders obliged to pull down the building. Hon. Members have spoken about cases that have caused concern, but the rate of success of retrospective planning applications is slightly lower than that of applications submitted in advance.
      We recognise that we have to consider the matter further, but we should also recognise that retrospective planning applications are an important part of the planning system. Those who responded to the planning enforcement review were strongly of the view that the retrospective planning system should be continued, although, as I said, there are issues of enforcement that have to be examined.
      I set out my concerns about new clause 8 in Committee. It should be possible to take account of all material considerations, but of course I recognise that

      883
      considerations such as financial loss to the developer should carry different weight in, for example, a case in which the developer knew exactly what they were getting into. However, it would be going too far to say that it should never be possible to take into account personal or material considerations.
      Clause 43 enables a local planning authority to decline to determine an application if a similar application has been refused within the previous two years, or if a similar application is still under consideration. We acknowledge the concerns that have been expressed; nevertheless, the local planning authority has discretion to decline to determine a further application. We shall issue guidance to stress that we expect local planning authorities to use the power only if they think that the applicant intends to exert unfair pressure; otherwise, if a genuine attempt is being made to take account of objections, the application should be determined. Equally, the Bill provides flexibility to extend the time periods applicable to complex regenerations, so that developers have sufficient time to commence work. I ask the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) to withdraw the motion.
      Mr. Andrew Turner: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
      Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.
      Further consideration adjourned.—[Mr. Jim Murphy.]
      Bill to be further considered tomorrow.

      PLANNING: RETROSPECTIVE APPLICATIONS

        COMMITTEES
        Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): With permission, I shall put motions 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 together.
        Ordered,

        That Miss Julie Kirkbride be discharged from the Culture, Media and Sport Committee and Mr. Charles Hendry be added.
        That Mr. Mark Simmonds be discharged from the Education and Skills Committee and Mr. Nick Gibb be added.
        That Mr. Michael Jack be discharged from the Information Committee and Mr. Robert Key be added.
        That Mr. Robert Walter be discharged from the International Development Committee and Mr. Andrew Robathan be added.
        That Mr. Henry Bellingham be discharged from the Trade and Industry Committee and Mr. Nigel Evans be added.
        TREASURY
        That Mr. Andrew Tyrie be discharged from the Treasury Committee and Mr. Robert Walter be added.—[Mr. John Mc William, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

    Local Government
    Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Jim Murphy.]
    Mr. Graham Allen: The use of the council tax as a top-up fee for local government funding has run its course. Even ignoring the democratic arguments, there is now an overwhelming case for a fundamental reform of the local and national Government relationship. This is my contribution to the big conversation, which is needed on the topic ahead of the third term.
    I welcome the Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Phil Hope), to the Front Bench. This is the first time that I have had the pleasure of having an Adjournment debate with him. We go back some time. I remember when we were twinned before the 1997 general election. I always knew that my hon. Friend had a great future ahead of him, and he is proving that as he makes a great impact in his ministerial position.
    The Government are to be commended for their open-mindedness in looking at local income tax and other forms of local government funding. While important in itself, it will be even more significant as the trigger for the next serious step to democratic reform in the United Kingdom. Most western democracies have guaranteed local government independence, backed up by a constitutional guarantee. For that to work in the UK would require not only powers, but financial autonomy, to be devolved to local government.
    The appalling turnouts for modern elections underline the fact that it is time either to create genuine democratic local government or to stop the pretence and wind it up. In the debate on local income tax we should stake a claim for nothing less than constitutionally independent local government for the whole of the United Kingdom. That is a concept that would sustain local government and its financing long into the future and end the annual begging-bowl round that so humiliates both the central Government giver and the local government receiver.
    Given the reduction of local government over recent decades to little more than an agent of central Government, this proposal would amount to the largest denationalisation ever undertaken in the UK, and the restoration to the public of their ownership of their own local government. The centralisers in British politics have had their day. Over the past 40 years, whatever success they have had nationally, they have delivered neither economic nor social progress at the local level. We see short-term finance, interference, distortion of local priorities, people spending much of their time bidding or working to protect the future of their own jobs, and a plethora of schemes and bodies to circumvent local democratic decision making, barely understood by anyone but a new cadre of local professionals.
    Virtually every nation and every business has concluded that the current economic complexities are way beyond the capacities of a command economy. They speak, and deliver on, the language of decentralisation, devolution, local budget holding, participation, and team working. Yet the way we in the UK govern ourselves seems to be stuck, Brezhnev-like, in command politics. That is seen at its starkest and its

    885
    most wasteful in central control of local government—a concept both alien and hilarious to most other western democracies.
    Free local democracy will provide more diversity and independence in our political system, which will lead to more creativity, sensitivity and innovation throughout our society and economy. Merely to remove some of the worst excesses of centralism, such as ending the capping of local spending, democratising quangos and releasing capital receipts, welcome as those steps are, is not enough. We need to put local independence beyond the reach of central Government and to admit that the man in Whitehall does not know best, even if, in my case, he is a Labour man.
    Petty interference from the centre must be denied any legal or financial basis and that should be achieved in two ways. First, local authorities must be created in law as independent sovereign entities to guarantee their independence. They would then be able to undertake, as of right, all the duties for which they were elected locally and that are recognised as being local under subsidiarity—a concept that will soon have legal force in the European constitution. They would include duties that are not prohibited by law, which would turn the present injunction saying that authorities are not allowed to do things that are not expressly allowed by law on its head. Local government, like any other public body, would have to perform its duties under a legitimate inspection regime, in the context of the European convention on human rights and, potentially, under a more comprehensive and up-to-date British Bill of Rights. It could, therefore, be held to account by any citizen if it were arbitrarily to breach such rights.
    Additionally, the pull of centralism is so great that even a Government who had created independent local government might succumb to the temptation to meddle unless we were to ensure that such local rights were put constitutionally out of bounds. That could be achieved initially by this place passing a local government independence Bill that could be protected from easy repeal by including an amendment to the Parliament Act 1911 to allow a second Chamber to veto legislation threatening the rights of local government. In the longer term, such a fundamental bedrock of our democracy must be guaranteed by clauses in a written constitution for the United Kingdom.
    Secondly, although we may return the ownership of local government to local people, we must also restore control to them. Political independence for councils would mean nothing without financial independence. The bulk of all local authority spending—more than half—is provided by central Government and only a fraction—one eighth—is raised locally by council tax. Such dependency must end. Central Government must be removed from the financial equation locally and a radical new settlement on taxation must be implemented to achieve that.
    Income tax is first collected from local taxpayers by the Inland Revenue and distributed back to the localities by central Government, but that essentially technical system of distribution has become politicised and arbitrary due to ministerial manipulation and the desire to impose central priorities. In future, I propose that the Inland Revenue should collect the same amount of
    886
    income tax revenue, thus leaving the taxpayer completely financially unaffected. However, the precise amount that currently goes to local government would be ring-fenced and given to it directly rather than via the centre.
    Central Government spending on local services in England and Wales is £54.6 billion and the income tax take for England and Wales is £109 billion. In effect, about 50 per cent. of the income tax take would become a local element and 50 per cent. would go to the Chancellor. That could be done via an independent commission that would be legally separate and dislocated from Whitehall. It would receive local government's slice of income tax directly from the Inland Revenue and be charged with distributing money to councils on the same basis as that currently used by the Government Department with responsibility for local government. There is no reason why most of the commission's members could not be elected councillors from all parties. Local government's national bodies have shown themselves to be mature and confident in their cross-party work and when co-operating among themselves, so there is no reason why such a commission could not perform that task. The amount of income tax raised for national and local expenditure would be clearly identified on everybody's payslip as national and local income tax to aid accountability. Although central Government would be legally excluded from tampering with the overwhelming bulk of local authorities' income, they could perform the function for which they are best suited by being free to assist councils with time-limited funding for specific problems, which is already done by the federal Government of the United States and the Governments of many—indeed, most—European states.
    Local councils, assured that the funding of most of their expenditure was secure, could then be free to raise the remaining part of their income from a menu of tax-raising revenue powers, ranging from property taxes to sales taxes. Decisions on local taxes and rates could be taken by local representatives, perhaps even endorsed in local referendums. My guess is that local authorities would mostly rely on their local income tax£54.6 billion—a returned business rate of £16.3 billion and a property tax of £17.7 billion to meet their total current expenditure of £88.5 billion. However, this would be a matter entirely for them to decide. In a mature democracy local authorities would be confident and competent enough to raise and spend what they decide is appropriate, always needing to balance service delivery with revenue raising and being aware of the electoral consequences of no taxation without explanation.
    Citizens, knowing what they pay and why they pay it and holding their own local representatives to account, would constitute a firmer discipline and a stronger bulwark against central interference than any statute that could be passed by this place. Local authorities already have a record of financial expertise and economic management that bears comparison with central Government, who so often wish to lecture them whatever political party that Government happen to represent.
    As a constitutional safeguard, local authorities would be obliged to operate a balanced budget provision, a self-discipline operated by most American state governments. Annual income would have to match

    887
    annual spending. Local borrowing, provided that its costs were met from annual income, need not be controlled by Whitehall or appear in the old public sector borrowing requirement, which is now called the public sector net cash requirement.
    Throwing away the crutch of central Government will be a frightening as well as exciting challenge. There will be nobody else to blame any more. However, devoted public service has always characterised local councillors of all parties, and they will respond to their liberty. Let local people decide on their spending, their services, their electoral system or the use of direct democracy. A thousand flowers are waiting to bloom locally, but not all of them to the liking of whichever political party is in control at the centre. We must be mature enough to accept that, alongside one council's initiative to create jobs or vocational training in schools, for example, another council may wish to reinstate grammar schools. Such diversity should be not centrally repressed but fought out nationally and locally in the melting pot of campaigns, the contest of ideas and the votes around local choices.
    I have faith that my party's ideas would pass such tests, not least because they would deliver a tremendous revitalisation to our all-too-often moribund local politics. Returning real decision-making powers to local areas would give a much-needed stimulus to local political parties. Many individuals who have opted out of local politics would again be drawn back into public service. Once again, it would really matter who got elected locally and how well they were politically prepared and technically trained to handle the onerous duties and responsibilities of independent local government.
    We would recreate that invaluable network of citizen politicians of all parties, in touch with their communities, close to their constituents, empowered and empowering their local areas. We all know that the current agency relationship between the centre and the localities cannot be sustained. Independence for local government and independence for people locally is an idea that could revitalise not only our politics but our local civic community. Now is the time for some bold leadership to release and return power back to where it belongs—our local communities.
    10.14 pm
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Phil Hope): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) on securing this evening's debate and thank him for his kind remarks at the beginning. He managed cleverly to refer to President Brezhnev, and Chairman Mao indirectly, in the same contribution, even though they had opposing philosophies—although the citizens of their two countries may not feel that way.
    This is a good time to discuss this important subject, which the Government take seriously, and with which I am closely involved, not least as a member of the steering group that is looking at the balance of funding. I listened with great interest to my hon. Friend's views and suggestions on how the local government system should operate, and it may help the House if I recap on the background to the many issues that he raised.
    My hon. Friend is concerned with local government's constitutional standing, electoral turnout, the need for political and financial independence and the case for a
    888
    local income tax. Any of those might be considered a suitable subject for an Adjournment debate in its own right, and he is to be congratulated on bringing so many important issues together in one short debate.
    I should like to start with localism, which is at the core of my hon. Friend's proposals. That is a term that is used increasingly commonly in many different contexts, and rightly so: it is a central theme in the Government's thinking, and underpinned much of what we said in our White Paper and the new financial freedoms in the Local Government Act 2003.
    What does localism mean? Like many well used phrases, it is, I suspect, open to a range of different interpretations. Presumably, it is the opposite of centralism and command politics, the sins that my hon. Friend described earlier. To do him credit, he proposed a truly radical meaning that would entirely break with the history of local government and the current constitution of this country. His localism would require constitutionally independent local government, backed by a new inspection regime, a new British Bill of Rights, a local income tax, and a menu of other tax-raising powers. I hope that I have not understated the radical nature of his approach.
    The Government have their own powerful vision here—one in which strengthened and efficient councils are free to deliver what their voters demand. But we also need to have the power to intervene where they are clearly not doing so. Our vision recognises the expectations of the public. When asked their opinion, many of the public are often in favour of devolution in principle. It seems common sense that councils should be left alone to get on with things in the way that my hon. Friend described, but others seem to trust their local councils less than they do Parliament and Whitehall, and that was shown, for example, by our focus group research on public attitudes to the balance of funding. If the public are asked different questions, they tend to be hostile to what the press like to call the postcode lottery. If we are to advocate the localist cause, we have to be prepared to build public understanding that devolution of decision making involves greater diversity of provision.
    The public can also be slightly less devolutionist when things go wrong. They are quick to point the finger at central Government and ask us to step in. For example, in response to a highly publicised social services case, or evidence of educational under achievement, the tendency is to insist that the Government must do something to remedy the problem. There are expectations that the Government should ensure certain minimum standards, and that means that there must be a limit to local discretion. Society simply will not accept standards of provision falling below certain norms in any area, and, frankly, neither will we.
    Now we hear the term new localism or, in different contexts, civil renewal, suggesting that we should perhaps look at a radically new concept of devolution to the town hall and beyond. I should be clear that I support giving people a strong say in their localities in respect of services, and in other issues, such as liveability, that affect their everyday lives. That is about getting better services because they can better reflect local needs and priorities, and about getting people involved. I echo my hon. Friend's sentiments in his remarks towards the end of his speech, because effective

    889
    local leadership is vital to achieving that. Thriving communities and strong democratic leadership go hand in hand. He and I both know from our constituency experience that neighbourhoods have complex interrelated problems, services are delivered by multiple agencies and there are limits to the capacity of any community to address all issues.
    That is why we see a vital role for the council as community leader and facilitator, and we have started to give councils the ability to play that role. In 2000, we gave councils a power to promote the well-being of their areas, allowing them to respond to a wide range of local issues. This year, the Local Government Act 2003 gave local authorities more freedoms that will help them to respond to local priorities and needs. Financial freedoms and the freedom to respond to businesses and communities are crucial to making credible an agenda of responsiveness. In a different context, which we have been debating today, we are ensuring that the planning System—one of the issues about which local people get most concerned—is more responsive to the community.
    Those issues are the context for the new localism, but we recognise that it does not stop at the town hall. There are already models of empowering communities, such as neighbourhood management schemes, which I am sure my hon. Friend has in his area, and quality parishes. We are looking at those options and others across services and Departments. He will have seen that, in the big conversation, of which his contribution is a part, we have asked for views on whether we should give neighbourhoods more direct power over public spaces and community safety, with the power to raise small sums of money. We want a real debate on those issues, and his contribution has been an important part of that.
    I should add a word on the European context, to which my hon. Friend also referred. In their approach to the Convention on the Future of Europe and now towards the intergovernmental conference in drawing up a constitutional treaty for the European Union, the UK Government have throughout been a leading advocate both of ensuring that subsidiarity is properly enforced and of strengthening the role of national Parliaments in Europe. We also welcomed the recognition that the Convention gave to the role of regional and local government. We are continuing to support those proposals in the IGC.
    I should like now to move on to the finance issues that my hon. Friend raised. First, I refer him to the recent provisional grant settlement for local authorities. I know that that does not quite go to the philosophical root of his arguments, but I should like to preface my later remarks with some comments on the reality of what is happening now. As he will know, the Government have increased the grant to local government by some 29 per cent. in real terms since 1997, taking account of the provisional settlement for 2004–05. That settlement is the seventh successive settlement to give an above-inflation increase to councils—in this case no less than 6.5 per cent.
    More money is going into local government, but my hon. Friend asks for more financial freedoms for local government. We have already moved in that direction, as can be seen in our commitment to reverse the trend on the ring-fencing of grants to local authorities. I am
    890
    leased to say that, in the recent grant settlement, we reduced the ring-fenced grant from 13.3 to 11.1 per cent. of the total grant.
    The Local Government Act 2003 is also about giving councils more independence and flexibility, including financially, and paves the way for even greater freedoms for councils to improve their services. It includes powers to trade, charge for discretionary services and retain income from some fines and penalties, and gives incentives for local government to work with local businesses through the business improvement districts and growth incentives schemes. It also provides for authorities, rather than the Government, to decide how much they need to borrow.
    I welcome my hon. Friend's comments on the balanced budget duty. The duty to set a balanced revenue budget has long been a fundamental part of the local government financial framework. From next April, the 2003 Act will strengthen current rules even further.
    I am also pleased that my hon. Friend favours removing central control from local borrowing. As he knows, that is exactly what will happen next April, when the new prudential capital finance system comes into force. Again, the framework has been provided in the Local Government Act 2003. For the first time, local authorities will be free to borrow to fund capital expenditure without Government consent, provided that they can afford to service the debt without extra Government support.
    Let me move on to my hon. Friend's specific suggestions on what taxes local government should be able to raise and to the broader-brushed canvas that he described. In brief, I understand that he is proposing a local income tax, relocalisation of the business rates and other local revenue sources such as a sales tax. His voice is certainly not the first to make those suggestions. All of them are among the areas for further consideration raised by respondents to the consultation on our balance of funding review, which has invited expert evidence on all those issues in the next few months.
    It is possible that, despite recent discussions of council tax rises, some hon. Members are not familiar with the balance of funding review, although I am sure that my hon. Friend is. The Government proposed in their 2001 White Paper to set up a high-level working group to address an issue repeatedly raised by local authorities and the Local Government Association. They argued that the fact that local authorities raised only 25 per cent. of their own funding on average, and relied on central Government grant for the rest, was bad for local democracy. They also argued that it caused the problem of gearing, by which an authority needs to raise its council tax bill by an average of 4 per cent. to raise its budget by just 1 per cent.
    The review has met several times under the chairmanship of my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government, Regional Governance and Fire. It has discussed the principles of a successful local government finance system, commissioned independent research—all of which is now available on the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister's website, so it is transparent and available for everyone to become engaged with—and held a public consultation. It is now discussing possible reform options. In the context of this debate, I want to emphasise two of its findings so far.

    891
    First, the research shows that much of the public are not clear where accountability for local government services lies or where the money comes from. What matters to them is not where local authorities get their money, but that services are efficiently delivered. There seems to be no sign of a direct link between the balance of funding and local election turnout—that was a surprise to many of us. Secondly, our consultation results show that there are many concerns about aspects of the local government finance system, particularly gearing and the impact of council tax rises on taxpayers with fixed incomes. However, there was no clear or simple view of what needs to be done. There are no easy fixes or quick wins and we do not want a knee-jerk reaction. That is why we reject the simplistic, uncosted notions proposed by the Liberal Democrats, and why the official Opposition have so far remained silent on the matter. We need to think the issues through fully if we want, as I do, a system that is fair and widely accepted.
    Let me look at my hon. Friend's proposal for a local income tax. The balance of funding review consultation showed support in some quarters for replacing or supplementing council tax with a local income tax, or at least considering the case for one. However, we already gain most of our tax revenue from a national income tax, so we would need to be very sure of the case for having a local income tax, too. I should also point out that the Prime Minister has made it clear that the Government do not favour replacing council tax with local income tax. However, we are certainly prepared in the review to listen to reasoned arguments, and this is one of four issues on which we are asking expert organizations—in this case, the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy—to provide further evidence on the pros and cons. That is vital in the case of local income tax, because there are many different ways in which it could work. My hon. Friend proposes assigning a fixed proportion of national income tax to local government. That would, as he suggested, provide security, but it would hardly give councils greater freedom because they would have no control over the rate. I can see that it would be easier to administer than a system where councils set the rate, but I am not sure how it would increase local democracy.
    Mr. Allen: I need to make it clear that, as my hon. Friend has grasped, I am not suggesting that local authorities themselves should have any ability to vary
    892
    the rate—certainly, not initially—but that the amount of national income tax that gets diverted to local services follows a more direct route that would aid accountability. In a sense, since it does not alter the payments made by the individual taxpayer, it is a fairly modest proposal, but the symbolism of assigning that money as a local income tax would be a tremendous boon to accountability. It need not necessarily stop there, but I am conscious of my hon. Friend's blandishments about not doing anything too radical.
    This proposal is radical enough—I hope that it would encourage local government to think further about its options in a decade or two.
    Phil Hope: My hon. Friend makes a good point. He talked about creating a new independent commission of elected members who would distribute that ring-fenced money. I can see advantages to his proposals as well as a great many disadvantages—that is why the balance of funding review is considering all the issues. Some advocates of local income tax suggest that its administrative costs are minimal, but that is frankly not credible. The review will need to hear a great deal of evidence about that.
    I am aware that time is running out, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My hon. Friend also suggested the re-localisation of business rates. We have a predisposition against re-localisation because we fear that a postcode lottery may occur where businesses are allowed to go down that route.
    I welcome my hon. Friend's contribution to this important debate. His paper certainly reflects the importance of getting it right, and it is admirably detailed in its proposals. These are complex issues. There is no easy fix and no magic formula: we need to plan for the long term. We are firmly committed to the new localism, as well as to providing new freedoms to local government and exploring options on how it is financed, although I have to say that the Government's considering how such options might work does not mean that we endorse or intend to adopt them, whatever newspapers might say.
    The motion having been made at Ten O'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
    Adjourned at half-past Ten o'clock.

HOUSE OF COMMONS COMMISSION

  Timber
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, representing the House of Commons Commission by what means the House's policy on purchasing timber and timber products ensures that they are obtained from legal and sustainable sources. [141339]

  Sir Archy Kirkwood
  The General Specification used for Parliamentary works includes the following clause:"Sources of timber: it is the employer's policy to purchase only timber products from sustainably managed sources. When requested, the contractor must submit to the project manager documentary evidence (which has been or can be independently verified) that the timber supplied under this contract has been lawfully obtained from forests and plantations which are managed to sustain their bio-diversity, productivity and vitality and to prevent harm to other ecosystems and any indigenous or forest-dependent people."

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Cote d'Ivoire
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what steps he is taking to prevent conflict reoccurring in Cote D'Ivoire. [141368]

  Mr. Mullin
  I have been asked to reply.

  The UK fully supports the Linas-Marcoussis Agreement (LMA) as the basis for sustainable peace in Cote d'Ivoire. Our engagement has included £3 million to support the work of the European Community of West African States Mission in Cote d'Ivoire (ECOMICI), the West African regional peacekeeping force. We have also provided £1 million in humanitarian aid. We have been concerned at the growing fragility of the peace process since September, including attempts by armed elements to cross the ceasefire line on 29 November. We are working closely with the French and others in the international community to urge continued respect for the ceasefire; underline the importance of the government of National Reconciliation meeting again in full; and of swift progress on implementation of the LMA, including measures for disarmament and demobilisation.

  Cote d'Ivoire

    EU Development Assistance
    Mr. Bercow
    To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what discussions he has had with his counterparts in EU accession countries about an increased focus on(a) poor countries and (b) poverty reduction in future EU development assistance. [140871]
    196W
    Mr. Gareth Thomas
    EU Enlargement should be an opportunity to mobilise even greater support for the Millennium Development Goals and a pro-poor development agenda.

    During the informal meeting of EU Development Ministers in Trieste, where many of my accession colleagues were present, broad development policy issues were discussed. I will also be meeting a number of my counterparts from key Accession Countries after the New Year to stress the importance of securing wider agreement on poverty reduction as the central objective of EU development assistance.

    Mr. Bercow
    To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what his policy is towards the proportion of European Union Development Assistance that should go to low income countries. [140872]

    Mr. Gareth Thomas
    DFID has consistently pressed for the proportion of EC overseas development assistance spent in low income countries to reach the level of 70 per cent. The target date for this achievement is 2006.

    According to the available provisional figures, over 50 per cent. of all EC overseas development assistance was spent in low income countries in 2002. This represents an increase in this proportion for the second year running.

    Mr. Bercow
    To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what recent discussions he has had with his colleagues in the European Union about the(a) nature and (b) extent of EU assistance for middle income countries. [140873]

    Mr. Gareth Thomas
    During the Trieste informal meeting of EU Development Ministers last October, I had an opportunity to share our current thinking on how best to allocate Community aid between countries. In this context, I reiterated the importance of allocating Community aid to countries based on needs and performance, and to seek a greater differentiation between the development instruments we use in low versus middle income countries.

    In practice, this would imply a larger share of EC overseas development assistance going to low income countries, and a focus of allocations to middle income countries on those with large number of poor people which pursue reformist policies. It would also mean an increased use of instruments such as concessional lending and technical assistance in middle income countries.

    I have also discussed this bilaterally with some UK members of the European Parliament during the autumn.

  CABINET OFFICE

    Projects (St. Helens)
    Mr. Woodward
    To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office which projects have been(a) wholly and (b) partly funded by his Department in St. Helens since 1997; when each project was announced; when it started or was expected to start; what funding was provided by (i) Government and (ii) a third party; what third party

    197W
    provided funding; what the target group of the project was; what the projected outcome of the project was; and what the name of the project was. [141268]

    Mr. Alexander
    The Cabinet Office works with all Government Departments to help deliver key public service priorities and leads the reform programme for public services.

    The Cabinet Office has funded no projects in St. Helens since 1997.

  SOLICITOR-GENERAL

    Hutton Inquiry
    Mr. Cameron
    To ask the Solicitor-General what steps the Law Officers have taken in the light of the ruling by Mr. Justice Tomlinson in District Council and others v. The Governor and company of the Bank of England to ensure that documents given to the Hutton Inquiry but not released on the grounds of legal advice privileged are published.[142054]

    The Solicitor-General
    The Law Officers have taken no steps in relation to the publication of any documents disclosed to the Hutton Inquiry.

    Mr. Cameron
    To ask the Solicitor-General what discussions were held between the Attorney-General's office and the Hutton Inquiry about which documents disclosed to the Hutton Inquiry should not be made public; and what reasons were given by the Government in each case. [142055]

    The Solicitor-General
    None.

  TRANSPORT

    Arun Valley Rail Upgrade
    Mr. Maude
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what the(a) status, (b) start date and (c) expected completion date is of the Arun Valley rail upgrade. [140485]

    Dr. Howells
    The Arun Valley upgrade was proposed by Go Via as part of their plans for a 20 year franchise. The Strategic Rail Authority subsequently agreed a shorter franchise with Go Via. The development of infrastructure upgrades will be taken forward by the SRA separately from franchise replacements. The focus currently is on the major upgrade of the power supply in the Southern Region. The Strategic Rail Authority has developed a Capacity Utilisation Policy which seeks to make the most efficient use of the existing network. Work on a Route Utilisation Strategy for the Brighton Main Line has begun. This will help to inform the need for any future infrastructure upgrades.

    Community/Voluntary Transport Projects
    Mr. Soames
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he is taking to encourage(a) community and (b) voluntary sectors in the transport field. [142434]
    198W
    Mr. McNulty
    The Department for Transport greatly values the contribution that the voluntary and community sector makes in the transport field and is committed to the Government wide Compact on working with the voluntary sector. The Department has produced a draft Strategy and Action Plan detailing how it will work with and engage the sector over the coming year and we are currently consulting on that draft.

    The Department has also set up a Compact working group with membership drawn from the voluntary and community sector to progress this work and to help us ensure that we have a clear understanding of their issues and priorities.

    Mr. Soames
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what support his Department is giving to voluntary organisations in the transport sector. [142435]

    Mr. McNulty
    The Department for Transport directly supports voluntary organisations in a number of ways. For example, it funds the information and advice service provided by the Community Transport Association. The CTA provides an extensive service to community transport operators and local authorities on a range of legal and operational issues. The Department also publishes guidance on the type of services that can be run and the legal framework for them. The Department also provides funding for 12 mobility centres in England, which give information and advice to disabled and older people on driving and other aspects of personal mobility and to Mobility Choice, the charity that runs the annual Mobility Roadshow.

    In addition, funding the rural and urban bus challenge enables the Department to aid schemes run by community transport groups and last year regulations were introduced to extend the Bus Service Operators Grant.

    Energy Saving Trust
    Mr. Randall
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much funding is allocated to the Cleanup project operated by the Energy Saving Trust in the current financial year; and how much has been spent in this financial year. [141790]

    Mr. Jamieson
    In the current financial year, take-up of CleanUp grants has been strong, and the year's resources have been fully allocated. However, if existing offers are not fully taken up, the resources will be allocated to organisations or individuals whose grant applications have been placed on the CleanUp waiting list

    The CleanUp budget for the financial year 2003–04 is £12.562 million and as of the end of October the Department for Transport had paid the Energy Savings Trust £7.835m for the CleanUp programme.

    Debt
    Brian Cotter
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many claims for statutory interest payments have been submitted to private companies under the terms of the Late Payment of Debt Act 1998; how many claims were met; and what the total value was of such payments in each year since the Act has been in operation. [141597]
    199W
    Mr. McNulty
    I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my hon. Friend, the Minister for Small Business and Enterprise (Nigel Griffiths) on 3 December 2003,Official Report, column 102W.

    Legislation
    Mr. Redwood
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many pages of(a) primary and (b) secondary legislation his Department put through Parliament in 2002–03. [141173]

    Dr. Howells
    My Department sponsored one Bill in the 2002–03 session which comprised 92 pages once enacted.

    £

    1998–99

    1999–2000

    2000–01

    2001–02

    2002–03

    Scotland

    8,034,124.92

    8,929,663.47

    9,110,457.12

    8,536,210.39

    7,270,783.41

    Isle of Man

    44,424.38

    20,635.93

    19,012.13

    19,400.57

    26,074.60

    England and Wales

    54,942,311.20

    55,756,005.50

    57,923,611.28

    62,489,782.79

    60,343,913.47

    Northern Ireland

    617,011.16

    662,503.18

    599,414.51

    662,195.49

    637,721.11

    R.O.I (Customs and Excise)

    3,131,480.85

    3,464,779.82

    3,416,674.55

    3,077,673.30

    3,363,729.90

    Total

    66,769,352.51

    68.833,587.90

    71,069,169.59

    74,785,262.54

    71,642,222.49

    The figures above are for General Light dues and does not include income from UK fishing vessels and tugs.

    The figures do not include any light dues refunds that were made.

    The figures for ROI are shown in sterling converted at an exchange rate based on the Bank of England average for each month. Pre-conversion figures shown as follows.

    R.O.I. (Customs and Excise)

    Figures

    1998–99

    3,597,474.41

    1999–2000

    4,246,163.66

    2000–01

    4,396,335.39

    2001–02

    4,144,997.18

    2002–03

    5,268,090.44

    John Thurso
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what financial contribution in(a) sterling. (b) euros and (c) punts has been made by the Irish Government under the terms of the 1985 agreement for the sharing of certain costs incurred by the Commissioners of Lights in the Republic of Ireland in each of the last five years. [141748]

    Mr. Jamieson
    The information requested is set out in the following table.

    Irish Government contributions for years 1997–98 to 2001–02

    Financial years

    Sterling

    Euros

    Punts

    1997–98

    1,815,847

    2,556,153

    2,013,134

    1998–99

    1,448,449

    2,317,770

    1,825,392

    1999–2000

    1,146,745

    1,811,703

    1,426,832

    2000–01

    1,307,234

    2,110,825

    1,662,410

    2001–021

    2,063,889

    3,214,780

    2,531,845

    200W
    In the case of secondary legislation my Department was responsible for the making of 127 General Statutory Instruments which would have subject to consideration by either the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments or the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments. These instruments made a total of 1,264 pages.

    Light Dues
    John Thurso
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much revenue from light dues has been collected from ships calling at ports in(a) Scotland, (b) the Isle of Man, (c) England and Wales, (d) Northern Ireland and (e) the Republic of Ireland in each of the last five financial years. [141747]

    Mr. Jamieson
    The information requested is given in the following table.

    1 Conversion rate of euro to sterling used was the Bank of Ireland mid December 2002 rate of 0.6420.

    Note:

    Ir punts ceased as a currency on 1 January 2002.

    London Underground
    Mr. Damian Green
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) how many defects there were on each line on the London Underground in each year between 1990 and 2003; [140931]

    (2) how many equipment breakdowns there were on the London Underground in each year between 1990 and 2003, broken down by line. [140932]

    Mr. McNulty
    London Underground transferred from Central Government to Transport for London on 15 July. These are operational matters for London Underground, but it does not hold the data in the format requested.

    M20
    Mr. Damian Green
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what contribution the Highways Agency will make to the cost of building Junction 10A of the M20 and new roads to serve it; and if he will make a statement. [140822]

    Mr. Jamieson
    The overall cost currently estimated for the scheme is £46 million. The Highways Agency will be seeking funding from developers to meet the cost of those elements of the scheme needed to provide access to development sites in Ashford.

    Maritime and Coastguard Agency
    John Thurso
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much of the Maritime and Coastguard
    201W
    Agency budget was spent on (a) coastguard, (b) ship inspectors, (c) depots and (d) emergency towing vessels in each of the last five years. [141745]

    Mr. Jamieson
    The Maritime and Coastguard Agency's expenditure is set out in the following table:

    £000

    Coastguard

    Ship inspectors

    Accommodation

    Emergency towing vessels

    Resource accounts

    2003–04

    56,192

    25,769

    6,631

    10,843

    2002–03

    53,346

    25,072

    6,071

    11,050

    2001–02

    43,226

    28,750

    6,221

    6,875

    Cash accounts

    2000–01

    44,800

    18.955

    6,466

    6,774

    1999–2000

    45,922

    15,473

    6,529

    5,742

    Note:

    The Resource Accounts figures include depreciation and capital charge which are not included within the Cash Accounts outturns.

    Mobile Telephones
    Mr. Amess
    To ask the Secretary of state for Transport what representations he has received on the banning of mobile telephones whilst driving. [142099]

    Percentage

    Region

    1996

    1997

    1998

    1999

    2000

    2001

    Total

    Northern

    54

    31

    50

    29

    50

    30

    41

    Yorks/Humberside

    34

    37

    33

    33

    28

    31

    33

    East Midlands

    31

    38

    44

    39

    39

    29

    38

    Eastern

    37

    33

    31

    46

    33

    27

    35

    South East

    33

    35

    52

    41

    29

    42

    38

    Greater London

    23

    25

    25

    25

    22

    38

    27

    South west

    21

    30

    43

    29

    19

    50

    32

    West Midlands

    24

    32

    21

    35

    44

    43

    32

    North west

    35

    22

    29

    44

    28

    29

    31

    England

    33

    31

    34

    36

    31

    35

    33

    Ports
    Mr. Carmichael
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much the Government has spent on UK port infrastructure in each of the past 10 years; what estimates have been made of future expenditure; and what steps are being taken to increase capacity. [141912]

    Mr. Jamieson
    My Department has awarded the following freight infrastructure grants to ports over the last 10 years, including Strategic Rail Authority grants awarded for rail infrastructure projects at ports in England and Wales. Freight grants awarded by the Scottish Executive is a matter for the Scottish Parliament.

    DfT freight infrastructure grants to ports 1993–94 to 2002–03

    £ million

    2002–O31

    7.8

    2001–022

    11.6

    2000–01

    16.0

    1999–2000

    1.4

    1998–99

    0.7

    1997–98

    2.9

    1993–94 to 1996–97

    nil

    202W
    Mr. Jamieson
    The Department has received many representations on the use of mobile phones while driving. The vast majority has been broadly in favour of a ban on the hand-held phones by drives. There were over 1,000 responses to the Department's consultation document of 20 August 2002 on this. The results of that Consultation were summarised in a document attached to the Department's decision letter of 24 June 2003. A copy was placed in the Library and is available on-line at: www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_rdsafety/documents/page/dft_rdsafety_508356.pdf

    Pedestrian Deaths
    Mr. Burstow
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many pedestrian deaths in road accidents there were where the pedestrian had over 100 mgs of alcohol per 100 mls of blood in each of the last six years; and what percentage of all pedestrain road accident deaths in(a) England and (b) each region this represents in each case. [141575]

    Mr. Jamieson
    Information on the blood alcohol levels of pedestrians is available for less than half of those who died in road accidents. The following table shows the percentage of fatally injured pedestrians aged 16 or over 100 mg/100 ml out of those for whom a blood alcohol level has been provided by the Coroners.

    1 Includes Freight Grants awarded in 2002

    2 Includes Freight Facilities Grants awarded in 2001.

    Information on future spending on UK port infrastructure is not available. The Government do not initiate proposals for port development and considers applications from the ports themselves as and when they are submitted.

    Rail (East Yorkshire)
    David Davis
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans his Department has for improvements in rail transport in East Yorkshire. [140559]

    Dr. Howells
    The Strategic Rail Authority (SRA) is creating two new franchises to serve Yorkshire. The TransPennie Express franchise will commence early next year, with planned investment of around £260 million which will include a new fleet of trains. Local and regional services will be provided by the new 'Northern' franchise, the competition for which is well under way. The SRA is considering proposals from four counterparties and expects to announce a preferred bidder in the Spring. The SRA will consult on an East Coast Main Line Strategy early next year, and has
    203W
    announced a series of Regional Planning Assessments (RPAs) to form the basis for planning rail services over the next 5–20years. The RPA for Yorkshire and the Humber is planned for publication in Winter 2005.

    Road Noise
    Mr. Robathan
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what targets are in place for noise reduction on the motorway and trunk road network; and whether they are on course to be met. [140805]

    Mr. Jamieson
    The target stated in the 10-Year Plan for the reduction of noise from the motorway and trunk road network is that 60 per cent. of the network including all concrete roads will be surfaced with quieter surfacing by March 2011. All resurfacing work now uses quieter surfacing, and work is proceeding in line with maintenance need.

    Mr. Robathan
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list(a) the schedule of planned noise reduction improvements for the motorway and trunk road network, (b) the average level of noise in the area of those improvements and (c) the number of people affected by above acceptable noise levels in those areas. [140806]

    Mr. Jamieson
    The Secretary of State announced on 1 April 2003 a programme of measures to reduce the impact of traffic noise. Details were placed in the Library of the House together with details of the criteria used for prioritisation. We do not use the average levels of noise over a wide area as a criterion. However, the measures indicated in the 10-Year Plan to surface approximately 60 per cent. of the strategic road network with quieter surfaces, including all of the concrete trunk roads and motorways, by March 2011 are expected to provide the benefit of significant reductions in the level of traffic noise for approximately three million people.

    Runways (South-east)
    Mr. Peter Ainsworth
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if he will set out the basis on which alternative proposals for the development of runway capacity in the South East were selected for further appraisal; and if he will make a statement; [142794]

    (2) if he will list the proposals which have been (a) submitted to and (b) appraised by, his Department as alternative runway development options since the publication of The Future Development of Air Transport in the UK, South East, Second Edition. [142797]

    Mr. McNulty
    All serious, worked-up proposals submitted to us that are alternatives to, or variants of. options set out in The Future Development of Air Transport in the United Kingdom, South East consultation document, have been appraised. These are:the Thames Reach proposal for a new airport in North Kent
    the Marinair proposal for an island airport in the Thames Estuary
    a proposal for a new airport on the Isle of Sheppey
    a proposal for a new airport at Goodwin Sands in East Kent
    a proposal to develop Redhill aerodrome
    the London Oxford proposal for a new airport near Abingdon in Oxfordshire
    204W
    Mr. Peter Ainsworth
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what the cost to public funds to date has been of work undertaken on appraising alternative options to those set out in the consultation paper for runway development in the South East. [142795]

    Mr. McNulty
    We are not able at present to identify separately the costs of work in relation to appraisal of alternative options and all other work relating to the preparation of the White Paper.

    Safety Camera Partnerships
    Mr. Chope
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will place in the Library a copy of the current guideline handbook issued to safety camera partnerships. [142497]

    Mr. Jamieson
    The latest draft of the Handbook of Rules to the safety camera netting off scheme has been placed in the Libraries of the House.

    South Central Trains
    Mr. Maude
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans there are for(a) investment in and (b) the rebuilding of stations within the South Central Region. [140484]

    Dr. Howells
    Under the new franchise agreement signed in May a number of improvements will be made on South Central stations involving new ticket issuing equipment and ticket machines. Subject to the availability of funding, further investment will also be considered under national programmes such as the Modern Facilities at Stations (MFAS) scheme and the Access For All Fund. For the future, the SRA's Regional Planning Assessment for Southern England, publication of which is expected in spring 2005, will form the basis of rail service planning in the region, including how the SRA may contribute to station improvement schemes where they represent value for money and are affordable.

    Timber
    Mr. Gardiner
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport by what means the policy for purchasing timber and timber products of(a) the Department, (b) the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency, (c) the Driving Standards Agency, (d) the Highways Agency, (e) the Maritime and Coastguard Agency, (f) the Vehicle and Operator Service Agency and (g) the Vehicle Certification Agency ensures that they are obtained from legal and sustainable sources. [141342]

    Mr. McNulty
    The Department's Greening Operations Policy, which also applies to its Agencies, contains the commitment to purchase only timber and timber products from sustainable and legal sources. Purchasers within the Department are reminded regularly of this commitment and provided with advice to assist them in purchasing sustainable timber; including the Office of Government Commerce Information Note 9/2002

    How the timber policy is implemented across the Department depends on the scale and type of timber or timber product being purchased in each area. For some timber products such as furniture the main source of

    205W
    supply is through centrally negotiated call-off contracts operated by either the Department or the Office of Government Commerce which contain clauses that apply the Government's timber procurement policy. Other purchases of timber or timber products are obtained through specifications and contracts which also contain clauses seeking documentary evidence that the timber provided is from legal and sustainable sources.

    Vehicle Emissions
    Mr. Key
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what powers there are in statute law authorising a person in uniform, other than a police constable, to stop and detain a motor vehicle so that a test on the emissions from it may be carried out; and if he will make a statement. [142195]

    Mr. Jamieson
    Vehicle and Operator Services Agency examiners, accredited under the Police Reform Act 2002, have powers to stop vehicles for the purpose of inspecting their roadworthiness, which may include a check of emissions. Sections 40 and 41 of the Act provide the grounds for such Community Safety Accreditation Schemes. Schedule 5 sets out the powers that may be conferred on accredited persons.

    Transport Authorities (Capital Return)
    Mr. Chope
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what rate of return on capital employed is required for 2003–04 from(a) Bridlington Pier and Harbour Commissioners, (b) the Civil Aviation Authority, (c) Dover Harbour Board, (d) the Driving Standards Agency, (e) Falmouth Harbour Commissioners and (f) Poole Harbour Commissioners; and what dividend and interest payments his Department is budgeting to receive from each in 2003–04. [142496]

    Number of days moderate, high and very high for each national network monitoring site in London, 1997–2002

    1997

    1998

    Moderate

    High

    Very High

    Moderate

    High

    Very High

    Bromley Roadside

    0

    0

    0

    4

    0

    0

    Camden Kerbside

    41

    12

    1

    5

    0

    0

    Haringey Roadside

    26

    9

    0

    12

    0

    0

    Hounslow Roadside

    2

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    A3 Roadside

    20

    3

    2

    21

    2

    1

    Bexley

    47

    7

    1

    27

    1

    0

    Bloomsbury

    35

    5

    0

    18

    0

    0

    Brent

    48

    4

    0

    25

    1

    0

    Bridge Place

    13

    0

    0

    5

    0

    0

    Bromley

    —

    —

    —

    0

    0

    0

    Cromwell Road

    —

    —

    —

    0

    0

    0

    Eltham

    57

    5

    0

    23

    1

    0

    Hackney

    13

    0

    0

    13

    0

    0

    Haringey

    23

    1

    0

    13

    0

    0

    Hillingdon

    33

    8

    0

    22

    0

    0

    Lewisham

    12

    0

    0

    2

    0

    0

    Marylebone Road

    41

    6

    1

    35

    1

    0

    N.Kensington

    40

    7

    1

    28

    1

    0

    Southwark

    26

    1

    0

    11

    0

    0

    Sutton

    27

    0

    0

    16

    1

    0

    Teddington

    53

    4

    0

    32

    2

    0

    Wandsworth

    13

    0

    0

    5

    0

    0

    206W
    Mr. Jamieson
    The bodies named at(a) Bridlington Pier and Harbour Commissioners, (c) Dover Harbour Board, (e) Falmouth Harbour Commissioners and (f) Poole Harbour Commissioners are all independent trust bodies and, therefore, are not required by this Department to remit either dividend or interest payments to it.

    The following information regarding bodies (b) the Civil Aviation Authority and (d) the Driving Standards Agency is available in their respective Corporate Plans for 2003–04:

    Corporate plans for 2003–04

    Body

    Rate of return on capital employed (Percentage)

    Budgeted dividend (£)

    Budgeted interest on NLF loans (£)

    Civil Aviation Authority

    6

    —

    500,000

    Driving Standards Agency

    -3

    1,735,000

    212,000

  ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

    Air Pollution
    Simon Hughes
    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many days of(a) moderate, (b) high and (c) very high air pollution were recorded by each automatic monitoring station in London in each year since 1997. [140858]

    Mr. Bradshaw
    [holding answer 2 December 2003]The table shows the number of days on which levels of any one of a basket of five pollutants (carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, ozone, fine particles and sulphur dioxide) were recorded as 'moderate', 'high' or 'very high' by each national automatic monitoring station in London between 1997 and 2002. These five pollutants are recognised as the most important for causing short term health effects.
    207W

    Number of days moderate, high and very high for each national network monitoring site in London, 1997–2002

    1997

    1998

    Moderate

    High

    Very High

    Moderate

    High

    Very High

    Westminster

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    Southwark Roadside

    3

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    Sutton Roadside

    20

    2

    2

    6

    0

    0

    Tower Hamlets Roadside

    2

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    West London

    2

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    1999

    2000

    Moderate

    High

    Very High

    Moderate

    High

    Very High

    Bromley Roadside

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    Camden Kerbside

    21

    0

    0

    9

    0

    0

    Haringey Roadside

    10

    0

    0

    7

    0

    0

    Hounslow Roadside

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    A3 Roadside

    7

    0

    0

    1

    0

    0

    Bexley

    50

    1

    0

    24

    1

    0

    Bloomsbury

    21

    0

    0

    4

    0

    0

    Brent

    43

    2

    0

    37

    0

    0

    Bridge Place

    24

    0

    0

    -

    -

    -

    Bromley

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    Cromwell Road

    0

    0

    0

    1

    0

    0

    Eltham

    46

    0

    0

    21

    0

    0

    Hackney

    24

    0

    0

    10

    0

    0

    Haringey

    37

    3

    0

    20

    0

    0

    Hillingdon

    33

    1

    0

    5

    0

    0

    Lewisham

    5

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    Marylebone Road

    50

    7

    10

    83

    6

    0

    N.Kensington

    48

    1

    0

    23

    0

    0

    Southwark

    29

    0

    0

    12

    0

    0

    Sutton

    36

    0

    0

    18

    0

    0

    Teddington

    47

    4

    0

    37

    0

    0

    Wandsworth

    20

    0

    0

    6

    0

    0

    Westminster

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    Southwark Roadside

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    Sutton Roadside

    0

    0

    0

    1

    0

    0

    Tower Hamlets Roadside

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    West London

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    2001

    2002

    Moderate

    High

    Very High

    Moderate

    High

    Very High

    Bromley Roadside

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    Camden Kerbside

    15

    0

    0

    3

    0

    0

    Haringey Roadside

    8

    1

    0

    10

    0

    0

    Hounslow Roadside

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    A3 Roadside

    12

    2

    0

    1

    0

    0

    Bexley

    38

    0

    2

    34

    0

    0

    Bloomsbury

    22

    0

    0

    17

    1

    0

    Brent

    33

    2

    0

    21

    2

    1

    Bridge Place

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    Bromley

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    Cromwell Road

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    Eltham

    33

    1

    1

    23

    1

    0

    Hackney

    4

    0

    0

    11

    0

    0

    Haringey

    27

    1

    0

    13

    0

    0

    Hillingdon

    22

    1

    0

    11

    0

    0

    Lewisham

    0

    0

    0

    8

    0

    0

    Marylebone Road

    38

    11

    1

    54

    3

    0

    N.Kensington

    39

    1

    0

    16

    0

    0

    Southwark

    21

    0

    0

    12

    0

    0

    Sutton

    25

    1

    0

    3

    0

    0

    Teddington

    42

    4

    0

    58

    0

    0

    Wandsworth

    23

    0

    0

    9

    0

    0

    Westminster

    8

    0

    0

    12

    1

    0

    Southwark Roadside

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    Sutton Roadside

    6

    1

    0

    2

    0

    0

    Tower Hamlets Roadside

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    West London

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    208W 209W
    Notes:

    'Moderate', 'High' and Very High' refers to the Air Pollution Service Information bandings (www.airquality.co.uk/archive/standards.php*).

    Moderate—mild effects, unlikely to require action, may be noticed among sensitive individuals.

    High—significant effects may be noticed by sensitive individuals and action to avoid or reduce these effects may be needed (e.g. reducing exposure by spending less time in polluted areas outdoors). Asthmatics will find that their 'reliever' inhaler is likely to reverse the effects on the lung.

    Very High—the effects on sensitive individuals described for 'High' levels of pollution may worsen.

    —monitoring site not operating

    Animal By-Products Regulations
    Andrew George
    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent assessment she has made of the impact of the Animal By-Products Regulations 2003 on(a) cattle farmers, (b) pig and sheep farmers, (c) poultry farmers, (d) other livestock farmers, (e) catering establishments, (f) abattoirs and (g) other affected businesses. [141115]

    Mr. Bradshaw
    The Animal By-Products Regulations provide for the administration and enforcement of the EU Animal By-Products Regulation (EC No. 1774/2202). The most recent assessment on this legislation is contained in the Regulatory Impact Assessment that accompanied the Animal By-Products Regulations 2003 when they were laid before Parliament on 9 June 2003. Copies are available in the Library of the House.

    Animal Husbandry
    Miss McIntosh
    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what representations she has received on the impact on animal husbandry of(a) allowing animals to spend one overnight period at an auction and (b) requiring an animal to be killed at the slaughterhouse within 48 hours. [141441]

    Mr. Bradshaw
    After the reduction in the whole farm standstill from 20 days to six, Defra consulted earlier this year on a package of biosecurity proposals including one that animals should not remain longer than 24 hours on market premises. Following representations made by the industry, legislation was introduced on 1 August this year generally limiting this residency period to 48 hours.

    I have received representations from a few operators of markets and slaughterhouses asking for the 48 hour period to be extended.

    Animal Welfare
    Paddy Tipping
    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on how she intends to influence the recommendations of the Farm Animals Welfare Council's Report on the Welfare of Farmed Animals At Slaughter or Killing. [142012]

    Mr. Bradshaw
    [holding answer 4 December 2003]The Farm Animal Welfare Council is our independent advisory body on farm animal welfare matters. As such, we do not influence the recommendations that they make in reports. The Council published its report on the welfare of red meat animals at slaughter in June, and we are currently preparing a draft response.

  Badgers
  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs whether badgers infected with tuberculosis are capable of depositing infectious tubercular material sufficient to cause infection in cattle on open pasture and other areas to which cattle have access. [141078]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Although it is likely that badgers infected with tuberculosis are capable of infecting cattle, the routes of transmission of Mycobacterium bovis (the causative agent for bovine tuberculosis) from cattle to cattle, and between badgers and cattle, are not fully understood.

  The Randomised Badger Culling Trial is designed to provide information on the role of badgers in cattle TB. Other research investigates the pathogenesis of M. bovis in cattle. These form part of a broad programme or research designed to deliver information on improved diagnostics, how TB is transmitted, how TB develops in affected animals, and on the interaction with wildlife.

  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what badger latrines are; and what relevance they have in the spread of M.bovis to cattle. [141079]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Badger latrines are areas where the animals habitually defecate. Typically, they comprise several small pits 10 to 20 cm diameter containing badger droppings, usually contained within an area up to five metres across. Latrines are found within and on the periphery of badger social group territories. Badgers also urinate around latrines and smear their scent on the ground. Badgers infected with M. bovis (the causative organism of bovine tuberculosis) may excrete the organism in their faeces and/or urine. Therefore if badger latrines occur on pasture, or in areas frequented by cattle they may pose a risk of M. bovis infection for cattle.

  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how adult badgers infected with M. bovis transmit the infection to their young. [141080]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  It is possible that a sow badger infected with M. bovis (the causative organism of bovine tuberculosis) may transmit infection to her cubs through contaminated milk, or by aerosol in the confines of an underground nest chamber. Badgers may also infect each other by bite wounding, either during play fighting or through more aggressive territorial and mating encounters.
  211W
  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the estimated incidence of TB in(a) badgers and (b) cattle in England was in the last year for which figures are available. [141082]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The last year for which data is available on TB in badgers in England is the period 6 October 1998 to 5 October 1999. Table 1 shows the number of badger carcases tested and found positive for Mycobacterium bovis (the causative organism for bovine tuberculosis) in this period, while Table 2 shows the incidence of TB in cattle for the same period.

  Table 1: Badgers tested for M. bovis in England: 6 October 1998 to 5 October 19991

  Number and percentage

  Number of badger carcasses tested

  1,038

  Number of badger carcasses M. bovis positive

  104

  Percentage2

  10

  1 Data from the Randomised Badger Culling Trial (RBCT) and the associated current Road Traffic Accident (RTA) survey is not available. Data is sourced from the previous RTA survey and sources other than from Badger removal operations, and pre-dates the current RTA survey and RBCT.

  2 It is not possible to provide incidence rates for TB in badgers in the absence of data about the date badgers became infected.

  Table 2: TB herd incidence in England: 6 October 1998 to 5 October 19991

  Incidence of TB in cattle

  Tests on unrestricted herds

  28,353

  Confirmed new incidents

  702

  Incidence2

  2.5

  1 Data downloaded from the State Veterinary Service database on

  1 December 2003.

  2Percentage.

  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what conclusions have been drawn on routes of transmission from post-mortem examination of badgers for TB in the past 10 years. [141084]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Post-mortem examination of badgers is used as part of the process of determining if badgers are infected with Mycobacterium bovis, the causative agent of bovine tuberculosis. Post-mortem findings do not provide a basis for ascribing the source or route of infection. However, the location of visible lesions may be indicative of the route of infection e.g. lesions in the lung tissue would suggest a respiratory route of infection. The distribution of lesions in badgers examined by Defra from 1990–99 indicates that infection may have occurred through the respiratory or oral routes, as well as through infection from bite wounds.

  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what estimate has been made of the optimum badger population in England; and what assessment has been made of the effect on the local environment of colonies extending beyond the optimum size. [141085]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  No estimate has been made of the optimum badger population in England, and therefore no estimate can be made of the effect on the local environment of colonies extending beyond the optimum size.
  212W
  Defra is funding a project designed to assess the impact of removing badgers from the ecosystem. The results will shed more light on the ecological interaction of badgers with other species, which share their environment.

  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the percentage of badgers which can reasonably be expected to be killed in a defined area when the culling teams rely solely on trapping. [141088]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  In the absence of any means to estimate badger populations accurately, either prior to or post culling, it is always going to be difficult to make such assessments. In the randomised badger culling trial, post-culling surveys have indicated that, in the best conditions and allowing for a proportion of trap-shy animals, about 80 per cent. of the population may be culled using cage traps. In less than optimal conditions this figure can be substantially lower.

  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs where the main TB lesions have been found on those badgers which have been subject to a post-mortem examination for TB by or on behalf of her Department, in England in the past 10 years. [141393]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Information is available for the period 1 January 1990 to 31 December 1999.

  For this period of the 3,682 badgers that were positive for bovine TB, 1,228 displayed gross TB lesions.

  The following table classifies the occurrence of the lesion locations.

  Location of lesion

  Occurrence

  Abdominal nodes

  64

  Head nodes

  330

  Chest nodes

  532

  Skeletal nodes

  223

  Chest cavity tissues apart from lymph nodes

  418

  Abdominal cavity tissues apart from lymph nodes

  191

  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what action is taken by the Department when its badger traps are found to be removed or otherwise interfered with. [141972]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  When badger traps are found to be removed or otherwise interfered with, traps are replaced or resited or, alternatively, more discrete trapping sites are selected. Incidents of trapping interference are reported to the police.

  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment. Food and Rural Affairs how many field staff, as full-time equivalents, are employed by her Department both directly and on contract, on randomised badger culling trials; and how many were employed in(a) 2002 and (b) 2001. [141974]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The average number of field staff employed on the Randomised Badger Culling Trial in the Veterinary Directorate Wildlife Unit by financial year is as follows.
  213W

  Number

  1998–99

  62

  1999–2000

  90

  2000–01

  110

  2001–02

  136

  2002–03

  127

  2003–04

  133

  For most of 2001, field staff were reassigned to dealing with FMD. Over the first three years of the Trial contracts to carry out initial Triplet surveying were negotiated with CSL and ADAS and additionally small numbers of staff were deployed from elsewhere in the Department to support major proactive cull operations. Badger culling, however, was always carried out by Wildlife Unit personnel.

  Barn Owls
  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment has been made of the extent of barn owl deaths caused by traffic; and what steps are being taken to prevent them. [141037]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Research on this issue was commissioned by the Highways Agency with a final report produced in 1999—Impact of Roads on Barn Owl Populations. This year, the Barn Owl Trust published Barn Owls and Major Roads, the results and recommendations of a 15 year study. Both reports confirm that major roads present a significant hazard to barn owls. They act as barriers to dispersal and reduce barn owl populations in the adjacent countryside.

  The Highways Agency commissioned Highways and Birds—a best practice guide, published in 2001. This investigates the potential value of land alongside major roads to birds and provides generic best practice guidance for engineers and ecologists on highway design and management techniques of benefit to bird populations. These aim to minimise the risks to birds associated with traffic while making best use of the habitat within areas of the road verge where birds are considered to be at a safe distance from the carriageway.

  The Highways Agency's Biodiversity Action Plan acknowledges the extent of barn owl decline and states its intention to implement appropriate actions to reduce the threat from major roads.

  Bovine TB
  Sir Michael Spicer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the incidence of TB in cattle in(a) England, (b) Herefordshire and (c) Worcestershire was in the last six months for which figures are available. [140460]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  [holding answer 1 December 2003]The data requested are not available for Herefordshire and Worcestershire individually. However, the incidence of TB in cattle in(a) England and (b) Hereford and Worcester in each of the last six months is given in the following table.
  214W

  TB herd incidence May—October 20031

  Percentage

  Month

  England

  Hereford & Worcester

  May 2003

  3.54

  14.97

  June 2003

  3.98

  9.66

  July 2003

  2.91

  10.37

  August 2003

  2.15

  4.12

  September 2003

  3.12

  9.03

  October 2003

  3.23

  8.45

  Total

  3.22

  9.75

  1 Confirmed new herd incidents as a percentage of tests on unrestricted herds. Provisional data downloaded from the State Veterinary Service database on the 27 November 2003—subject to change as outstanding TB test and culture results become available.

  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much her Department has spent in support of efforts to identify a candidate vaccine for bovine TB in each of the last 10 years for which figures are available; and how much has been budgeted for this work over the next three years. [140841]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Research on identifying candidate vaccines for bovine TB was being conducted before 1998 but it is not possible to collate accurate financial figures before this time. The table shows the costs of two projects which identify and test new vaccine candidates for the financial years 1999–2000 to date.

  £

  Financial Year

  Cost

  1999–2000

  448,134

  2000–01

  509,954

  2001–02

  523,408

  2002–03

  542,024

  2003–04

  552,357

  Total

  2,575,877

  The current vaccine research programme could not have been undertaken without the sequencing of the Mycobacterium bovis genome as all new candidates are discovered through this knowledge. The sequencing of the genome project cost £1,156,293.

  In addition, identification of candidates for vaccine and diagnostic purposes is being pursued using "genomic" and "post-genomic" technology, costing £3,318,624 with an end date in 2005–06.

  The content and funding for the future TB research is currently under discussion within the Department and is taking account of external scientific advice. TB vaccine development is likely to form an increasingly important part of the research programme.

  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what advice the Department has given to farmers on the prevention of TB in cattle, in respect of the height of mineral and feed troughs to avoid badgers gaining access to them. [141086]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The Department has provided guidance to farmers on how to reduce the risk of cattle being exposed to Mycobacterium bovis in a free booklet entitled "TB in Cattle—Reducing Risk".
  215W
  Steps include ensuring mineral blocks and lips of water troughs are raised at least 80 cm (30 inches) off the ground, fencing off badger latrines and setts, not feeding cattle in troughs at pasture and avoiding the use of grass from badger latrines and field margins when cutting silage.

  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what European Union funds are available to farmers on whose cattle TB restrictions are imposed; how much is payable per head of cattle; whether match funding is required; and what claims the Department has made. [141087]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  We are not aware of any EU funds payable to farmers under TB restrictions. The Government currently pays farmers 100 per cent. of market value for cattle removed under TB control measures.

  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs whether her Department has analysed the(a) number and (b) proportion of farms where cattle with an autumn TB breakdown (i) have subsequently gone clear and (ii) have an increasing incidence of TB through the winter; and whether the first group of cases occurs in areas with a high level of TB infection in badgers. [141380]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  This information cannot be provided, except at disproportionate cost. There are seasonal trends in the detection of incidents of bovine TB but it is impossible to determine from currently available information whether these trends reflect seasonally in exposure to the disease.

  The Randomised Badger Culling Trial, alongside the Road Traffic Accident survey and the TB99 epidemiological questionnaire, is providing data about the prevalence of TB in badgers in areas of high incidence in cattle herds, for analysis by the Independent Scientific Group on Cattle TB.

  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what level of TB infection in cattle in the national herd her Department has assessed as being acceptable. [141382]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  A possible long-term objective in terms of control of bovine TB could be to achieve Officially Tuberculosis Free status as defined by the EU and the OIE. In the short term, Defra is seeking to arrest the geographic spread of the disease, and is shortly to consult on proposals designed to do this. Defra is also soon to consult on a new TB Strategy, looking at the roles of industry and Government, as well as considering what might be achievable in terms of TB control over next 10 years.

  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what proportion of cattle reported to be infected with TB are believed to have acquired infection from cattle-to-cattle transmission; and what proportion are believed to have acquired their infection(a) directly and (b) indirectly from badgers. [141383]
  216W
  Mr. Bradshaw
  It is not possible to ascribe the source of TB infection in cattle, as the routes of transmission of Mycobacterium bovis (the causative agent for bovine tuberculosis) from cattle to cattle, and between badgers and cattle, are not fully understood.

  The Randomised Badger Culling Trial was designed to provide information on the role of badgers in cattle TB (as well assessing the effectiveness of two badger culling options as control measures). Other research includes investigation of the pathogenesis of M. bovis in cattle. This forms part of a broad programme designed to deliver information on improved diagnostics, how TB is transmitted, how TB develops in affected animals, and on the interaction with wildlife.

  In addition, a survey is underway to assess potential risk factors that may predispose herds to TB outbreaks. A preliminary analysis is set out in the Third Report of the Independent Scientific Group on Cattle TB.

  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the use of polymerase chain reaction testing instead of culture testing for the confirmation of TB in bovine samples. [141385]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The Veterinary Laboratories Agency is collaborating with the Imperial College in the design and optimisation of a Mycobacterium bovis-specific polymerase chain reaction (or PCR) assay for the detection of M. bovis DMA in bovine TB lesions. Any new laboratory test is likely to complement rather than replace existing culture techniques.

  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs for what reason hauliers are prohibited under certain circumstances from collecting full loads of TB reactors, comprising animals from different farms, for delivery to slaughterhouses. [141386]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Any animal movement constitutes a health risk. Under post-FMD movement controls, Defra allowed a round of collections of animals from different farms only if all of the farms involved each had multiple pickup approval.

  There are farms which do not want approval or which cannot meet approval requirements. Where farms do not want approval or cannot meet approval requirements, the haulier must transport TB reactor animals direct to the slaughterhouse.

  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the differences are between TB control programmes in(a) the UK and (b) Ireland. [141387]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The UK broadly adopts the TB control measures set out by EU Directive 64/432/EEC on animal health problems affecting intra-Community trade in bovine animals and swine. It is understood that the arrangements in the Republic of Ireland are similar.

  The Republic of Ireland has a policy for limited culling of badgers for disease control purposes, whereas the UK does not.
  217W
  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to compensate farmers who suffer consequential losses as a result of TB infection in their herds following the failure of the reactive component of the randomised badger culling trials. [141388]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  We have no plans to compensate farmers who suffer consequential losses as a result of TB infection in their herds following the suspension of badger culling in reactive areas of the randomised badger culling trial. The payment of consequential loss to producers falls within the definition of State Aids and cannot therefore be paid without the agreement of the EU Commission.

  There has always been an element of risk in participation in the trial, although the majority of farmers might have presumed that culling badgers would only help reduce the risk of TB in their herds. Nevertheless all farmers took part in the trial on a voluntary basis, having had the choice to opt out totally, agree to survey operations only, or to surveying and culling operations, and to change their level of involvement at any time.

  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs whether she will prohibit the sale of milk for any purpose from farms under TB restriction. [141390]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Pasteurisation is effective in eliminating the risk from Mycobacterium bovis (the causative organism for bovine TB) in milk. Milk from herds under TB restrictions is permitted to be sold for human consumption after it has been heat treated. Milk hygiene legislation requires that raw milk and raw milk products for direct human consumption are produced from milk from officially TB free herds.

  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what precautions farmers are advised to take to avoid exposing their cattle to M.bovis infection. [141391]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The Department has provided a significant amount of advice and codes on the health and welfare of livestock. The Defra leaflet, "TB in Cattle—Reducing the Risk" suggests that farmers consider moving to a closed herd system. However, such a system still needs to be combined with other disease prevention measures to reduce risks of disease introduction and spread. Defra has also produced a leaflet "Golden rules for a healthy herd" that gives specific advice on preventative strategies for avoiding introduction of the most important cattle diseases, including TB during restocking.

  Defra has also produced a concise list of disease prevention measures, including the need to always know the health status of animals being bought or moved, in the form of a yellow card which was developed with livestock industry representatives and vets. It was sent to all livestock farmers in 2002, and is available on the Defra website.
  218W
  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs whether M. bovis isolates can be characterised to determine its genetic relationship to other isolates by using the technique of DNA fingerprinting; and whether there has been such fingerprinting of TB isolates from cattle and badgers in order to identify epidemiological relationships. [141396]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Spoligotyping is used to determine molecular type for all isolates of the bovine tuberculosis bacillus (M. bovis) obtained from badgers and cattle. Variable Number Tandem Repeats (or VNTR), a technique able to subdivide some spoligotypes, is also used. Generally the different strain types of M. bovis that these techniques identify exhibit distinct and probably longstanding geographical clustering. Within each geographical cluster the same strains tend to be found in badgers and cattle. Even where the same strain has been found in two different species in the same locality, it is difficult to deduce the direction of interspecies transmission, how often it occurs, and how much transmission there is between animals of the same species.

  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how long the current TB skin test on cattle as a preliminary diagnostic aid has been in use. [141968]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The tuberculin skin test for cattle has been compulsory in Great Britain since 1950. This is the test prescribed by the OIE for international trade, as well as under EU Directive 64/432/EEC on animal health problems affecting intra-Community trade in bovine animals and swine.

  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to replace the TB skin test used on cattle as a preliminary diagnostic aid with a more accurate and sensitive test. [141969]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Improved diagnosis of TB in cattle is a major objective of Defra's wide-ranging research programme. The current most promising candidate is the gamma interferon test, a laboratory-based blood test that measures the immune response to M. bovis (the causative agent for bovine TB) of T-cells in cattle blood.

  This test was officially recognised by the EU in July 2002, but only for use as a supplement to the Single Intradermal Comparative Cervical Test (SICCT) in TB affected herds. The test is considered more sensitive than the SICCT, but less specific, meaning that it results in a higher probability of false positives. For this reason, the gamma interferon test cannot be used on its own as a screening test for TB for the time being.

  In October 2002, Ministers announced the field evaluation of the gamma interferon test, to assess the potential for its use in GB.

  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs in how many cases badger traps laid by or on behalf of the Department in TB culling trials have been interfered with or removed without authorisation. [141971]
  219W
  Mr. Bradshaw
  Interference with badger traps laid in the Randomised Badger Culling Trial is variable between operations. It is usually quite geographically localised and repetitive within a culling operational area. Management records indicate that—over 116 culling operations, across 19 trial areas, between December 1998 and 10 October 2003, during which 15,666 traps were sited—there were 8,981 individual occasions where a trap was interfered with, and 1,827 individual occasions when a trap was removed.

  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the current status is of research on vaccines suitable for application to(a) badgers and (b) bovine animals to protect against TB infection; and when she expects commercial vaccines will become available. [141976]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Defra's extensive bovine TB vaccine research programme is aimed at identifying the most effective vaccine candidates and the most appropriate vaccination programmes to reduce the incidence of bovine TB. Depending on the outcome of this research, it will be necessary to gain approval for the selected vaccine or vaccines to be used in cattle or badgers or other susceptible species.

  The current situation is that the progress on research on vaccines is broadly in line with the timeline set out in the Krebs report, published in 1997. This estimated:
  Years 1–5: Identification of candidate vaccines and development of differential diagnostic tests;
  Years 5–10: Experimental investigations of vaccination protocols;
  Years 10–15: Field trials.

  The current status of research on vaccines was studied by the Independent Scientific Group's Vaccine Scoping Study Sub-Committee who submitted their report to Ministers in July. Ministers, last week, recommended publication of the report and this will be available shortly, both in written form and on the Defra website.

  It is not possible at this stage to estimate when commercial vaccines will become available, but discussions with industry are ongoing.

  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what representations have been made by her Department to insurance providers and underwriters on the funding of a joint venture to top up compensation paid for TB reactor cattle above the proposed cut to average market value. [141999]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  In developing proposals for a fundamental overhaul of our animal disease compensation arrangements, Defra met with representatives of insurance companies earlier in the year to explore a number of different options. It was concluded that "top-up" insurance schemes for loss of high value animals to notifiable animals diseases is not currently a viable option, as the market is not sufficiently developed. Top-up insurance is not set out as a short-term option for compensation for high-value animals in the current consultation on proposals to rationalise compensation for notifiable animal disease control. Under our proposals animals worth significantly more than the average market value can 220W
  be pre-valued and registered with Defra. In such cases the compensation payable will be equivalent to the registered pre-valuation.

  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to fund average cull-price for TB-infected animals and reactors with an industry levy on(a) milk and (b) beef. [142001]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The Government are working on proposals for an animal disease levy, which might include TB. The funds raised would be used to pay for, among other things, the costs of compensation for animals which are compulsorily slaughtered. At the moment the option we favour is a levy on live animals rather than animal products, but no decisions have been taken. We intend to consult on our proposals in the first half of next year.

  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how maintenance of closed dairy herds protects cattle from TB infection. [142003]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Maintaining a closed herd can eliminate the risk of introducing cattle infected with bovine tuberculosis. The risk of spread of infection from nearby herds and wildlife can be reduced by adopting husbandry and biosecurity measures, as described in the freely available Defra booklet "TB in Cattle—Reducing the Risk".

  Dairy Farming
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many dairy farmers left the industry in the last 10 years for which records are available in(a) Cornwall and (b) Devon. [140714]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The figures show the number of farmers, partners, directors and spouses on holdings in Cornwall and Devon where the predominant activity is dairy. These figures show the net change in the labour force over the last 10 years. Data for the total number of farmers, partners, directors and spouses (if working on the holding) combined are collected annually from the June Agricultural and Horticultural Census as a total. Figures are not available for each item.

  Cornwall & the Isles of Scilly

  Plymouth

  Torbay

  Devon CC

  1993

  2,469

  1—

  10

  4,188

  1994

  2,720

  13

  11

  4,689

  1995

  2,566

  11

  11

  4,536

  1996

  2,467

  11

  11

  4,391

  1997

  2,319

  12

  10

  4,203

  1998

  2,282

  10

  1—

  4,231

  1999

  2,130

  8

  9

  4,009

  2000

  2,073

  1—

  1—

  3,813

  2001

  2,073

  1—

  1—

  3,426

  2002

  2,007

  1—

  1—

  3,633

  Notes:

  (a) 1denotes that the data have been treated to avoid disclosure of information relating to individual holdings.

  (b) Figures for 1998 and 1999 show main holdings only, from 2000 onwards minor holdings are also included.
  221W
  (c) Due to a register improvement exercise in 2001 labour figures prior to this are not directly comparable with later results

  Source:

  June Agricultural Census

  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent discussions she has had with farming industry representatives about farmgate prices for milk. [140812]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  [holding answer 1 December 2003]The Secretary of State has had no formal meetings with representatives of the farming industry to discuss farmgate milk prices. However, Ministers frequently meet with representatives from all parts of the dairy supply chain and are therefore aware of the issues. Matters affecting the whole dairy sector are regularly discussed at the Dairy Supply Chain Forum chaired by my noble Friend Lord Whitty.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many dairy farms there were in 1997 in West Derbyshire; how many of them have closed since; and how many remain. [141458]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Constituency level data are available from 1998 onwards. The figures below show the number of holdings in West Derbyshire where dairy is the predominant activity. They reflect the position in the June of each year and therefore represent the net change.

  Year

  Dairy Holdings

  1998

  416

  2002

  354

  Notes

  Figures for 1998 show main holdings only, in 2002 minor holdings are also included.

  Source:

  June Agricultural Census

  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) how many(a) farmers and (b) farmers' spouses were engaged in dairy farming in (i) Cornwall and (ii) Devon in each of the last five years; [140778]

  (2) how many (a) partners and (b) directors were engaged in dairy farming in (i) Cornwall and (ii) Devon in each of the last five years. [141567]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The following figures show the number of farmers, partners, directors and spouses on holdings in Cornwall and Devon where the predominant activity is dairy. Data for the total number of farmers, partners, directors and spouses (if working on the holding) combined are collected annually from the June Agricultural and Horticultural Census as a total. Figures are not available for each item.

  Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly

  Plymouth

  Torbay

  Devon CC

  1998

  2,282

  10

  1—

  4,231

  1999

  2,130

  8

  9

  4,009

  2000

  2,073

  1—

  1—

  3,813

  2001

  2,073

  1—

  1—

  3,426

  2002

  2,007

  1—

  1—

  3,633

  1 Denotes that the data have been treated to avoid disclosure of information relating to individual holdings.

  222W
  Notes:

  Figures for 1998 and 1999 show main holdings only, from 2000 onwards minor holdings are also included.

  Due to a register improvement exercise in 2001 labour figures prior to this are not directly comparable with later results.

  Source:

  June Agricultural Census

  Farm Subsidies (CAP)
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the impact of opting for(a) regionalised average and (b) individual historical claims for decoupled payments under the reformed Common Agricultural Policy in respect of (i) small livestock farms, (ii) medium livestock farms, (iii) larger livestock farms, (iv) small mixed farms, (v) large mixed farms, (vi) small arable farms and (vii) large arable farms. [140811]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  [holding answer 1 December 2003]Responses to our recent consultation exercise are helping to develop our understanding of the range of economic, social and environmental issues surrounding the options for allocating entitlements under the new Single Payment Scheme. A note focusing on the important but narrow issue of the redistributive consequences of adopting each of the main options has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Farming
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the latest figures published by her Department on the number of farmers and farm workers who left the industry in England in the 12 months to June. [141112]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Figures from the Agricultural and Horticultural Census indicate the labour on agricultural holdings in June each year. These figures show the net change in the labour force. The total labour force fell by nearly 5 per cent. in the year to June 2003 continuing falls seen over recent years.

  Thousand

  Farmers, partners, directors and their spouses working on holdings

  June 2002

  225.0

  June 2003

  219.1

  All other workers including salaried managers and casual labour

  June 2002

  146.6

  June 2003

  135.3

  Notes:

  Includes estimates for minor holdings.

  Estimates have been made for non-respondents.

  Figures exclude school children but include trainees employed under an official youth training scheme and paid at Agricultural Wages Board rates or above.

  Source:

  June Agricultural Census

  Fisheries
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what historical entitlements are held by UK-registered vessels to fish within the six mile zone of other EU member states. [140842]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  UK-registered vessels do not hold any historical entitlements to fish within the six mile zone of any EU member state.

  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent assessment she has made of the effectiveness of Government enforcement authorities in monitoring fishing activity in the six to 12 mile zone. [140843]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The monitoring of fishing activity in British Fishery Limits adjacent to England and Wales, including the six 12 mile zone, is the responsibility of the Department's Sea Fisheries Inspectorate using aerial and satellite surveillance and fishery protection vessels on task from the Royal Navy.

  The level of surveillance is kept under review by the Sea Fisheries Inspectorate and is considered to be proportionate to the fishing activity occurring within British Fishery Limits.

  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what progress has been made in(a) setting up, (b) agreeing the membership of, (c) setting the agenda for, (d) agreeing plans to improve fisheries conservation by (e) setting up and funding the necessary budget for and (f) developing proposals for the development of a sustainable fishing industry for advisory councils for each of the regions relevant to the UK fishing industry as part of the revised Common Fisheries' Policy. [140848]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Regional Advisory Councils (RACs) will increase the involvement of those affected by the Common Fisheries Policy in fisheries management decisions. They will bring together fishermen, scientists and all with an interest in the fish stocks and their exploitation. They will help develop ways forward to which all parties can subscribe.

  The European Commission has announced its proposal for a Council Decision Establishing Regional Advisory Councils (13702/03). The European Parliament is considering the proposal, and formal consultations are being held by Defra and the Scottish Executive Environment and Rural Affairs Department. We are working with interested parties, the Commission and the other member states to develop the proposal. The draft Decision is intended to fix basic principles including those relating to membership, working arrangements and criteria for establishment. Individual RACs will determine how they manage themselves: thus they will be bottom-up organisations, developed and run by their members.

  It will take time for effective RACs to develop, but fishermen and other interests active in international fisheries partnerships in the North sea, the Irish sea and the south west, the Baltic and the Mediterranean have already made good progress. Unless the Commission's
  224W
  proposal meets with unexpected problems, we can expect a Council Decision establishing the first Regional Advisory Councils in 2004.

  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the impact of the UN's Law of the Sea on(a) the UK fishing industry and (b) the activities of non-UK-registered fishing vessels operating within UK territorial waters. [140849]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  No assessment has been made of the impact of the UN's Law of the Sea on the UK fishing industry. The activities of non-UK registered vessels operating within UK territorial waters are governed by access rules established under the Common Fisheries Policy. As regards third country vessels, access is determined under the terms of bilateral fisheries agreements with certain third countries which have limited access to certain stocks in EU waters.

  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what legal and other advice her Department has sought in response to representations she has received from the fishing industry seeking to(a) achieve the unilateral withdrawal of the UK from the Common Fisheries Policy, (b) genuinely lessen the UK's accountability to the CFP and (c) restrict access of foreign vessels from UK territorial waters. [141538]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  [holding answer 2 December 2003]The Department routinely bases its assessments of representations, and responses to them, on advice from its policy experts and, where necessary, on legal advice.

  Foot and Mouth
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what conclusions have been drawn from the inquiry into lessons learnt from the foot and mouth crisis. [141442]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  I refer the hon. Member to the statement on the foot-and-mouth inquiries, given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to the House, on 6 November 2002,Official Report, column 285.

  Incinerators
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many incinerators for disposal of household waste have been granted planning permission in each of the last five years; and when each will be brought into operation. [142306]

  Keith Hill
  I have been asked to reply.

  Information collected by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister on planning decisions taken by waste planning authorities in England does not distinguish the waste stream. The number of planning applications for incinerators granted planning permission by waste planning authorities for each of the last five years is as follows:

  1998–99—Seven

  1999–2000—Eight

  2000–01—Six

  2001–02—Three

  2002–03—Two

  225W
  In addition, a planning application for an incinerator for the disposal of household waste was granted planning permission on appeal in October 2001.

  Information is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost, on when these incinerators were brought, or are likely to be brought, into operation. The Environment Agency, however, advise that three new municipal waste incinerators have come into operation in England in the last five years, though these may not necessarily have emerged from the planning permissions referred to above and could have arisen from earlier decisions.

  Large Combustion Plant Directive
  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many submissions her Department has received in response to the consultation on the Large Combustion Plant Directive; and how many(a) favoured the national plan approach and (b) supported the emission limit value approach. [141321]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  [holding answer 4 December 2003]Over 70 substantive responses were received from individuals, businesses, trade associations, environmental groups, regulators, and Government agencies. Of these about 30 favoured the implementation of the Directive by the emission limit approach; about 20 favoured the national plan approach; and about 20 did not express any views on the choice of implementation approach. In addition, some 1,550 individual letters were received from employees of the coal mining and associated industries, all of which favoured the emission limits approach.

  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will establish an inquiry into(a) the effects of the emission limit value approach on UK jobs in (i) the coalmining industry, (ii) the electricity generating industry and (iii) the mining machinery manufacturing sector and (b) the environmental benefit of each approach; and if she will publish the findings before making a final decision on the preferred option. [141323]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  [holding answer 4 December 2003]We intend to undertake further analysis on whether there is a significantly different impact on the coal industry from the emission limits approach, compared to the national plan approach, to implementing the revised Large Combustion Plants Directive (2001/80/EC) for plants first licensed before July 1987. The estimated costs associated with these alternative options on the Electricity Generating Industry, as well as their respective environmental effects, were set out in our consultation paper, published in June 2003.

  Late Payment
  Brian Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many claims for statutory interest payments have been submitted to private companies under the terms of the Late payment of Debt Act 1998; how many claims were met; and what the total value was of such payments in each year since the Act has been in operation. [141596]
  226W
  Alun Michael
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by the Minister with responsibility for small business and enterprise, my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, South (Nigel Griffiths), on December 3,Official Report, column 102W.

  Livestock Markets
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what turnover of livestock there was in livestock markets in England and Wales in each of the past five years for which records are available. [140711]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Based on information supplied by the Livestock Auctioneers Association, the turnover of livestock in livestock markets in England and Wales for the years 1997 to 2002 was as follows:

  Thousand head

  Cattle

  Sheep

  Pigs

  Calves

  Total

  1997

  2,097

  13,854

  817

  540

  17,308

  1998

  1,887

  13,110

  800

  487

  16,284

  1999

  1,897

  13,754

  602

  433

  16,686

  2000

  1,844

  13,740

  492

  424

  16,500

  20011

  2002

  983

  6,475

  118

  207

  7,783

  1 Data for 2001 are not available: livestock markets were closed for much of the year due to the Foot and Mouth Disease outbreak

  Mr. McLoughlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many livestock markets there were in 1997 in West Derbyshire; how many of them closed during the foot and mouth outbreak of 2001; how many markets(a) did not open after the outbreak and (b) have closed since; and how many livestock markets there are in each county. [141457]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  I refer the hon. Member to the answers given on 28 October 2003,Official Report, column 159W and on 12 November 2003, Official Report, column 298W to the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George).

  Milk
  Mr. McLoughlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what discussions she has had with supermarkets and co-operatives regarding the farm-gate price of liquid milk; and what the responses of those companies have been. [141459]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has had no formal meetings with supermarkets or co-operatives to discuss milk prices. However, Ministers frequently meet representatives from all parts of the dairy supply chain and are therefore aware of the issues. Matters affecting the whole dairy supply chain are regularly discussed at the forum chaired by my noble friend Lord Whitty.

  Mr. Steen
  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 farm-gate price of milk; and what steps she is taking to safeguard the future of the British dairy farming industry. [140727]
  227W
  Mr. Bradshaw
  [holding answer 3 December 2003]The Secretary of State has had no formal meetings with National Farmers Union to discuss farmgate milk prices. However, Ministers frequently meet with representatives from all parts of the dairy supply chain, including the National Farmers Union, and are therefore aware of the issues. Matters affecting the whole dairy sector are regularly discussed at the Dairy Supply Chain Forum chaired by my noble Friend Lord Whitty and on which the National Farmers Union is represented.

  The reasons low farmgate price over the last few years are complex and cannot be reduced to a single factor. Many of these are for the industry to address itself. However, to help safeguard the future of the British dairy farming industry, the Government can and has taken action in line with its Strategy for Sustainable Farming and Food to facilitate this. In particular:
  Lord Whitty has been chairing meetings of a Dairy Supply Chain Forum, which has been looking at collaborative solutions to improve supply chain efficiency, as well as other issues.

  1997

  1998

  1999

  Counties/Unitary Authorities

  Orchard Area (Ha)

  Hdgs with Orchards

  Orchard Area (Ha)

  Hdgs with Orchards

  Orchard Area (Ha)

  Hdgs with Orchards

  Hartlepool and Stockton-on-Tees

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  South Teeside

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  Darlington

  0

  0

  1—

  1—

  0

  0

  Durham CC

  1

  6

  1

  8

  1

  6

  Northumberland

  3

  7

  3

  7

  1

  9

  Tyneside

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Sunderland

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  West Cumbria

  4

  10

  10

  10

  3

  9

  East Cumbria

  11

  15

  15

  19

  14

  27

  Halton and Warringlon

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  Cheshire CC

  25

  26

  27

  31

  29

  41

  Greater Manchester South

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  Greater Manchester North

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  Blackburn with Darwen

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Blackpool

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Lancashire CC

  10

  27

  16

  33

  10

  27

  East Merseyside

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  Liverpool

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Sefton

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  Wirral

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  Kingston Upon Hull, City of

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  East Riding of Yorkshire

  4

  10

  9

  15

  7

  13

  North and North East Lincolnshire

  2

  6

  5

  7

  1

  7

  York

  3

  8

  3

  8

  2

  5

  North Yorkshire CC

  15

  36

  25

  48

  17

  47

  Barnsley, Doncaster and Rotherham

  5

  11

  5

  13

  5

  13

  Sheffield

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1—

  1—

  Leeds

  3

  7

  2

  5

  1—

  1—

  Calderdale, Kirklees and Wakefield

  3

  8

  3

  8

  2

  8

  Derby

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  East Derbyshire

  9

  5

  1—

  1—

  1

  6

  South and West Derbyshire

  8

  22

  11

  24

  3

  16

  Nottingham

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  North Nottinghamshire

  52

  15

  55

  23

  43

  18

  South Nottinghamshire

  6

  9

  8

  12

  5

  13

  Lester

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Leicestershire CC and Rutland

  9

  16

  11

  19

  9

  14

  Northamptonshire

  40

  20

  36

  24

  48

  23

  Lincolnshire

  65

  46

  101

  45

  76

  43

  Herefordshire, County of

  3,857

  426

  3,833

  477

  4,201

  512

  Worcestershire

  1,588

  275

  1,619

  303

  1,609

  283

  Warwickshire

  243

  49

  236

  58

  259

  54

  Telford and Wrekin

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  Shropshire CC

  62

  50

  103

  67

  105

  76

  Stoke-on-Trent

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Staffordshire CC

  15

  22

  22

  23

  10

  20

  228W
  Under the auspices of the Forum, the Milk Development Council has initiated an innovations workshop to look at barriers to innovation in the sector and how to overcome them.
  The Government have made a grant of nearly £0.5 million to the Food Chain Centre to examine how to improve dairy supply chain efficiency; and
  We have established English Food and Farming Partnerships to encourage co-operation and collaboration across all agricultural sectors.

  Orchards
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many orchards there were in each year since 1997, broken down by county; and what their acreage was. [140712]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The following figures show the number of main holdings in England by county/unitary authority 1997–1999 that recorded an area of commercial or non commercial orchards and the area covered by the orchards in hectares. Data for 2000–2002 is available on the Defra website at the following link:

  http://www.defra.gov.uk/esg/work_htm/publications/ cs/farmstats_web/data map_links/data_menu.htm
  229W

  1997

  1998

  1999

  Counties/Unitary Authorities

  Orchard Area (Ha)

  Hdgs with Orchards

  Orchard Area (Ha)

  Hdgs with Orchards

  Orchard Area (Ha)

  Hdgs with Orchards

  Birmingham

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Solihull

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  Coventry

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  Dudley and Sandwell

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  Walsall and Wolverhampton

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  Peterborough

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Cambridgeshire CC

  1,326

  150

  1,220

  153

  1,074

  140

  Norfolk

  1,061

  197

  1,049

  191

  937

  178

  Suffolk

  1,166

  118

  1,055

  120

  948

  109

  Luton

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Bedfordshire CC

  31

  20

  33

  21

  40

  24

  Hertfordshire

  18

  26

  23

  29

  18

  31

  Southend-on-Sea

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  Thurrock

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  Essex CC

  1,176

  133

  1,099

  133

  851

  119

  Inner London-West

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Inner London-East

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Outer London-East and North East

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  Outer London-South

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  Outer London-West and North West

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  Berkshire

  25

  20

  32

  21

  35

  23

  Milton Keynes

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  Buckinghamshire CC

  125

  37

  112

  42

  105

  41

  Oxfordshire

  142

  37

  135

  43

  133

  38

  Brighton and Hove

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  East Sussex CC

  602

  95

  600

  109

  596

  98

  Surrey

  56

  38

  53

  43

  65

  46

  West Sussex

  200

  60

  186

  67

  156

  61

  Portsmouth

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Southampton

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  Hampshire CC

  304

  46

  305

  54

  262

  55

  Isle of Wight

  8

  13

  23

  18

  11

  21

  Medway

  578

  25

  508

  25

  377

  22

  Kent CC

  11,831

  722

  11,158

  747

  10,390

  700

  Bristol, City of

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  North and N E Somerset, South Glos

  210

  65

  210

  72

  177

  73

  Gloucestershire

  675

  178

  681

  194

  689

  205

  Swindon

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  Wiltshire CC

  20

  23

  24

  27

  23

  30

  Bournemouth and Poole

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  Dorset CC

  146

  51

  187

  59

  163

  64

  Somerset

  1,124

  287

  1,152

  316

  1,158

  355

  Cornwall and Isles of Scilly

  90

  128

  134

  160

  99

  157

  Plymouth

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  Torbay

  14

  6

  15

  6

  13

  6

  Devon CC

  652

  336

  740

  396

  699

  453

  England

  27,698

  3,995

  26,960

  4,393

  25,524

  4,389

  1 Denotes that the data has been treated to avoid disclosure of information relating to individual holdings.

  Source:

  June Agricultural Census

  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what gains and losses in(a) actual and (b) percentage terms there have been in the size of the national orchard for every year since 1992 for which records are available. [140713]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The following totals show the hectares of commercial and non commercial orchards grown on agricultural holdings in England.

  Area

  Loss/Gain

  Loss/Gain

  Thousand hectares

  Percentage

  1992

  30.7

  1993

  30.1

  -0.6

  -2

  1994

  30.0

  -0.1

  -0.3

  230W

  Area

  Loss/Gain

  Loss/Gain

  Thousand hectares

  Percentage

  1995

  26.6

  -3.4

  -11.3

  1996

  26.6

  0

  0

  1997

  28.4

  +1.8

  +6.8

  1998

  27.6

  -0.8

  -2.8

  1999

  26.2

  -1.4

  -5.1

  2000

  25.8

  -0.4

  -1.5

  2001

  26.0

  +0.2

  +0.8

  2002

  23.6

  -2.4

  -9.2

  2003

  23.4

  -0.2

  -0.8

  1 The figures include estimates for minor holdings

  Source:

  June Agricultural Census

  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many(a) growers and (b) growers' spouses were engaged in apple growing in each of the last five years. [140777]
  231W
  Mr. Bradshaw
  The following figures refer to holdings in England which recorded either commercial or non commercial orchards. No split is available for apple growing. Data for the total number of farmers, partners, directors and spouses (if working on the holding) combined are collected annually from the June Agricultural and Horticultural Census as a total. Figures are not available for each item.

  Total Farmers, Partners, Directors and Spouses Full and Part Time on Holdings with Orchards

  1998

  7,038

  1999

  7,029

  2000

  10,033

  2001

  10,637

  2002

  9,996

  Notes

  (a) The figures show farmers, partners, directors and their spouses on holdings with orchards, it is not possible to tell if they are only engaged in activities linked to fruit growing.

  (b) Figures for 1998 and 1999 show main holdings only, from 2000 onwards minor holdings are also included.

  (c) Due to a register improvement exercise in 2001 labour figures prior to this are not directly comparable with later results.

  Source:

  June Agricultural Census

  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many(a) partners and (b) directors were engaged in apple growing in each of the last five years. [141568]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The following figures refer to holdings in England which recorded either commercial or non commercial orchards. No split is available for apple growing. Data for the total number of farmers, partners, directors and spouses (if working on the holding) combined are collected annually from the June Agricultural and Horticultural Census as a total. Figures are not available for each item.

  Total farmers, partners, directors and spouses—full and part time on holdings with orchards

  1998

  7,038

  1999

  7,029

  2000

  10,033

  2001

  10,637

  2002

  9,996

  Notes:

  1 The figures show farmers, partners, directors and their spouses on holdings with orchards, it is not possible to tell if they are only engaged in activities linked to fruit growing.

  2 Figures for 1998 and 1999 show main holdings only.

  3 Due to a register improvement exercise in 2001 labour figures prior to this are not directly comparable with later results.

  Source:

  June Agricultural Census

  Potatoes
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what advice she gives to potato growers in respect of(a) liability and (b) compensation for (i) substandard and (ii) diseased seed potato stock. [140838]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  This information is as follows:
  232W
  (a) Seed potato growers entering crops for classification under the Seed Potato Classification Scheme are advised that it is a condition of the acceptance of applications by Defra and the National Assembly for Wales that no liability shall attach to either Department or any of their officers in connection with any inspection carried out, or in respect of certificates and reports which are based on the examination of crops and tubers, or in any other way in connection with the operation of the arrangements for certification and classification. The Seed Potato Classification Scheme facilitates the classification of crops in order to meet the requirements of the Seed Potatoes Regulations 1991 (as amended).

  Defra regularly produces publicity material to assist seed potato growers in the identification of pests and diseases. This information is sent to growers and is also available on the Defra web-site.

  (b) The Government pay no compensation for sub-standard or diseased seed potato stock.

  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what progress her Department has made in containing the recent outbreak of ring rot. [140839]

  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps she is taking to stop the disease of potato ring rot from spreading in Wales. [141167]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  As soon as the disease was detected on a routine sample of seed potatoes from the farm in mid Wales, a statutory notice was served under the Plant Health Order 1993 to prevent movement. Three deliveries which had already been made from the farm to customers in England were traced and placed under notice.

  All 22 stocks of seed potatoes on the farm have now been tested. Although infection has been found on some samples of one other variety, DNA testing suggests that this is likely to be due to an admixture with the original infected variety at harvest. The other 20 stocks have been found free from the disease. However, none of the seed potatoes from the outbreak farm can be planted.

  Five farms in England grew crops this year with a varietal link to the infected stocks. As a precautionary measure these stocks were placed under notice and sampled. No ring rot was found in tests on these samples and the stocks are being released.

  There is no reason to believe that infection was present on the affected farm before this year, but as a precautionary measure last year's deliveries of seed are being traced, so crops grown from them can be sampled and tested.

  A new publicity leaflet on ring rot has been prepared and will be sent to all potato growers shortly.

  Sea Angling
  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on her Department's policy on sea angling. [140463]
  233W
  Mr. Bradshaw
  The Government recognise sea anglers as parties with an interest in fish stocks, and consult angling interests on a wide range of fisheries management issues to ensure that their views are taken into account. Sea angling is a selective, environmentally friendly and low impact fishing activity. We fully recognise the important contribution that recreational angling and associated activity can make to the coastal economy. To help to quantify this contribution, a Defra-funded study into the commercial value of angling to local economies in England and Wales is currently underway.

  Shellfish Licensing Scheme
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she will introduce a shellfish licensing scheme. [141114]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  A restrictive licensing scheme for shellfish (crabs and lobsters) will take effect from 1 January 2004 for vessels over 10 m and from 1 April 2004 for vessels under 10 m. Shellfish entitlements are being granted to existing fishing vessels which, with their current licences, have taken more than 200 kg of lobsters or 750 kg of crabs in any 12 month period between 1 January 1998 and 31 December 2002. The scheme will apply to vessels under 8 m which will account for more than 40 per cent. of the vessels qualifying under the scheme. Anyone wishing to take up shellfishing will need to acquire an appropriate fishing vessel licence carrying a shellfish entitlement from an existing vessel. Licensed fishing vessels without a shellfish entitlement will be permitted to land up to five lobsters and 25 crabs per day.

  Whaling
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what representations she has made to the Icelandic Government following the demarche in response to Iceland's plan to continue scientific whaling in 2004; and if she will make a statement. [140913]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  On 10 October the Icelandic Government responded to the UK-led demarche of 10 September. On 20 November the UK Ambassador to Iceland delivered a Note Verbale to the Icelandic Government regarding points raised in that response, and in particular their decision to undertake lethal scientific research. The Note Verbale restated the UK Government's opposition to the research, which it considers unjustified and unnecessary, and again called upon the Government of Iceland not to carry out any further lethal research on whale species.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what representations she has made to the Japanese Government since 7 November on its plans to kill Antarctic minke whales. [140914]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The Japanese programme of so-called 'scientific' whaling is an ongoing one. The UK Government, in common with those of a majority of IWC members, has regularly criticised the programme as being of little scientific value and urged Japan to end its scientific whaling activities.
  234W
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what research she has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated designed to ensure a successful review of the Southern Ocean Sanctuary in 2004, in relation to the whaling in the area by Japan. [140915]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The UK Government have not specifically commissioned research on the Southern Ocean Sanctuary, but we do receive information from scientists and from the British Antarctic Survey. The UK chaired the Working Group on Reviewing Sanctuaries and Sanctuary Proposals at this year's International Whaling Commission meeting in Berlin. This Working Group evaluated criteria for the Sanctuaries and Sanctuary Proposals. The UK also has delegates on the Steering Group, which is responsible for designing the evaluation process for the Sanctuaries and Sanctuary Proposals. Hence, we have had considerable input into choosing experts and the terms of reference for the review.

  HOME DEPARTMENT

    Anti-social Behaviour Orders
    Mrs. Betty Williams
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, how many anti-social behaviour orders have been served in North Wales in the last 12 months. [142101]

    Ms Blears
    Anti-social behaviour orders (ASBOs) were introduced in England and Wales from 1 April 1999.

    The number of notifications received by the Home Office of anti-social behaviour orders (ASBOs) issued in England and Wales, at all courts, from 1 April 1999 up to 30 June 2003 (latest available) is 1,337. Anti-social behaviour orders issued in North Wales from 1 July 2002 up to 30 June 2003 is 10.

  Victims of Crime
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what plans he has to widen access to compensation for victims of crime. [142104]

  Fiona Mactaggart
  Following an internal review of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme we are proposing to publish shortly a consultation paper inviting views on proposals for amending the Scheme, and for encouraging the wider and more effective use of compensation orders made by the criminal courts in victims' favour. We will consider how best to proceed in the light of the responses to that public consultation exercise.

  Asylum Seekers
  19. Tony Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, how many children of asylum seekers he estimates will be taken into local authority care each year following the Government's recent announcement. [142105]

  Beverley Hughes
  It is not the Government's intention that any children will be taken into care as a result of this proposal.

  Prisons
  John Mann
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what research he has commissioned to assess the impact of drug treatment in prisons on public expenditure. [142106]

  Caroline Flint
  The comprehensive range of drug interventions offered in prison—designed to address the diverse needs of low, moderate and severe drug-misusers—is based primarily on findings from wider, community-based drug research.

  Research on prison-based drug treatment published earlier this year has shown that graduates of programmes are significantly less likely to be re-convicted after release; further in-depth research—including cost-effectiveness—is planned.

  We know from extensive research carried out in the community that there can be significant savings in public expenditure from treating drug-misusers.

  Police
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, when he next expects to meet senior police officers from East Anglia to discuss funding for financial year 2004–05. [142108]

  Ms Blears
  I have no plans to meet senior officers from East Anglia. I welcome all representations on the provisional police grant settlement for 2004–05, which should be sent in writing to my Department by 2 January.

  Bribery and Corruption
  Hugh Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many inquiries into possible cases of international bribery and corruption(a) are being and (b) have been carried out by the UK law enforcement agencies since the enactment of legislation against such offences in Part 12 of the Anti-Terrorism Act 2001; and if he will make a statement about prosecution for such offences. [141104]

  Mr. Blunkett
  The Home Office does not collect statistics from law enforcement agencies on inquiries into possible offences. An independent report on the operation of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 is shortly to be made to the Home Secretary by the committee appointed under Section 122 of the Act, and will be laid before Parliament as soon as is reasonably practicable. In England and Wales, the prosecution of offences of bribery and corruption is undertaken by the Serious Fraud Office if the case falls within their remit; or otherwise by the Crown Prosecution Service.

  Crime Figures
  Mr. McLoughlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many crimes were committed by juvenile offenders in(a) West Derbyshire and (b) the East Midlands in each of the last two quarters for which figures are available; and how many cautions were issued. [141428]

  Paul Goggins
  The information contained in the table gives the number of juveniles (persons aged 10–17) convicted of all offences and those given reprimands and 236W
  final warnings, during the last two quarters of 2001 in the East Midlands. It also contains data for the Derbyshire police force area, and, for persons found guilty, in the petty sessional areas of Derby and South Derbyshire and North East Derbyshire which cover the area of the West Derbyshire constituency.

  The information collected centrally does not enable cautions in the West Derbyshire constituency to be identified. Neither is it possible to give the number of crimes committed by juveniles, only the number of juveniles who are found guilty of all offences.

  Statistics for 2002 will be published on 11 December.

  Number of juveniles found guilty at all courts, and those given reprimands and final warnings1 for all offences, East Midlands, 3rd and 4th quarter 2001

  Area, age and disposal etc.

  Quarter 3 2001

  Quarter 4 2001

  East Midlands2

  Juveniles aged 10–17

  Receiving a reprimand

  1,579

  1,654

  Receiving a final warning

  568

  464

  Found guilty

  1,739

  1,836

  Of which, Derbyshire police force area:

  Juveniles aged 10–17

  Receiving a reprimand3

  308

  288

  Receiving a final warning3

  142

  118

  Found guilty

  324

  386

  Of which:

  Found guilty in the Derby and South Derbyshire PSA

  125

  150

  Found guilty in the North East Derbyshire and Dales PSA

  84

  100

  1 Cautions were replaced by reprimands and final warnings for persons under 18 from June 2000

  2 Police force areas of Derbyshire, Leicestershire, Lincolnshire, Northamptonshire and Nottinghamshire

  3 Not available by petty sessional area

  Identity Cards
  Mrs. Ann Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the strength of public support for a national identity card scheme. [142102]

  Mr. Blunkett
  We commissioned wide-ranging research which confirmed, in line with other opinion polls, that 80 per cent. of the general public are in favour of identity cards.

  Police Cells
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the average daily cost of holding a prisoner in a police cell is. [141642]

  Paul Goggins
  [holding answer 3 December 2003]As part of Operation Safeguard it was necessary during 2002 to hold prisoners in police cells because there was insufficient space in prisons.

  There is an on-going arrangement with many police forces under which prisoners may be held in police cells under separate arrangements known as "lock-outs". Lock-outs occur when prisoners cannot be delivered to the receiving prison before its reception closes. This

  237W
  arrangement is sometimes used to facilitate the return of prisoners to court the next day or when a court hearing extends into the evening.

  The average daily cost of holding a prisoner in a police cell during 2002 was 363 per person per night. The average daily cost for lock-outs is currently 120 per person per night.

  The overall cost of holding prisoners in police cells in 2002 under Operation Safeguard was £10.4 million. This ran between 11 July and 20 December 2002. The overall cost for lock-outs was £1.356 million.

  No prisoners have been held under Operation Safeguard so far in 2003. There have been a total of 945 prisoners held in police cells so far this year as "lock-outs". In addition, eight prisoners were held in police cells in the Greater Manchester area on the weekend of 7–8 June 2003 as an emergency measure.

  Prisons
  Vera Baird
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he is taking to tackle racial abuse in HM Prison Holloway and HM Prison Styal. [141622]

  Paul Goggins
  The Prison Service will not tolerate any form of racist behaviour. I am not aware that either Holloway prison or Styal prison have a problem with racial abuse among staff or prisoners. Both prisons have a level of minority ethnic staff that is well above target. Significant amounts of diversity and race relations training have been delivered at both establishments.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the average cost of recapturing prisoners who absconded(a) from H M Prison Sudbury and (b) from Her Majesty's Prisons was during (i) 2003 and (ii) 2002. [141265]

  Paul Goggins
  The recapture of prisoners unlawfully at large and their return to custody is a matter for the police. This information is not recorded and held centrally, and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners are held in HM Prison Sudbury; and how many of these are serving a life sentence. [141397]

  Paul Goggins
  The number of prisoners held at Her Majesty's Prison Sudbury, as at 30 April 2003, was 505. The number of these serving a life sentence was 76.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many open prisons there are in the United Kingdom; and how many prisoners have absconded from open prisons in the last 12 months. [141399]

  Paul Goggins
  There are 15 open prisons in England and Wales. In the 12 months from November 2002 to October 2003 there were 1,173 reported absconds from these prisons. I am unable to provide information for prisons in Scotland and Northern Ireland, as these establishments are the responsibility of the Scottish Prison Service and the Northern Ireland Prison Service respectively.

  Proscribed Organisations
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list(a) organisations which are proscribed by law and (b) the Acts of Parliament under which they are proscribed. [141805]

  Mr. Blunkett
  There are 39 organisations currently proscribed under Part II of the Terrorism Act 2000. The list is as follows:

  The list of Proscribed Organisations

  Al-Qaeda

  Egyptian Islamic Jihad

  AI-Gama'at al-lslamiya

  Armed Islamic Group (Groupe Islamique Armée) (GIA)

  Salafist Group for Call and Combat (Groupe Salafiste pour la Prédication et le Combat) (GSPC)

  Babbar Khalsa

  International Sikh Youth Federation

  Harakat Mujahideen

  Jaish e Mohammed

  Lashkar e Tayyaba

  Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE)

  Hizballah External Security Organisation

  Hamas-lzz al-Din al-Qassem Brigades

  Palestinian Islamic Jihad-Shaqaqi

  Abu Nidal Organisation

  Islamic Army of Aden

  Mujaheddin e Khalq

  Kurdistan Workers' Party (Partiya Karkeren Kurdistan) (PKK)

  Revolutionary Peoples' Liberation Party-Front (Devrimci Halk Kurtulus Partisi-Cephesi) (DHKP-C)

  Basque Homeland and Liberty (Euskadi to Askatasuna) (ETA)

  17 November Revolutionary Organisation (N17)

  Jeemah Islamiyah (JI)

  Abu Sayyaf Group (ASG)

  Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan (IMU)

  Asbat Al-Ansar

  The Irish Republican Army

  Cumann na mBan

  Fianna na hEireann

  The Red Hand Commando

  Saor Eire

  The Ulster Freedom Fighters

  The Ulster Volunteer Force

  The Irish National Liberation Army

  The Irish People's Liberation Organisation

  The Ulster Defence Association

  The Loyalist Volunteer Force

  The Continuity Army Council

  The Orange Volunteers

  The Red Hand Defenders

  Student Visas
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applications for student visas have been refused in each year since 2000. [141359]

  Mr. Mullin
  I have been asked to reply.
  239W

  Number of students visas:

  Year

  Applied for

  Granted

  Refused

  2000

  125,139

  99,559

  20,105

  2001–02

  151,524

  121,466

  38,873

  2002–03

  181,905

  128,144

  52,520

  The table above shows the number of student visas applied for, granted and refused at entry clearance posts world-wide each year since 2000. Since 2001, statistics have been collated by financial year (1 April to 31 March) rather than calendar year.

  Women Prisoners
  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list for each women's prison as at 31 October the(a) normal prisoner establishment, (b) actual numbers held, (c) prison officer establishment, (d) prison officers on strength and (e) number of suicides at each prison since 1 January. [140451]

  Paul Goggins
  The information requested is as follows:

  Prison

  Operational capacity

  Population

  Target prison officer grades

  Actual in post

  Askham Grange

  141

  116

  31.75

  30.75

  Brockhill

  167

  146

  104

  96

  Buckley Hall

  320

  300

  113

  106.5

  Bullwood Hall

  184

  156

  91

  73.5

  Cookham Wood

  140

  126

  63

  59

  Downview

  224

  211

  123

  106

  Drake Hall

  315

  285

  83

  81

  Durham1

  110

  100

  —

  —

  East Sutton Park

  100

  97

  21.5

  21.5

  Eastwood Park

  346

  274

  132

  127

  Edmunds Hill

  310

  266

  139

  120

  Foston Hall

  235

  222

  103

  94

  Holloway

  495

  453

  291

  299

  Low Newton

  396

  294

  144

  144

  Morton Hall

  395

  327

  1,171

  15.5

  New Hall

  426

  370

  189

  180

  Send

  220

  213

  73

  68.5

  Styal

  468

  426

  177

  174

  Winchester West Hill1

  87

  78

  —

  —

  1 These establishment are part of the male estate and separate figures for prison officer grades in the women's units are not available.

  There have been 14 deaths of women in custody since 1 January, as follows:

  Number

  Brockhill

  1

  Bullwood

  1

  Downview

  1

  Durham

  3

  Eastwood Park

  1

  New Hall

  3

  Styal

  4

  Vera Baird
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to survey the women's prison population to determine prisoners' home locations in order to facilitate resettlement. [141620]

  Paul Goggins
  There are no plans currently to conduct such a survey. As at 30 September (the latest date for which information is available) 50 per cent. of the 240W
  women prisoners who gave details of their home addresses were held under 50 miles from home. 26 per cent. were held between 50 and 100 miles from home, and 24 per cent. were held more than 100 miles away from their home address.

  The provision of housing advice and support is being strengthened in women's prisons, especially in those with a local function, and wherever possible the Prison Service aims to hold prisoners in establishments that are near to their homes or to the courts dealing with their cases.

  Young Offenders Institution (Wetherby)
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many times staff at HM Young Offenders Institution Wetherby used control and restraint in each of the past five years. [140588]

  Paul Goggins
  The relevant information was not recorded centrally until the beginning of this year. During the period 1 January 2003 to 31 October 2003, control and restraint was used at Wetherby on 199 occasions.

  FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

    Afghanistan
    Mr. Ancram
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has held with his counterparts from(a) Dubai, (b) Uzbekistan, (c) Iran and (d) Pakistan concerning the trafficking of (i) opium and (ii) heroin out of Afghanistan; and whether the Government's opium eradication policy in Afghanistan includes combating the transporting of opium of Afghan origin in the region. [140820]

    Mr. Straw
    The UK is committed to supporting implementation of the Afghan National Drug Control Strategy which aims to eliminate the production of opium in Afghanistan within 10 years. The Afghan strategy includes tackling trafficking of drugs within Afghanistan and at its borders.

    The UK is also tackling opium once it leaves Afghanistan. Pakistan, Iran, the United Arab Emirates and Uzbekistan are some of the transit points for Afghan-produced heroin. Ministerial colleagues, Government officials and I regularly raise these issues with counterparts from these and many other countries. Most recently, I discussed drugs issues with the Iranian Foreign Minister when I met him in New York on 24 September 2003.

    In May 2003 I attended the international conference in Paris hosted by the French government on "Drug Routes from Central Asia to Europe". This conference led to the formation of the Paris Pact which provides a consultative mechanism for drug and crime control for countries affected by the trafficking of Afghan opium.

    Mr. Ancram
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on progress with the Government's policy on eradicating the production of opium in Afghanistan. [141008]
    241W
    Mr. Straw
    The Afghan National Drug Control Strategy was adopted in May 2003. The objective of the strategy is to reduce opium poppy cultivation by 70 per cent. within five years and to eliminate it in 10 years. The UK has allocated £70 million over three years and posted additional personnel to Afghanistan to assist the Afghan authorities to implement a range of activities coherent with the strategy. Eradicating illicit poppy crop will form an important part of the drug control effort. However an eradication-led approach will not provide a sustainable solution to eliminating the cultivation of opium in Afghanistan and must be supported by other measures to build up law enforcement capacity, promote alternative livelihoods for poppy farmers and improve the effectiveness of Afghanistan's principal drug control institutions.

    The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) 2003 survey showed an 8 per cent. increase in cultivation to 80,000 hectares and a 6 per cent. increase in production to 3,600 hectares. Although unwelcome, this increase is not unexpected given the poor security situation outside Kabul.

    Mr. Hancock
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what estimate he has made of the amount of heroin(a) produced in Afghanistan and (b) exported to the UK from Afghanistan in each year since 2000; what the estimate is for 2003–04; and if he will make a statement. [141351]

    Mr. Rammell
    Afghanistan is the source of 95 per cent. of the heroin exported to the UK. There are no reliable figures for the level of heroin production in Afghanistan. The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) does however conduct an annual survey into the level of opium poppy cultivation and production. It has reported levels of cultivation and production since 2000 as follows:

    Hectares

    Tonnes

    2000

    82,000

    3,300

    2001

    8,000

    185

    2002

    74,000

    3,400

    2003

    80,000

    3,600

    The low level of cultivation and low production figure in 2001 reflect the Taliban ban on opium cultivation; the ban did not however address the underlying causes of poppy cultivation in Afghanistan and was enforced with mix of threat and bribery. In March 2004 the UNODC will publish an Opium Rapid Assessment Survey for Afghanistan. This will give an early insight into the pattern of opium poppy cultivation for the 2003–04 growing season.

    Mr. Hammond
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether the Government expect to deploy additional British troops to Afghanistan during 2004. [141903]

    Mr. Ingram
    I have been asked to reply.

    We have no plans to change the overall level of our military commitment in Afghanistan although, as with any operational deployment, we shall keep numbers and tasks under review.

    Asylum
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the compatibility of the provisions of the draft European Constitution for a common asylum and immigration system with his proposals for legislation on asylum. [142094]

    Mr. MacShane
    The Treaty will not change the relationship between EU and domestic legislation on immigration and asylum. We will retain the right to decide whether to opt in to measures in this area. If they are not in our interests we will not opt in; if they are we will—as with Eurodac and Dublin II, which have helped us identify and return asylum shoppers to EU countries where they first arrived or claimed asylum.

    Brussels Treaty
    Mr. Hancock
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make it his policy to support(a) the appending of the modified Brussels Treaty to the Constitutional Treaty as an optional protocol and (b) the amendment of the Treaty to oblige the EU Council to make an annual report on its activities in the fields of security and defence to the Assembly, as created by the modified Brussels Treaty and to the European Parliament; and if he will make a statement. [141354]

    Mr. MacShane
    The UK sees a clear distinction between the role of NATO as the basis of the collective defence of its members and the role of the European Security and Defence Policy as a crisis management instrument in support of the EU's Common Foreign and Security Policy. As noted in the Government's White Paper on the IGC, we would not support anything in the EU constitution which undermined NATO's security guarantee.

    The Government continue to regard national parliaments as having primary responsibility for scrutiny of CFSP and ESDP, given the central role of member states in these policy areas. There is provision in both the Treaty on European Union and in the draft constitution for the European Parliament to be regularly consulted on the main aspects and basic choices of ESDP. The Government are not aware of any proposals to change the status or role of the WEU Assembly, although there might be a case for considering this in the light of the outcome of the Inter-Governmental Conference.

    Burma
    Mr. Ancram
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last spoke to Aung San Suu Kyi concerning the situation in Burma. [140850]

    Mr. Straw
    The Minister of State at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien) last spoke to Daw Aung San Suu Kyi on 7 March 2003. Since being detained on 30 May we have made repeated attempts to speak to her by phone but these attempts have been unsuccessful.

    Colombia
    Clare Short
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether the military assistance provided to Colombia is funded from the conflict resolution fund. [141509]

    Mr. Rammell
    Although Colombia does not have its own programme under the Global Conflict Prevention Pool (GCPP), the Security Sector Reform (SSR) strand of GCPP is used for military assistance projects for Colombia when they meet SSR criteria. Examples include the counter-terrorism seminar in Colombia in March 2003 (in which MOD personnel participated to give advice to Colombian security force units and civic officials on dealing with terrorist incidents in Colombia), and funding Colombian MOD personnel attending training and education courses in the UK.

    Clare Short
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether the proposed new emergency powers before the Colombian parliament meet the pledges given at the consultative group meeting in London in July 2003. [141511]

    Mr. Rammell
    The Colombian Government did not make any pledges at the London Meeting on International Support on Colombia about specific legislation, but they did pledge to implement recommendations made by the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (UNHCHR). There are legitimate concerns about the proposal to grant judicial police powers to the Colombian armed forces in the proposed Constitutional Reform Bill 223 of 2003. In July the EU made a demarche to the Colombian Government about this, reiterating the concerns of UNHCHR in Bogota, in particular where proposed articles were incompatible with Colombia's human rights and international humanitarian obligations. We shall continue to urge the Colombian Government to adopt the practice of adjusting all anti-terrorist legislation in line with Colombia's international obligations.

    Correspondence
    Mr. Kaufman
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) when he will reply to the letter to him dated 6 October from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton, with regard to Mr. Murhtar Ahmed Rana; [140780]

    (2) he will reply to the letter to him from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton, with regard to Dorothy Ricketts; [140783]

    (3) when he will reply to the letter to him dated 6 October from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton, with regard to Mrs. Shafna Rahman. [140784]

    (4) when he will reply to the letter to him dated 6 October from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton, with regard to Sadia Bibi; [140785]

    (5) when he will reply to the letter to him dated 6 October from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton with regard to Mr.Usman Ilyas. [141894]

    Mr. Mullin
    I would like to apologise to my right hon. Friend for not having replied to his letters of 6 October to my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary about 244W
    Mr. Murthar Ahmed Rana, Ms Dorothy Ricketts, Mrs. Shafna Rahman, Ms Saidia Bibi and Mr. Usman Ilyas.

    As a result of an administrative error a package containing a number of my right hon. Friend's letters was lost while in transit between the Foreign Secretary's office and UK visas, the department responsible for entry clearance matters arising overseas. The letters that were lost have now been identified and copies have been sent to UK visas. I can assure my right hon. Friend that the Foreign Secretary will write to him in the next few days on these cases.

    Mr. Steen
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he will reply to the letter from the hon. Member for Totnes of 22 August regarding the continued mining of Indonesian protected forests and the concern expressed by Mr. Rupert Stocks. [142300]

    Mr. Mike O'Brien
    I apologise to the hon. Member for Totnes and his constituent, Rupert Stocks, for the late reply to his letter. This was the result of an administrative error and I am pleased to say that a letter has now been issued.

    Draft European Constitution
    Mr. Cash
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he plans to have with the Foreign Ministers of(a) Denmark, (b) Germany and (c) Italy regarding the declaration in the draft proposals agreed in Naples relating to the primacy, under Article 110 of the draft European Constitution, of the Constitution over their respective constitutions. [142429]

    Mr. MacShane
    The Presidency has proposed a 'Declaration for incorporation in the final Act with regard to article I-10 (1)'. It states that,"The Conference notes that the provisions of Article I-10 (1) reflect existing Court of Justice case law."
    The proposal has not been agreed, but will be discussed at the European Council on 12–13 December, in which the Foreign Ministers of all the States mentioned will participate.

    Mr. Cash
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the implications for the United Kingdom(a) Parliament and (b) Courts of the Declaration at Annex 2 of the proposals agreed in Naples on the primacy of European Union law as set out in Article I-10 (1) of the draft European Constitution. [142612]

    Mr. MacShane
    The proposed Declaration provides confirmation that the provisions of Article I-10 (1) reflect existing European Court of Justice case law. If agreed it would state the common intention and understanding of all the participating States that Article I-10 (1) has this meaning and should be interpreted accordingly.

    Mr. Carmichael
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps the Government are taking to ensure that reference is made in the European Constitution to territorial cohesion. [142404]
    245W
    Mr. MacShane
    The draft EU Constitutional Treaty contains provisions on territorial cohesion. The Government are content with these.

    European Minister for Foreign Affairs
    Mr. Spring
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the status is of the Italian presidency's proposal that any proposal made by the European Minister for Foreign Affairs should be subject to qualified majority vote; and if he will make a statement. [142015]

    Mr. MacShane
    This proposal is still under consideration in the Intergovernmental Conference. We expect a revised version of the draft Constitutional Treaty to issue in the week of 8 December. As stated in the Government's White Paper, British policy is that unanimity must remain the general rule for the Common Foreign and Security Policy.

    India
    Angus Robertson
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what his Department's guidance is to UK citizens planning to travel to the Manipur region in north east India; what assessment his Department has made of the security situation in Manipur; when this assessment was last updated; and if he will make a statement. [142027]

    Mr. Mike O'Brien
    We advise UK citizens against all travel to Manipur. This advice is reviewed on a monthly basis, most recently on 24 November 2003. A number of militant and criminal groups operate in the state; and whilst foreigners are not generally targets of violence, attacks can be indiscriminate. For example a German aid worker was kidnapped by one group earlier this year close to the capital Imphal. We currently see no grounds for changing the travel advice.

    Intergovernmental Conference
    Mr. Spring
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was agreed at the Intergovernmental Conference meeting at Naples of 28 to 29 November; and if he will make a statement. [142014]

    Mr. MacShane
    No decisions were taken or formal agreements made at the Intergovernmental Conference meeting in Naples. The meeting, on which my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary provided a detailed briefing at the Standing Committee on the IGC on 1 December, discussed a paper presented by the Presidency (CIG 52/1/03), copies of which are in the Libraries of the House. The discussions were positive and constructive. They will continue at Foreign Minister level on 8 December and at the level of Heads of State or Government at the European Council on 12–13 December.

    Any agreement will be made by unanimity, on the basis of a complete package.

    Iran
    Mr. Pope
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of Iran's ability to use its nuclear power programme for military purposes. [140935]
    246W
    Mr. MacShane
    The technology which Iran has been seeking to develop at its nuclear facilities would enable them to produce fissile material, which can be used in the production of nuclear weapons.

    Mr. Woodward
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps the Government will take to ensure that Iran complies with its promises to the UK, French and German Foreign Ministers on nuclear issues. [141285]

    Mr. MacShane
    All of the elements promised in the Tehran Declaration are incorporated in the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Board of Governors' resolution adopted on 26 November. The primary responsibility for ensuring Iran's compliance with terms of the resolution lies with the IAEA, which will report periodically to the Board of Governors on progress made. We will monitor this progress closely through our membership of the Board of Governors.

    Mr. Woodward
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the steps Iran has taken in its undertakings to the UK, French and German Foreign Ministers on nuclear issues; and what steps remain to be taken. [141286]

    Mr. MacShane
    In the Tehran Declaration of 21 October, which was the result of the visit to Tehran by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary with his French and German colleagues, Iran undertook to sign an Additional Protocol to its nuclear safeguards agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA); to cooperate fully with inspectors from the Agency; and announced that it would suspend the enrichment of uranium and fuel reprocessing activities. All of these undertakings were subsequently included in a resolution adopted by the IAEA Board of Governors on 26 November. Monitoring of progress on these undertakings is rightly the responsibility of the IAEA, which will report periodically to the Board of Governors.

    Iraq
    Mr. Menzies Campbell
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what estimate he has made of the revenues which derived from sales of Iraqi oil in each month since April; and if he will make a statement. [141175]

    Mr. Straw
    [holding answer 8 December 2003]Total revenue from Iraqi oil sales paid into the Development Fund for Iraq since exports restarted in June until 26 November amounted to $2.479 billion.

    Mr. Menzies Campbell
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the(a) income and (b) expenditure of the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq was in each month since April; how much was spent by (i) amount and (ii) percentage in each sector; and if he will make a statement. [141176]

    Mr. Straw
    [holding answer 8 December 2003]Monthly income and expenditure data for the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) is not published and, as in the UK, nor is expenditures by sector.
    247W
    However, a Financial Management Information System is being implemented by the CPA to build capacity and move Iraq from a paper-based budgeting system to a real time expenditure system.

    CPA income is derived from bilateral donations (such as US Congressional appropriations), from the sale of oil revenues, the transfer of Iraq's overseas assets, the seizure of assets from the former regime within Iraq, the transfer of remaining Oil For Food moneys from the UN Escrow account, and, under the CPA's usufructuary power, any revenues derived from Iraq's State Owned Enterprises and tax revenues. These revenue streams are accountable to different bodies, and a monthly consolidated single income account is not published. Total income data and forecasts are published in the annual Budget produced by the Iraqi Ministry of Finance and CPA.

    Expenditure is determined by an annual budget process and is executed and published by economic activity undertaken in each Ministry rather than by sector.

    The 2003 and 2004 Budgets are available on the CPA website (www.cpa-iraq.org). Cumulative income and expenditure totals for the Development Fund for Iraq (which includes the following elements of the CPA's income: oil revenues, transferred assets and Oil For Food monies) are also published on the CPA website.

    Mr. Menzies Campbell
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs who is responsible for preparing the accounts of the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq; to whom it reports; and if he will make a statement. [141177]

    Mr. Straw
    [holding answer 3 December 2003]CPA accounts are prepared by officials of the CPA. The International Auditing and Monitoring Board (IAMB), established under UNSCR 1483 and comprising senior members of the UN, World Bank, IMF and Arab Fund for Social and Economic Development, is responsible for auditing the accounts of the Development Fund for Iraq. The IAMB members will appoint a firm of international auditors to act on their behalf in undertaking this responsibility.

    Israel
    Richard Burden
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of discussions over the last month between the European Union and Israel concerning the labelling of goods exported to the EU which originate from settlements established in territories occupied by Israel; and what progress has been made in providing for such products to be accurately marked with their point of origin. [142247]

    Mr. MacShane
    The Government welcome the discussion between the European Commission and Israel concerning the origin of goods exported to the EU as Israeli and originating in the Occupied Territories. The Government understand that the European Commission has asked the Israeli authorities for more details on their proposals, which have not yet been put in writing. The Government will examine carefully the proposals, and the Commission's assessment of them, once we have fuller details.

    Ivory Coast
    Mr. Jenkins
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations his Department has made to the(a) Ivory Coast Government and (b) other involved parties with regard to honouring commitments set out in the January peace accord. [141813]

    Mr. Mullin
    The UK fully supports the Linas Marcoussis Agreement (LMA) as the basis for sustainable peace in Côte d'Ivoire. Foreign and Commonwealth Office officials use regular contacts with members of the government of Côte d'Ivoire, and with other parties to the agreement, to encourage early progress on its implementation. We have been concerned at the fragility of the peace process since September, and have joined the wider international community in urging all parties to continue to respect the ceasefire; to restore full meeting of the government of National Reconciliation; and to make swift progress on the LMA, including disarmament and demobilisation.

    Turkey
    Mr. Ancram
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether his Department received requests from(a) the US Administration, (b) the Turkish Government and (c) staff working in the British Consulate in Istanbul for British staff to move buildings in light of an increased risk from terrorism in the period between April and November. [140867]

    Mr. Straw
    [holding answer 4 December 2003]The FCO has not received any requests from the US Administration or the Turkish Government for the British Consulate General to move buildings.

    The security managers at the Consulate-General at Istanbul regularly briefed all staff on security matters. Staff were kept aware of changes to the State of Vigilance and of any additional security measures put in place.

    Mr. Ancram
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action his Department took to ensure the security of British citizens(a) on holiday and (b) living in Turkey following (i) the explosions outside branches of HSBC in Istanbul on 31 May, (ii) the explosion at the Visa Section of the British Consulate-General in Istanbul on 3 April and (iii) the explosion of three devices in Izmir on 8 April. [140832]

    Mr. Straw
    After each incident the FCO changed its travel advice to reflect its best assessment of the situation at the time. Details of travel advice changes are passed through the warden network to the British community.

    I refer the right hon. and learned Gentleman to the answer I gave him today on details of changes to the travel advice for the three incidents.

    Mr. Ancram
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations his Department received from representatives of the British Consulate in Istanbul regarding the level of security provided at the temporary accommodation in which staff worked during the period between 2001 and 2003. [140833]
    249W
    Mr. Straw
    Staff at the Consulate-General were in regular contact with this Department about security at the Post, including the security provided at the temporary accommodation. This accommodation was due to be vacated when the refurbishment of the main building was completed in early 2004.

    Mr. Ancram
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what travel advice was issued by his Department following(a) the explosions outside branches of HSBC in Istanbul on 31 May, (b) the explosion at the Visa Section of the British Consulate-General in Istanbul on 3 April and (c) the explosion of three devices in Izmir on 8 April. [140834]

    Mr. Straw
    Before the explosion outside the Visa Section of our Consulate-General in Istanbul on 3 April the headline message ("Summary") of the travel advice stated:"The vast majority of visits to Turkey are trouble-free. Turkey is one of a number of countries where there is an increased risk from international terrorism. There is also a risk from domestic terrorism (one group in Turkey has, in the past, carried out attacks to mark anniversaries in April)."

    Following the explosion the travel advice was amended to include the following reference to the attack:
    "On 3 April an explosion occurred at the Visa Section of the British Consulate-General, causing minor material damage, but no casualties."

    Following the attacks in Izmir the travel advice was amended again with the following reference added:
    "On the evening of 8 April, three small devices exploded in Izmir, one of which was near the British Consulate. There were no casualties and no significant damage."

    Before the attacks on HSBC on 31 May the Summary of the travel advice was amended to underline the need to be vigilant in Turkey:
    "The vast majority of visits to Turkey are trouble-free, but there is a continuing risk from domestic terrorism following a number of recent incidents (see below). Turkey is also one of a number of countries where there is an increased risk from international terrorism. We urge you to be vigilant in all parts of Turkey."

    After the attacks on HSBC, the travel advice was again changed with factual reference to the attack:
    "In the early hours of 31 May there were small explosions outside two separate branches of H.S.B.C. in Istanbul"

    Copies of the travel advice referred to here will be placed in the Library of the House.

    In the period 1 April to 20 November, the FCO updated its travel advice for Turkey 30 times.

    Mr. Ancram
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) whether discussions were held between his Department and(a) the US Administration. (b) the Turkish Government and (c) staff working in the British consulate in Istanbul regarding a need for British staff to move building in light of the increased risk from terrorism in the period between April and November; [140835]

    (2) what discussions his Department had with US counterparts regarding the security threat in Istanbul in the period between April and November; whether the decision by the US Administration to move its staff during that period was discussed; whether the possibility
    250W
    of the British Government taking a similar decision was discussed; and what the outcome was of the discussions. [140836]

    Mr. Straw
    The FCO and relevant agencies maintain regular contact with their US counterparts on security and threat-related issues. In addition consular officials speak daily to the State Department to exchange information on travel advice changes, which includes threats to UK and US citizens overseas.

    Staff at the consulate-general had regular discussions of security-related issues with their US counterparts in Istanbul and with the Turkish Government during the period April to November. These discussions focussed on the security of the consulate-general building rather than on moving to another building.

    Following the attack on the visa section at the consulate-general on 3 April 2003, the visa section remained closed for two days. Discussions were held with the Turkish authorities on increasing security for the visa section.

    The security manager at the consulate-general Istanbul regularly briefed staff on security measures. Staff were also kept aware of changes in the state of vigilance. Staff were due to move back to Pera House (the main building) in February 2004.

    Mr. Ancram
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions his Department has had with representatives of the British consulate in Istanbul regarding security following(a) the explosions outside branches of HSBC in Istanbul on 31 May, (b) the explosion at the visa section of the British consulate-general in Istanbul on 3 April and (c) the explosion of three devices in Izmir on 8 April. [140868]

    Mr. Straw
    There is continual dialogue between those in the FCO responsible for security and our overseas posts, including the consulate-general in Istanbul. This was naturally particularly intense following each of the explosions mentioned. Security measures were reviewed and additional Turkish police guards were deployed at Izmir and Istanbul.

    Security managers at the consulate-general at Istanbul regularly briefed all staff on security measures and kept them aware of changes in the state of vigilance. Staff were briefed after the three terrorist incidents which occurred in April and May this year.

  TRADE AND INDUSTRY

    Security
    Mr. Hammond
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether the closure of Abingdon Street in front of the Palace of Westminster on the day of the State Opening of Parliament for six hours after Her Majesty the Queen had left the building was determined on security grounds. [141898]

    Mr. McNulty
    I have been asked to reply.

    The front of the Palace of Westminster adjacent to Abingdon Street and Old Palace Yard is protected by railings and black defensive concrete blocks. These were

    251W
    removed for the State Opening of Parliament. The area was then closed using an outer security cordon of grey defensive concrete blocks.

    Once Her Majesty had left, the operation to reinstate the original security measures began. This was done as quickly as possible, but with such a high profile venue, the original security measures needed to be fully in place before the traffic was allowed to pass. Abingdon Street was fully re-opened to traffic at 6pm.

    Arms Exports
    Mr. Cousins
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many licences were(a) requested and (b) granted for man-portable air defence systems in each year since 1996 for (i) government and (ii) non-government end users, distinguishing in each case between (A) licences for end users in NATO and EU countries and (B) licences for end users outside NATO and the EU. [142327]

    Nigel Griffiths
    I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given today to question number 141199.

    Auditors' Liabilities
    Mr. Stephen O'Brien
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions she has had with(a) UK firms and (b) representatives of the accountancy profession about the relative merits of introducing a cap on auditors' liabilities in litigation; and if she will publish the minutes of such meetings. [140946]

    Ms Hewitt
    Over the past six months, my right hon. Friend the Minister for Industry and the Regions and I have received some 20 letters principally about auditor liability, from auditors, preparers of accounts and users of accounts.

    Two senior businessmen have raised the matter with me, but I have not had any significant discussions with audit firms or accountancy bodies. The issue has twice been raised in meetings attended by my right hon. Friend, once by the President of the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales and once by KPMG and PricewaterhouseCoopers. My officials have also discussed the issue with auditors, preparers of accounts, users of accounts, academics and regulators.

    I do not propose to publish the minutes of individual meetings. I will, however, be consulting on the issue shortly.

    British Energy
    Mr. Bellingham
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when the European Commission will report on the UK Government's financial assistance to British Energy. [142139]

    Mr. Timms
    The Commission approved our rescue aid to British Energy on 27 November 2002.

    The Commission announced on 23 July 2003 that it was opening a formal investigation procedure into our proposed restructuring aid to British Energy, which is normal in major restructuring aid cases. The Commission must reach a decision within 18 months of
    252W
    opening the investigation but in practice may reach a decision before then. We currently expect to receive a decision by mid-2004.

    Business Start-ups
    Dr. Kumar
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many businesses, and of what type, have received assistance in starting-up from government schemes and initiatives in each year from 2001 to 2003(a) in Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland, (b) in Teesside and (c) nationally. [141862]

    Nigel Griffiths
    As well as a range of advice and support from consultants, the Business Link Organisation for Tees Valley makes assistance available specifically for start up businesses through its "Start Right in Business" scheme. The statistics in the table show the numbers of start up businesses supported by this scheme in Tees Valley as a whole, and the closest available match to the geographic analysis requested. Data on business type is not readily available.

    Period

    Tees Valley

    Middlesbrough

    Redcar & Cleveland

    2001

    635

    178

    139

    2002

    620

    114

    146

    20031

    526

    154

    98

    1 To date

    The Small Business Service administers Enterprise Grants (EG) for small and medium sized enterprises, including start-up businesses. These give support to capital investment for manufacturing and service to manufacturing companies. The following table shows the totals for businesses assisted. A number are known to be start ups thought specific information on all start up businesses and their business sector is not readily available.

    Period

    Tees Valley

    Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland

    2001

    25

    1

    2002

    21

    1

    20031

    15

    2

    1 To date

    More than 480 EG offers have been made in the North East from 1 January 2000 to date, while nationwide 1,908 EG offers have been made between 1 April 2000 and 30 September 2003.

    Companies (Audit, Investigations and Community Enterprise) Bill
    Mr. Bellingham
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what estimate she has made of the cost to UK businesses in each of the next five years of the measures to be implemented by the forthcoming Companies (Audit, Investigations and Community Enterprise) Bill. [142138]
    253W
    Jacqui Smith
    I refer the hon. Member to the Regulatory Impact Assessments for the Bill which have been placed in the Libraries of the House. I expect the cost to business to be minimal and the benefits to be significant.

    Electricity Supplies
    Mr. Jenkins
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many times in the last five years electricity supplies have been cut to more than 1,000 homes owing to severe winter weather. [141853]

    Mr. Timms
    The statistics are as follows:

    Incidents

    1998–99

    19

    1999–2000

    7

    2000–01

    14

    2001–02

    19

    2002–03

    9

    Energy Supply
    Mr. Bellingham
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much the pilot scheme developed by the Energy Services Working Group to scrap switching rules for energy supply is estimated to cost in each of the next five years. [142143]

    Mr. Timms
    There are no costs to the Government, apart from the administrative costs relating to evaluation of the pilots. The trial relaxation of the 28-day rule for energy service contracts enables energy companies, if they wish, to market energy service packages to their customers as an alternative to a supply contract only. We expect this to be profitable for companies to do, while, at the same time, consumers will benefit from reduced energy bills as a result of the energy efficiency investments that companies make in their homes.

    Mr. Bellingham
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what estimate she has made of the effect on energy efficiency of the pilot scheme developed by the Energy Services Working Group to scrap switching rules for energy supply in each of the next five years. [142144]

    Mr. Timms
    The Government expect that energy services contracts will deliver a reduction of at least 10–15 per cent. in energy use in households that sign up to them. The actual reduction in a household will depend on the energy efficiency measures that are carried out as part of an energy services contract. In a typical 1960–70s semi-detached house heated by gas, an insulation package consisting of cavity wall insulation. topping up the loft insulation and improved insulation on the water tank could save over £130 per annum compared to previous running costs.

    As part of the trial relaxation of the 28-day rule, energy companies will be able to offer energy service contracts to up to 4 per cent. of their customers or 50,000 customers whichever is the larger. In total, nationally, up to one million households could benefit.

    Enterprise Green Paper
    Brian Cotter
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what response her Department has made to the European Commission's Green Paper on enterprise. [142493]

    Jacqui Smith
    My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry wrote to Commissioner Liikanen on 30 June 2003 attaching the UK Government's
    esponse to the European Commission's Green Paper on entrepreneurship.

    The full text of the UK and other responses is on the European Commission's website http://europa.eu.int/comm/enterprise/entrepreneurship/green paper/contributions organisations.htm.

    Export Control Licences
    Ann Clwyd
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what export licence applications have been refused on the basis of Criterion 8 of the Consolidated Criteria since 2000. [140726]

    Nigel Griffiths
    [holding answer 3 December 2003]Reasons for refusal of licences are given in summary form in the Strategic Export Controls Annual Report. In the period in question, one licence has been refused partly on the basis of Criterion 8.

    Export Licences
    Mr. Cousins
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many export licences, and of what value, were approved for the export of main portable air defence systems to governments and others in each year since 1997; and how many such licences were not approved. [141199]

    Nigel Griffiths
    MAN Portable Air Defence Systems (MANPADS) are rated under both category ML4a and category ML4b. Of course there is other equipment also rated under these categories. To carry out a search of how many licences were approved and refused for export since 1997 would require a search first by category, bringing up in all probability thousands of goods lines, followed by a search, both of computer records and a manual search, of each of those goods lines, to determine whether the goods listed under the relevant category contained any equipment for MANPADS.

    Manufacturing
    Mr. Stephen O'Brien
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent discussions she has had with representatives of manufacturing industry on levels of manufacturing investment. [140948]
    255W
    Ms Hewitt
    My colleagues and I meet frequently with representatives of manufacturing industry to discuss a wide range of issues, including levels of manufacturing investment.

    In addition we receive regular reports from key industry representatives, such as the CBI and the Engineering Employers Federation, on manufacturing performance including investment trends.

    Mobile Telephones
    Mr. Allen
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will introduce regulations requiring the providers of mobile telephone-related services to obtain documentary proof of purchase, ownership and identity from clients before taking the item into their temporary possession. [141871]

    Mr. Timms
    The Government have no plans to do so.

    Mr. Allen
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will introduce regulations for the purchase of second-hand mobile telephones placing the onus upon the buyer to obtain documentary proof of purchase, ownership and identity from the seller. [141872]

    Mr. Timms
    The Government have no plans to do so. Measures already taken by the Mobile Network Operators mean that stolen phones can be blocked. When blocked, they have no resale value. Together with my hon. Friend the Minister of State for crime reduction, policing and community safety, I am in regular discussion with the Mobile Industry Crime Action Forum—which brings together mobile phone networks, manufacturers and retailers—on reducing mobile phone crime.

    Motor Industry
    Mr. Bellingham
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry which companies manufacturing cars in the United Kingdom have received(a) offers and (b) indicative offers of regional selective assistance since 1 May 1997. [142119]

    Motor Vehicle Industry: Approximate gross value added at basic prices £ million

    Standard Industrial Classification (1992) category

    1997

    1998

    1999

    2000

    2001

    Percentage change 1997–2001

    34.1 Manufacture of motor vehicles

    5,913

    5,438

    4,454

    3,372

    4,407

    -25

    34.2 Manufacture of bodies (coachwork) for motor vehicles; manufacture of trailers and semi-trailers

    814

    799

    779

    716

    746

    -8

    34.3 Manufacture of parts and accessories for motor vehicles and their engines

    3,066

    3.368

    3,057

    3,075

    3,132

    +2

    25.1 1 Manufacture of rubber tyres and tubes

    625

    723

    620

    497

    519

    -17

    31.61 Manufacture of electrical equipment for engines and vehicles not elsewhere classified

    393

    366

    445

    429

    312

    -21

    Total Motor vehicles and components

    10,811

    10,695

    9,355

    8,089

    9,115

    -16

    Source:

    Annual Business Inquiry (National Statistics)

    Mr. Bellingham
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on efficiency in the UK motor industry in terms of vehicles per employee per year; and what plans her Department has to improve this. [142128]

    Jacqui Smith
    In recent years there has been a steady improvement in efficiency in the UK motor industry in
    256W
    Jacqui Smith
    In England, the following companies have received offers:

    BMW Hams Hall Motoren GMBH

    Ford Motor Co Ltd.

    Jaguar Cars Ltd.

    Jensen Motors Ltd.

    MG Rover Group Ltd.

    Nissan Motor Manuf (UK) Ltd.

    Peugeot Motor Co Ltd.

    Toyota Motor Manuf (UK) Ltd.1

    Vauxhall Motors Ltd.

    1 Offer accepted but project did not proceed.

    Offers of RSA in Scotland and Wales and of Selective Financial Assistance in Northern Ireland are the responsibility of their respective administrations.

    Our database does not contain records of indicative offers since these are not legally binding documents.

    Mr. Bellingham
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the deficit or surplus has been for the UK's trade in motor cars in each of the past six years; and if she will make a statement. [142125]

    Jacqui Smith
    The information requested is as follows:

    Overseas trade in new cars (including trade in chassis)

    £ million

    Exports

    Imports

    Balance

    1997

    8,688

    13,455

    -4,767

    1998

    8,513

    13,898

    -5,385

    1999

    9,515

    14,756

    -5,241

    2000

    9,156

    13,710

    -4,554

    2001

    7,981

    16,784

    -8,803

    2002

    10,347

    17,903

    -7,556

    Source:

    Overseas Trade Statistics (HM Customs & Excise)

    Mr. Bellingham
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry by how much the United Kingdom motor industry's gross value added has changed since 1997; and if she will make a statement. [142126]

    Jacqui Smith
    Relevant information available is as follows:

    terms of vehicles per employee per year, and it is noted that Nissan's Sunderland plant is the most efficient car plant in Europe by this measure.

    The Department is working closely with the industry on a number of initiatives to improve productivity, including implementation of the recommendations of the Automotive Innovation and Growth Team, to

    257W
    which the Government have committed £45 million. These recommendations, including Supply Chain Groups, the Automotive Academy and Centres of Excellence, will allow the dissemination of best practice, knowledge transfer and improved skills throughout the sector.

    Post Office Closures
    Mr. Gordon Marsden
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on how many occasions the Post Office has decided not to close a sub-post office in an urban area following consultation in each of the last three years. [141550]

    Mr. Timms
    [holding answer 3 December 2003]Decisions on post office closure proposals under the urban reinvention programme following public

    Project support information

    Project Name

    Financial Year Started

    Government Grant (£)

    Other Funding (£)

    Source of Other Funding

    Target Group

    Outcomes

    RSA1

    2002–03

    21.54

    212.28

    Target businesses3

    Business applicants4

    305 jobs created/safeguarded

    St. Helens City Growth Strategy

    2001–02

    375,000

    —

    Borough of St. Helens

    Strategy and implementation plan to provide sustainable business base in St. Helens

    Enterprising St. Helens

    2001–02

    471,000

    307,000

    ESF5

    Disadvantaged communities in St. Helens

    Support for business startups in target areas

    RSA1

    2001–02

    600,000

    24.7

    —3

    —4

    112 jobs created/safeguarded

    RSA1

    2000–01

    500,000

    23.41

    —3

    —4

    137 jobs created/safeguarded

    RSA1

    1999–2000

    21.68

    210.42

    —3

    —4

    415 jobs created/safeguarded

    RSA1

    1998–99

    22.28

    218.6

    —3

    —4

    895 jobs created/safeguarded

    RSA1

    1997–98

    23.43

    233.27

    —3

    —4

    839 jobs created/safeguarded

    1 Regional Selective Assistance

    2 Million

    3 Target businesses

    4 Business applicants

    5 European Social Fund

    In addition to the support shown in the table, there have been a total of eight offers of R&D/Smart grant support for innovative business projects in the St. Helens area, with a total value of £509,000 since 1997.

    Allocations to the Small Business Service, which provides business support across the country, are not broken down by constituency. Since its inception, the Small Business Service in the North West has received allocations as follows.

    £ million

    Financial Year

    Allocation

    2001–02

    17.97

    2002–03

    18.06

    2003–04

    17.87

    Small Businesses
    Brian Cotter
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will place in the Library copies of 258W
    consultation are an operational matter for Post Office Ltd. and I have asked the Chief Executive to reply direct to my hon. Friend.

    Projects (Funding)
    Mr. Woodward
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) which projects have been(a) wholly and (b) partly funded by her Department in St. Helens since 1997; when each project was announced; when it started or was expected to start; what funding was provided by (i) Government and (ii) a third party; what third party provided funding; what the target group of the project was; what the projected outcome of the project was; and what the name of the project was; [141273]

    (2) how much money the Government has allocated in business support to St. Helens in each year since 1992. [141304]

    Jacqui Smith
    Project support information is given in the table.

    the small business action plans submitted to her Department by each of the Government departments as part of their regulatory reform action plans. [142471]

    Nigel Griffiths
    Yes. Copies will be placed in the Libraries of the House when it is published early in 2004.

    Brian Cotter
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many public consultations have been conducted by the Small Business Service since its inception; and if she will make a statement on(a) the response rate and (b) the availability and publication of results in each case. [141609]

    Nigel Griffiths
    The Small Business Service (SBS) has conducted numerous public consultations—formal and informal—since its launch in April 2000. Some have been online consultations, some have been conducted by post, and others have taken the form of public meetings or workshops.
    259W
    Three major consultations have been conducted in 2003.

    Bridging the Finance Gap. Consultation on improving access to growth capital for small businesses was launched by the Small Business Service and HM Treasury in April 2003. Public consultation meetings took place in all the English regions and 153 written responses were received by the closing date of August 2003. The Government plans to publish its response shortly. It will be available in hard copy form from DTI publications and on www.sbs.gov.uk.
    The Strategic Framework for Women's Enterprise. The SBS consulted on a draft version of the strategic framework between February and April 2003. Responses were received from nearly 100 individuals and organisations and informed the final version of the strategic framework which was published in May 2003. Copies are available from DTI publications and from www.sbs.gov.uk.
    Graduate Council for Entrepreneurship. The SBS and the Department for Education and Skills consulted about how to establish the Graduate Council announced by my right hon. Friend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer in Budget 2003. Consultation took place between July and September 2003 with organisations with a direct interest. More than 50 responses were received. The results were presented to respondents at a workshop held in November. The results are available electronically on request from the SBS.

    The Small Business Council—an advisory Non-Departmental Public Body sponsored by the SBS which advises government on small business issues—has undertaken 37 town hall meetings since its launch in May 2000, nine in 2003. Reports of the 2001 and 2002 meetings are available on www.smallbusinesscouncil.org.

    Brian Cotter
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether her Department has used the small firms database supplied by the Small Business Service for use with the Small Firms' Impact Test since its introduction. [142473]

    Nigel Griffiths
    Yes, on 12 occasions.

    Software Patents
    Mr. Laurence Robertson
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans she has to introduce software patents; and if she will make a statement. [141954]

    Ms Hewitt
    [holding answer 4 December 2003]Patents have been granted for some forms of software in the UK and elsewhere for many years. My Department has continued to support proposals to clarify the law on the patentability of software-related inventions across Europe. We will continue to work towards that objective, but we have no plans to extend patent protection to cover all software.

    Solicitors (Coalmining Health Claims)
    Mr. Clapham
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will lodge a complaint with the Office for the Supervision of Solicitors about double charging by solicitors for handling coalmining health claims. [140938]

    Nigel Griffiths
    [holding answer 4 December 2003]We have previously referred some cases of concern on other issues to the Office for the Supervision of Solicitors. Unfortunately the OSS will only accept complaints from a claimant regarding the solicitor they have specifically instructed.
    260W
    I have received an assurance from the Law Society that they will investigate all cases about solicitors' charging as a matter of urgency. I have received the agreement of the OSS to operate a dedicated phone line for MPs (01926 822173) who wish to discuss constituents complaints.

    Any claimant wishing to make a complaint regarding the conduct of their solicitor should address this to the Office for the Supervision of Solicitors, Victoria Court, 8 Dormer Place, Leamington Spa, Warwickshire CV32 5AE or telephone the OSS helpline on 0845 608 6565.

    Mr. Clapham
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will obtain an opinion from the Solicitor-General on the legality of the practice of some solicitors double charging for handling coalmining health claims. [140939]

    Nigel Griffiths
    [holding answer 4 December 2003]The Department keeps under review the need for legal advice, including whether or not to seek the advice of the Law Officers.

    As my hon. Friend is aware, by long-standing convention and under Exemption 4d—information covered by legal professional privilege, of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information neither the fact of nor the substance of Law Officers advice is disclosed outside Government.

    Mr. Clapham
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will issue advertisements informing former miners and their families that solicitors handling coalmining health claims receive payment from her Department in accordance with a fee structure agreed by solicitors representing both sides. [140940]

    Nigel Griffiths
    [holding answer 4 December 2003]Yes.

    The Department has issued two advertisements in the national and regional press about the lung disease cut-off date. These informed claimants that there should be no need for solicitors or other claims handling organisations to charge a fee or deduct any compensation from them and if any claims handling organisations suggests other wise they should seek advice elsewhere.

    A further advertisement to include this information will be issued in mid December. This advice has also been highlighted in newsletters on the schemes, which are issued regularly, and in update letters to MPs. All coalfield MPs received a note from the claimants' solicitors group on charging issues.

    Steel Tariffs (USA)
    Dr. Kumar
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent representations she has received from trade unions regarding the future of employment in the steel industry in the light of the United States imposition of tariffs on steel imports. [141870]

    Jacqui Smith
    My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and DTI Ministerial colleagues have met with representatives of the relevant steel trade unions on a number of occasions to discuss a range of issues affecting the UK steel industry, including the US Section 201 tariffs on steel imports. It would be difficult to calculate in a meaningful way what impact
    261W
    these measures would have on future employment in isolation from other factors. However we have been working hard to get these tariffs lifted, and as a result the US Administration announced on 4 December that it had decided to implement the recent WTO Appellate Body ruling by removing the steel safeguards. This is good news for the UK steel industry and everyone who works in it.

    Wind Power
    Norman Baker
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will specify the criteria set by Government which proposers of offshore wind farms need to satisfy to secure approval for development. [142344]

    Mr. Timms
    The process for obtaining approval for the development of an offshore wind farm falls into two main stages.

    First developers need to obtain a site lease from the Crown Estate. In July 2003, the Crown Estate invited bids for seabed leases for offshore wind in three strategic areas; Thames Estuary, Greater Wash and the North West. The criteria being used to assess bids include the financial standing and experience of the applicant, environmental aspects of the proposed site location and the impact on other marine users, and the coherence of the business development plan.

    Second developers must obtain statutory consents including the Electricity Act 1989 (Section 36) and Coast Protection Act 1949 (Section 34) or the Transport and Works Act 1992. In both cases, a licence under Section 5 of the Food and Environment Protection Act (FEPA) 1985 is needed. Developers are required to submit environmental impact assessments to support their applications, which are considered on a case by case basis.

    In assessing whether consent will be granted, departments will take into account the benefits the project will bring in meeting the Government's renewable energy and environmental targets, as well as the impact of the development on the environment, and the other users of the sea, including the fishing and navigation interests.

    Mr. Stephen O'Brien
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what estimate she has made of the proportion of total UK power that will be generated by wind in each of the next 10 years; [140953]

    (2) what estimate she has made of the quantity of wind power that will be generated in the UK in each of the next 10 years. [140954]

    Ms Hewitt
    DTI does not publish forecasts of the amount of proportion that any particular renewable energy source will contribute towards our electricity supplies in the years ahead.

    CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

      Licensing Act
      Mr. Mark Field
      To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will meet representatives of the licensed trade to discuss fee rates following Royal Assent of the Licensing Act 2003. [141792]

      Mr. Caborn
      My right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State, and I have met representatives of the licensed trade on many occasions to discuss fee levels to be prescribed under the provisions of the Licensing Act 2003 and my officials have also been discussing fees with industry representatives since April 2000. We hope to announce shortly the fees that the Secretary of State intends to prescribe under the 2003 Act.

      Preventive Health Strategies
      Mr. Gardiner
      To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how much per head of population has been spent by her Department on preventive health strategies in(a) 2001, (b) 2002 and (c) 2003. [140500]

      Mr. Caborn
      I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to him by my hon. Friend the Under-secretary of State for Health, Melanie Johnson on 4 December 2003,Official Report, column 182W.

      Television Licence
      Mr. Carmichael
      To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) how much has been spent in each of the last 10 years monitoring and investigating households believed to be avoiding television licence payment; [141736]

      (2) what the operating cost was of the TV Licensing Authority in each of the last 10 years; and what estimates have been made of costs in future years. [141737]

      Estelle Morris
      [holding answer 4 December 2003]The BBC, as Licensing Authority, has indicated that the cost of monitoring and investigating households believed to be evading payment of the television licence fee is not recorded separately from other costs relating to the collection of the licence fee. Total licence fee collection costs for each of the years from 1993–94 to 2002–03 were:

      £ million

      Year

      Cost

      1993–94

      89.2

      1994–95

      91.0

      1995–96

      95.0

      1996–97

      96.9

      1997–98

      109.5

      1998–99

      133.1

      1999–2000

      113.9

      2000–01

      131.9

      2001–02

      95.4

      2002–03

      146.4

      263W
      There are no formal estimates of future collection costs, but the BBC has indicated that it aims to reduce the cost of collection while continuing to reduce the level of evasion.

      Mr. Carmichael
      To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many people have been successfully prosecuted in(a) Scotland and (b) the UK for failure to own television licences in each of the last 10 years. [141738]

      Estelle Morris
      The available information for England, Wales and Scotland relates to all offences under the Wireless Telegraphy Acts of 1949 and 1967, though the great majority of these involve licence fee evasion. Figures for Northern Ireland, provided by TV Licensing, are available only from 1998 onwards and relate specifically to unlicensed use of a television receiver. The number of convictions recorded in the United Kingdom in each of the last five years for which information is available was:

      Number of convictions

      Year

      Scotland

      United Kingdom

      1992

      13,851

      184,136

      1993

      10,547

      179,253

      1994

      6,822

      169,681

      1995

      6,687

      120,482

      1996

      5,642

      170,498

      1997

      2,893

      79,898

      1998

      1,362

      78,804

      1999

      582

      56,929

      2000

      1,967

      108,680

      2001

      1,345

      86,118

      Mr. Edward Davey
      To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what the cost of a television licence was in each financial year since 1996–97.[142271]

      Estelle Morris
      The television licence fees for each year since 1996–97 were as folows.

      Year

      Black and white licence fee

      Colour licence fee

      1996–97

      30.00

      89.50

      1997–98

      30.50

      91.50

      1998–99

      32.50

      97.50

      1999–2000

      33.50

      101.00

      2000–01

      34.50

      104.00

      2001–02

      36.50

      109.00

      2002–03

      37.50

      112.00

      2003–04

      38.50

      116.00

      Television Reception
      Gregory Barker
      To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what estimate she has made of the proportion of the population of East Sussex who are unable to receive BBC Freeview services. [140963]

      Estelle Morris
      We understand from the BBC that according to figures calculated in March this year, 76.6 per cent. of East Sussex households are currently unable to receive BBC Freeview services, although this figure does not include Brighton or Hove. Further details are available from the BBC's Freeview website at www.freeview.co.uk.

    NORTHERN IRELAND

      Strangford Lough (Mussels)
      Mrs. Spelman
      To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when the Environment and Heritage Service report, The Status of Strangford Lough Modiolus Communities will be published. [142023]

      Angela Smith
      This report is an interim report by Queen's University of Belfast (QUB) under contract to the Environment and Heritage Service (EHS) of the Department of the Environment.

      It is part of a wider investigation into the ecological status of Strangford Lough. The report will set out the results of a diving survey of Strangford Lough undertaken in summer 2003.

      The report is not yet finalised but it is expected to be published shortly on the EHS internet site (http://www.ehsni.gov.uk/pubs/pubs.shtml). A copy will be placed in the Library.

      Animal Transport
      Mr. Beggs
      To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many horses and ponies have been exported from Northern Ireland in each of the last five years to(a) Great Britain and (b) other European destinations. [141614]

      Mr. Pearson
      Statistics on the export of horses and ponies to Great Britain are not collected as these animals move freely without any form of certification being required. The European Commission contracts a private company, Eurokom, to collect information on movements of live animals between Member States. They have supplied the following figures for the export of horses from Northern Ireland to European countries other than France and the Republic of Ireland.

      Year

      Number

      1998

      4

      1999

      13

      2000

      5

      2001

      112

      2002

      14

      2003

      44

      Under a tripartite agreement between the UK, Ireland and France no health certification is normally required for movements of horses between these three countries and hence these figures do not include animals which were destined for Ireland and France.

      Mr. Beggs
      To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has to implement new EU rules on animal transport; and if he will make a statement on the protection of the welfare of horses, ponies and other animals during transportation and related operations from Northern Ireland to(a) Great Britain and (b) other European destinations. [141615]

      Mr. Pearson
      The Government welcome the publication of the Commission's proposals for new rules on the welfare of animals during transport, but would stress that these proposals are still at the negotiating stage. Whatever rules are adopted will be implemented in Northern Ireland in parallel with implementation in GB.
      265W
      For journeys of less than 50 Kilometres within Northern Ireland no certification is necessary. For a journey over 50 Kilometres but under eight hours duration (whether or not involving export from Northern Ireland), horses, ponies and other animals must have a self-certified Animal Transport Certificate, which is issued by the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development under the Welfare of Animals Transport Order. No advance notification of such journeys is required. However, the haulier must be in a position to produce the required documentation on demand.

      For journeys over eight hours, transporters must submit a Route Plan in advance of any journey, setting out details of the proposed journey, rest periods etc. Officials check that the haulier is authorised, that the proposed journey times are within the maximum allowable for the species and that all necessary breaks for rest, watering and feeding are included. If assembly centres or staging points are included in the planned journey, staff check that these are EU approved premises. The use of staging points also requires the haulier to provide a statement to the effect that the necessary health requirements will be met there and that the animals are booked into the premises on the dates specified on the Route Plan.

      DARD veterinary staff at the ports and airports inspect the animals to ensure that they are fit for their intended journey, that they meet the health requirements of transit and destination countries and that their means of transport and stocking density are compatible with domestic animal welfare legislation and EU requirements.

      It is only when DARD is satisfied that all these checks have been satisfactorily completed that the animals would be allowed to start their journey.

      Benefit Fraud
      Mrs. Iris Robinson
      To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what action is being taken to tackle benefit fraud; and if he will make a statement. [141850]

      Mr. Spellar
      The Government are totally committed to a robust approach to tackling fraud and abuse of the social security system wherever it occurs.

      The Social Security Agency has a comprehensive and rigorous strategy for combating benefit fraud designed to ensure that:
      claims entering the system are legitimate:
      once in the system claims are maintained properly; and
      where fraud and error do enter the system they are detected and appropriate action is taken.

      From April to October 2003, 5,267 cases of suspected fraud were investigated, of which 2,208 resulted in withdrawal of claims or changes in the rate of benefit paid and 293 were referred for prosecution. In the same period 147 cases were heard in court and 111 convictions obtained.

      Breast Cancer
      Mrs. Iris Robinson
      To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what action he has taken to issue 266W
      clear advice on the risk of breast cancer from hormone replacement therapy; and if he will make a statement. [142699]

      Angela Smith
      Three Professional letters on the subject of hormone replacement therapy (HRT) have been issued recently by the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety to medical, nursing and pharmaceutical health professionals in Northern Ireland. These are:

      Risks and Benefits of HRT—Results of the US Women's Health Initiative and Implications for Long-term use of Combined HRT, issued 11 July 2002.

      Hormone Replacement Therapy (HRT) and Breast Cancer—results of the UK Million Women Study, issued 8 August 2003.

      Further Advice on Safety of HRT: Risk Benefit Unfavourable for First-line use in Prevention of Osteoporosis, issued 4 December 2003.

      The latter two letters have been in response to information from Professor Gordon Duff, Chairman of the Committee on Safety of Medicines, and have contained the same information as issued by the Department of Health to health professionals in England.

      Civil Service Salaries
      Mr. Beggs
      To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on Northern Ireland Civil Service salaries for 2003–04. [141613]

      Mr. Pearson
      On 5 November Management Side made an offer worth 3.67 per cent. for the non-industrial Civil Service grades up to Grade 6. Ministers consider this fair and reasonable in the context of prevailing economic conditions. The Northern Ireland Public Service Alliance balloted its members on industrial action and has since announced a one-day strike on 11 December. In order to ensure there is no further delay in payment of the 1 April 2003 pay award, Management has decided to proceed with payment of the offer. Departments and Agencies will endeavour to make payments as soon as possible.

      Eating Disorders
      Lady Hermon
      To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on provision for those with eating disorders in Northern Ireland. [142673]

      Angela Smith
      My Department carried out a review and consultation exercise on eating disorders services. The results of this were issued in March 2003. The major points are the need to: develop services at all levels; increase emphasis on prevention and early detection; carry out further research/assessment of need; provide significant training for statutory and voluntary sector providers; and provide local inpatient unit and outreach services.

      A multi-agency representative Eating Disorders Group has been established to take these recommendations forward and an Action Point has also been included in the Priorities for Action 2003/2004.
      267W
      Mrs. Iris Robinson
      To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress has been made in recruiting a consultant psychiatrist with a special interest in eating disorders to replace Dr Clare Adams. [142700]

      Angela Smith
      A doctor with a special interest in eating disorders is at present undergoing specialist training, which it is expected will be completed by August 2004.

      Educational Attainment
      David Burnside
      To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the target date is for lowering the proportion of year 12 pupils with no GCSEs or equivalent; and what target percentage has been set. [142212]

      Jane Kennedy
      One of the key education targets set out in the Secretary of State's Draft Northern Ireland Priorities and Budget 2004–2007 is, by 2007, to reduce to 6 per cent. (from 10 per cent. in 2002), the percentage of year 12 pupils with no GCSE in the most disadvantaged post-primary schools.

      Influenza
      Lady Hermon
      To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment he has made of the risk of an outbreak of Fujian flu in Northern Ireland; what steps he is taking to prevent such an outbreak; and if he will make a statement. [142662]

      Angela Smith
      The Communicable Disease Surveillance Centre (CDSC) (NI) monitors the incidence of infectious diseases here. The CDSC put enhanced surveillance of influenza in place since October 2000. After three relatively quiet years, influenza activity started earlier than usual, with evidence that influenza virus has been circulating in Northern Ireland for a number of weeks. However, GP consultation rates for flu and flu-like illness in NI appear to have peaked for the present time, and are now falling. To date, all isolates of influenza have been identified as influenza A H3 and one isolate has been typed as Fujian strain. It is too early to say if there will be a resurgence of activity later in the season.

      As regards steps to prevent an outbreak, I would refer the hon. member to the reply to her question about influenza vaccination on 4 December (Official Report column 117W).

      Rheumatoid Arthritis
      Mrs. Iris Robinson
      To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has to formulate a Northern Ireland arthritis strategy; and if he will make a statement. [141846]

      Angela Smith
      The Department of Health Social Services and Public Safety is currently developing a long-term regional strategy for health and wellbeing which will place a greater emphasis on the need to address chronic conditions such as arthritis, through the provision of multi-disciplinary primary and community-based care. Arthritis Care NI has been invited to nominate a member to serve on a working group which will be preparing the regional strategy.
      268W
      In the meantime, the Department has made significant additional resources available to reduce waiting times for specialist treatments for arthritis sufferers.

      Mrs. Iris Robinson
      To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what action he has taken to increase the number of rheumatologists in Northern Ireland. [141848]

      Angela Smith
      The Consultant medical workforce, across all hospital-based specialties, including rheumatology, is reviewed annually and the numbers in training are adjusted to meet assessed need, subject to available resources. In 2003, the number of consultants devoted exclusively to rheumatology was increased from seven to eight and the number of specialist trainees in rheumatology was increased from five to seven.

      Schools Support Programme
      David Burnside
      To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many schools are active in the Schools Support Programme in the(a) primary, (b) secondary and (c) grammar sector, broken down by school type. [142211]

      Jane Kennedy
      In the 2003–04 school year 11 controlled primary schools and 10 Catholic maintained primary schools; seven controlled secondary schools and five Catholic maintained secondary schools; and two controlled special school are receiving support under the School Support Programme; no grammar schools or integrated schools are receiving support.

      Textile Industry
      Mrs. Iris Robinson
      To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many jobs were lost in the textile industry in Northern Ireland in the last three years. [142251]

      Mr. Pearson
      Over the three year period to December 2003, there were 5,014 redundancies in the textile industry in Northern Ireland confirmed to the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment. The latest figures from the Quarterly Employment Survey (QES), which can be used to estimate the net change in the employee jobs level overall, show that over the three year period, June 2000 to June 2003, there was a net increase of 27,230 (4.3 per cent.) in all employee jobs giving a total of 667,610 employee jobs.

    DEFENCE

      Iraq
      Dr. Murrison
      To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many UK civilian fire officers have been operating in Iraq in each month since May; and what plans there are for future deployment. [141146]

      Mr. Ingram
      Ministry of Defence Civilian Fire Service personnel in Iraq have comprised one post at Divisional Officer level, supported by 18 civilian fire fighters of various grades from May to July rising to the current level of 21 civilian fire fighters from August.
      269W
      The level of support is kept under review in the light of operational circumstances.

      Mr. Keetch
      To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps are being taken by UK authorities to determine the status of internees held by British forces in Iraq; how long the process of determination will take; what the nationality of the internees is; what assessment has been made of the nature of the threat that they present to Coalition forces; what laws they have broken; whether they enjoy all rights under the Geneva conventions; and if he will make a statement. [140658]

      Mr. Ingram
      Article 78 of the IV Geneva Convention (1949) allows the UK as the Occupying Power to intern people where it considers it necessary for reasons of security. Internees will continue to be held until such time as they are no longer considered a threat to Coalition Forces. A review is conducted at the 10, 28 and 90 day points (and every 90 days thereafter) to determine whether continued internment is necessary. Internees enjoy all their rights under the Geneva Conventions.

      As at 1 December, all internees held by the UK Forces in Iraq are of either Iraqi or Sudanese nationality.

      Harry Cohen
      To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what military intelligence was the basis for the military action in Basra on 5 April which resulted in the killing of 10 members of the Hamoodi family and the destruction of the family home; whether the family were the intended target for this military action; and if he will make a statement. [141098]

      Mr. Ingram
      I am withholding the information under Exemption I of Part II of the Code of Conduct on Access to Government Information.

      Mr. Keetch
      To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether the investigations into Iraqi weapons of mass destruction carried out by coalition forces will report to the Government; and whether the reports will be made public. [141658]

      Mr. Hoon
      Dr. David Kay published his statement on the Interim Progress Report on the Activities of the Iraq Survey Group on 2 October 2003. It can be found at www.cia.gov and copies have been placed in the Library of the House. The classified interim report of the Iraq Survey Group has been received by the Government.

      The Iraq Survey Group will take as long as is necessary to complete its investigations into Iraqi weapons of mass destruction programmes and produce a final report. The Government have already made it clear that the findings of the Iraq Survey Group should be publicly available.

      Adam Price
      To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will publish the rules of engagement issued to UK military personnel with reference to their law enforcement duties in Southern Iraq. [141681]

      Mr. Ingram
      I refer to the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 17 November 2003,Official Report, column 500W, to my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell).

      Mr. Keith Simpson
      To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what arrangements have been made for military personnel in Iraq to celebrate Christmas. [141948]
      270W
      Mr. Ingram
      [holding answer 4 December 2003]Personnel serving in Iraq over Christmas will have the support they need to celebrate Christmas with traditional festive food and activities. The comprehensive operational welfare package has been enhanced by the grant of an additional free phone card providing 20 minutes of phone calls.

      Mr. Keith Simpson
      To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what arrangements his Department has made to transport Christmas gifts donated by dependants, charities and individuals to military personnel serving in Iraq. [141949]

      Mr. Ingram
      [holding answer 4 December 2003]The Ministry of Defence has made arrangements for the transport of traditional festive fare to British Forces personnel serving in Iraq.

      Family members of UK forces personnel serving in Iraq are entitled to send an unlimited number of parcels up to 2 kg in weight free of charge through the British Forces Post Office (BFPO).

      Gifts donated by charities will be transported to theatre if spare capacity is available on planned flights subject to practical considerations concerning the nature of the consignments.

      Mr. Keith Simpson
      To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many UK supermarkets are being offered Ministry of Defence transport for their Christmas gifts for military personnel serving in Iraq. [141950]

      Mr. Ingram
      [holding answer 4 December 2003]Christmas gifts donated by commercial organisations, including supermarkets, will be delivered to UK forces in Iraq if spare capacity is available on planned flights and subject to practical considerations concerning the nature of the consignments.

      So far, gifts from two donors have been transported in this way. In addition, some other donors have arranged for the commercial transport of their gifts to the Gulf.

      Armed Forces Staffing Levels
      Mr. Hancock
      To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how the findings of the End to End Review will affect staffing levels within the armed forces; whether there will be forced redundancies; and if he will make a statement. [142176]

      Mr. Ingram
      I announced the completion of the End to End Review in a statement on 10 September 2003. The E2E recommendations must now be trialled, proven and subjected to financial evaluation and formal Trades Union consultation before implementation. The lessons from recent and on-going operations will also be considered.

      Arms Trafficking (Waiver Agreement)
      Mr. Gerald Howarth
      To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what measures have been taken to satisfy the US Administration about the security of information to be provided to UK companies and the British Government under the International Trafficking in Arms Regulations waiver agreement; and when he expects the waiver to come into effect. [141266]
      271W
      Mr. Hoon
      The terms of our proposed agreement with the United States Administration for a United Kingdom waiver from the US International Traffic in Arms Regulations, provide for US export licensing requirements to be waived in respect of certain unclassified defence items and technical data. Technical data received under the waiver, although unclassified, will be subject to US regulations concerning re-transfer and end-use. In order to qualify for the waiver, UK companies will need to sign a contract with the Ministry of Defence that contains provisions covering the handling of US technical data. The US Administration has been involved in the drafting of these contracts. Technical data received by the UK Government under the waiver will be safeguarded under our standard procedures for handling such information.

      We hope that the waiver will come into effect next year, subject to Congressional and parliamentary approval, and after the necessary implementing regulations and administrative procedures have been put in place.

      Boards of Inquiry
      Mr. McNamara
      To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps he has taken to ensure that the recommendations made by a board of inquiry become general knowledge and are acted upon throughout HM Armed Services. [142116]

      Mr. Ingram
      The purpose of a Board of Inquiry is to investigate the facts of an incident in order to prevent recurrence. Boards of Inquiry records are submitted to the convening authority Headquarters, who determine the measures required to prevent further similar occurrences. These are then sent to Command and Service Headquarters who ensure these are implemented and communicated to the wider Services community as necessary.

      Mr. McNamara
      To ask the Secretary of State for Defence in what form the reports, findings and recommendations of boards of inquiry are made available for military and legal researchers; and for how many years these reports are stored. [142117]

      Mr. Ingram
      Board of Inquiry reports are internal Ministry of Defence documents containing personal and confidential information. They are not normally released for external research purposes.

      Reports are retained for at least 50 years.

      Mr. McNamara
      To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the result was of the investigation into the circumstances of the death in 1997 of Private Ross Collins of Nanstallon near Bodmin in Cornwall; at what time the police were called; what steps were taken to secure evidence at the scene of death; what the conclusions were of their inquiry; what the nature was of the post mortem examination; by whom it was carried out; what the findings were; at what time the relatives of the deceased were informed; what the conclusion was of the Coroner's Inquest; when a board of inquiry was established; when it reported; and what measures were taken as a result of its findings. [142118]
      272W
      Mr. Ingram
      Primacy for the investigation into a sudden death lies with the appropriate civil police authority. The Coroner returned an open verdict. A Board of Inquiry was not convened in accordance with the normal practice at the time.

      Civil Servants
      Mr. Keetch
      To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many civil servants were employed by his Department in each year since 1997; and if he will make a statement. [141659]

      Mr. Caplin
      I refer the hon. Member to the information given in UK Defence Statistics 2003, table 2.27, a copy of which is available in the Library of the House.

      Counter-Insurgency
      Mr. Rosindell
      To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what assistance and expertise is being given by the UK to foreign governments and agencies in counter-insurgency techniques; [142278]

      (2) what assistance and expertise is being sought by the UK from foreign governments and agencies in counter-insurgency techniques. [142279]

      Mr. Ingram
      Counter insurgency training covers numerous and diverse aspects of military training, both doctrinal and practical. The MOD continues to engage with a number of other Governments on a range of such matters.

      Specific details are being withheld under Exemption I of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information, which covers information which, if disclosed, would be harmful to national security, defence or international relations.

      Defence Contracts
      Mr. Keetch
      To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many contracts valued at £1 million or more were let by his Department during the financial year 2002–03 without competition; and if he will make a statement. [141842]

      Mr. Ingram
      During the financial year 2002–03 the Ministry of Defence placed a total of 314 non-competitive contracts valued at £1 million or more. This total represents around 30 per cent. of the number of contracts placed in FY 2002–03 within this value band and reflects the MOD's continued commitment to competition as a means of securing value for money.

      Defence Employment (Scotland)
      Angus Robertson
      To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many MOD(a) civilian and (b) service jobs there were at each (i) Navy, (ii) Army, (iii) Royal Air Force and (iv) Reserves defence installation in Scotland for the year ended 1 April; and if he will make a statement. [142031]

      Mr. Caplin
      Reliable data are not available for civilians at individual defence installations. There were 6,510 civilian staff employed in Scotland as at 1 April
      273W
      2003 (rounded to the nearest 10). This figure is for full-time equivalent, permanent, industrial and non-industrial staff, excluding Trading Funds, Royal Fleet Auxiliaries and those on career breaks, long term sick leave, secondments etc.

      Information on service personnel by establishment is not held centrally. The numbers of service personnel in Scotland, by local authority area, as at 1 July 2002 are given as follows.

      All services

      Naval Service

      Army

      RAF

      Scotland

      13,870

      4,890

      3,040

      5,950

      City of Aberdeen

      10

      1—

      10

      1—

      Aberdeenshire

      340

      0

      0

      340

      Angus

      790

      700

      90

      1—

      Argyll and Bute

      3,930

      3,930

      0

      1—

      City of Dundee

      50

      10

      40

      1—

      City of Edinburgh

      1,420

      0

      1,400

      20

      Falkirk

      1—

      0

      1—

      0

      Fife

      1,380

      130

      30

      1,220

      City of Glasgow

      860

      20

      830

      10

      Highland

      530

      1—

      520

      10

      Inverclyde

      10

      10

      0

      0

      Midlothian

      70

      0

      70

      0

      Moray

      4,280

      0

      1—

      4,280

      North Ayrshire

      1—

      0

      1—

      1—

      Perthshire and Kinross

      20

      0

      20

      0

      Renfrewshire

      10

      0

      1—

      1—

      Shetland Islands

      30

      0

      0

      30

      South Ayrshire

      90

      90

      1—

      0

      Stirling

      10

      0

      10

      0

      West Lothian

      1—

      0

      1—

      0

      Cornhaire nan Eilean Siar

      20

      0

      10

      20

      1 Denotes less than five.

      Notes:

      1. Data are obtained from TSP 10, which contains figures for UK Regular Forces, both trained and untrained, located in the UK. They therefore exclude Gurkhas, Full Time Reserve Service personnel, the Home Service battalions of the Royal Irish Regiment and mobilized reservists.

      2. Naval Service personnel on sea service are included against the local authority containing the homeport of their ship.

      Defence Logistics Organisation
      Mr. Keetch
      To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the future role and structure of the Defence Logistics Organisation. [141661]

      Mr. Ingram
      The role of the Defence Logistics Organisation remains:'To decide, provide for, and deliver effective and integrated logistic support and information services to the front line and across the Department at best value for Defence.'

      The DLO Strategic Plan, published November 2002, provides further background, a copy of which can be found in the House of Commons Library.

      The DLO is currently reviewing its structure to ensure that it provides the most effective and efficient way of delivering to its customers. The outcomes of the review will be considered early next year.

      Departmental Land
      Mr. Rosindell
      To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the total area of land owned by his Department within the UK is. [142287]

      Mr. Caplin
      Freehold Land and Foreshore holdings is 220,000 hectares.
      274W
      Mr. Rosindell
      To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to sell land within the UK owned by his Department. [142288]

      Mr. Caplin
      The sites on which the Ministry of Defence operates within the United Kingdom are subject to regular review. The aim is to ensure that operational activities are conducted from the best locations commensurate with the primacy of operational effectiveness. The consideration of other key factors affecting our use of the estate includes the full range of sustainability issues, local planning regulations and the cost to the taxpayer of continuing occupation of a site.

      Any site declared surplus to our operational requirements is prepared for disposal in accordance with developed policy. MOD has agreed with the Treasury to generate income of £500 million from the disposal of surplus land and property between 2003–04 and 2005–06.

      Irish Regiments
      Mr. McNamara
      To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Irish citizens have joined(a) the Royal Irish Regiment and (b) the Irish Guards in each of the last five years for which figures are available. [141844]

      Mr. Ingram
      The total number of Irish citizens who have joined the Irish Guards in each of the last five years is less than five; the total is less than 10. The total number of Irish citizens who have joined the Royal Irish Regiment in the last five years is 30, with fewer than 10 in each of the last five financial years. All numbers are rounded to the nearest five.

      The totals are Irish citizens joining the above named Army units as trained and untrained officers and other ranks in financial years 1998–2003. The nationality is that of nationality at time of recruitment and not necessarily at birth.

      Northern Ireland
      Mr. Barnes
      To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many members of the armed forces have served in Northern Ireland. [142737]

      Mr. Ingram
      I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave on 20 October 2003,Official Report, columns 374–75W, to my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara).

      Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty
      Lynne Jones
      To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will support an extension of the Non-Proliferation Treaty to include all weapons which present any significant radiological risk. [142317]

      Mr. Ingram
      The scope of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) is clearly restricted to nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices. However, the UK raised the issue of the possible malevolent use of high-level radioactive sources by terrorists in its Statement to the Second Session of the Preparatory Committee for the NPT 2005 Review Conference on 6 May 2003. As we indicated in that Statement, we supported the work of
      275W
      the IAEA in concluding its Code of Conduct on the Safety and Security of Radioactive Sources which was adopted in September this year, and we encourage the IAEA in its more security-focused work relating to radioactive sources. We welcomed the findings of the international conference on the Security of Radioactive Sources held in Vienna in March 2003. We support both the G8 Statement and its Action Plan on securing radioactive sources agreed at the Evian Summit earlier this year.

      Lynne Jones
      To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he has had with his US counterparts regarding the 2005 Non-Proliferation Treaty review. [142318]

      Mr. Hoon
      I have had no discussions with my US counterparts about the 2005 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) Review Conference. UK officials are in contact with US officials on issues relating to the NPT and the 2005 Review Conference.

      Road Traffic Accidents
      Mr. McNamara
      To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many deaths of service personnel were due to road traffic accidents in each year since 1990; and how many and what proportion of deaths occurred(a) as part of a combat mission, (b) on military exercises, (c) inside barracks or military premises and (d) in civilian vehicles. [141800]

      Mr. Ingram
      Between 1990 and 2002 there were 807 road traffic accident (RTA) deaths among United Kingdom regular Service personnel (both trained and untrained), details of which by year are given in the following table. Of these, the NATO Standard Agreement (STANAG) (2050) coding system used to record injury-related deaths describes six (0.7 per cent.) as having occurred as Battle Casualties, 13 (1.6 per cent.) as having occurred during exercises, and the remaining 788 (97.6 per cent.) as accidental injuries. Information on the civilian ownership of vehicles is not specifically recorded, although 85 (10.6 per cent.) of the RTA deaths described were recorded as having occurred in military-owned vehicles. Information on the number of accidents which occurred inside barracks or on military premises is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

      Deaths of Regular Service personnel resulting from Road Traffic Accidents: 1990–2002

      Year

      Number

      1990

      100

      1991

      91

      1992

      80

      1993

      75

      1994

      58

      1995

      52

      1996

      42

      1997

      51

      1998

      61

      1999

      42

      2000

      45

      2001

      48

      2002

      62

      Total

      807

      Service Personnel
      Mr. Soames
      To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many British service personnel are deployed or stationed in(a) Germany, (b) Northern Ireland. (c) Bosnia, (d) Kosovo, (e) Cyprus, (f) Sierra Leone, (g) Afghanistan, (h) the Gulf region, (i) Turkey, (j) Gibraltar, (k) Belize, (l) Kenya, (m) Brunei, (n) Canada, (o) the Falklands and (p) Macedonia. [140682]

      Mr. Ingram
      As at the end of November 2003, the approximate number of British service personnel deployed or stationed in the locations specified are shown as follows:

      Number

      Germany

      15,200

      Northern Ireland

      13,800

      Bosnia

      1,200

      Kosovo

      340

      Cyprus

      3,900

      Sierra Leone

      120

      Afghanistan

      330

      The Gulf region

      9,200

      Turkey

      20

      Gibraltar

      410

      Belize

      30

      Kenya

      70

      Brunei

      1,100

      Canada

      270

      The Falklands

      1,200

      Macedonia

      20

      Sergeant Steven Roberts
      Mr. Tyler
      To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to be able to make available to his family the report of the investigation into the death of Sergeant Steven Roberts in Iraq on 24 March; and if he will make a statement. [142035]

      Mr. Ingram
      It is not yet clear when the Royal Military Police Special Investigation Branch (SIB) investigation will conclude: some evidence has yet to be collected and some witnesses have still to be interviewed. A briefing will be offered to Sergeant Roberts' widow as soon as is practicable once the SIB's findings are known.

      Timber
      Mr. Gardiner
      To ask the Secretary of State for Defence by what means the policy for purchasing timber and timber products of(a) his Department and (b) each of its agencies ensures that they are obtained from legal and sustainable sources. [141345]

      Mr. Caplin
      The Ministry of Defence has addressed issues about timber through the introduction of a Defence Contract Condition (DEFCON Number 691) in August 2002. This Contract Condition has three main aims: to inform contractors of the Government policy to procure timber and products containing wood from
      277W
      legal and sustainable sources; to introduce a contractual obligation to comply with that policy; and to ensure collection of data. The Contract Condition is used in appropriate contracts by the Department and is available for use by MOD agencies.

      UK/Netherlands Amphibious Capability
      Mr. Rosindell
      To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what costs he estimates will be incurred by the proposed development of a joint NATO and European amphibious capability;[142284]

      (2) how the chain of command within the UK/ Netherlands amphibious capability will be adapted if this develops into a joint NATO and European amphibious capability.[142283]

      Mr. Hoon
      There is no proposal to develop a joint NATO and European amphibious capability, hence no additional costs are anticipated. Under the five-nation European Amphibious Initiative the amphibious forces of United Kingdom, Netherlands, France, Spain and Italy work together on interoperability and doctrine, and co-ordinate training (which may be with NATO). National amphibious forces are used for NATO or EU crisis management operations only on the decision of the nations concerned. In the case of the UK/Netherlands Amphibious Force, the agreement of both countries is required. There are no plans for this to change.

      Foreign Warships
      Mr. Rosindell
      To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps are being taken to ensure that non-British naval ships docked within United Kingdom waters are not(a) posing environmental problems and (b) a target for potential terrorist activities. [142281]

      Mr. Ingram
      Foreign warships visiting ports within the UK have to comply fully with the relevant environmental legislation, including EC directives, which are no different for visiting Royal Navy vessels. Comprehensive arrangements are put in place for the routine disposal of all forms of waste and for rapid response to any leak or spill. Foreign nuclear-powered warships are required to produce assurances concerning reactor safety, aspects of design, crew training and operating procedures, and that they will meet their environmental responsibilities.

      Force protection for visiting warships is provided by a combination of on-board and external security measures, the former being the responsibility of the visiting nation while the latter rests with the UK as host. Where the visit takes place outside a Naval Base, the external security measures fall under the responsibility of the relevant Police Authority. For visits to HM Naval Bases, the Naval Base Commander has overall responsibility for security arrangements, which are kept under constant review. In each case, a security assessment is undertaken in close consultation with the visiting nation to identify which measures need to be put in place commensurate with any perceived threat. These measures can vary considerably depending on the nature of the visit and the threat assessment at any given time.

    EDUCATION AND SKILLS

      Children in Care
      Mr. George Osborne
      To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many children are in local authority care. [141837]

      Margaret Hodge
      The figures available provide a snapshot at March 31 2003. At 31 March 2003 there were 60,800 children looked after by local authorities in England.

      Benchmarking Website
      Mr. Willis
      To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the cost is of(a) establishing and (b) maintaining the recently launched benchmarking website; and if he will make a statement. [141787]

      Mr. Miliband
      The new benchmarking site was a joint development between the DfES, Ofsted and the Audit Commission building on the already successful Audit Commission site. It allows, for the first time, for all maintained schools in England to be able to compare and contrast their income and expenditure with other similar schools in a consistent way. The ability to benchmark financial information allows schools to identify areas in which savings in school budgets can be made that can then be reinvested into further improvements or redistributed to areas of greatest educational need. The website will also allow schools and LEAs to identify ways in which to improve performance in education at minimal additional cost.

      The cost of designing and building the newly completed Schools Financial Benchmarking website was approximately £220,000. The cost to maintain the website will be just over £10,000 per year. Other costs may be incurred if the application is to be developed further as a result of user feedback.

      Business and Enterprise Schools
      Mr. Gibb
      To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many and what proportion of(a) technology, (b) sports, (c) arts, (d) languages, (e) engineering, (f) science, (g) mathematics and computing and (h) business and enterprise specialist schools achieved less than 25 per cent. A* to C grades at GCSE in the last year for which figures are available.[141793]

      Mr. Miliband
      The information requested is provided in the following table.

      2002 GCSE/GNVQ results

      Special school type

      Technology

      Sports

      Arts

      Languages

      Number of schools where less than 25 per cent. of 15 years olds achieved five or more A*–C grades at GCSE/GNVQ

      11

      6

      4

      1

      Percentage of schools where less than 25 per cent. of 15 years olds achieved five or more A*C grades at GCSE/GNVQ

      3

      6

      4

      1

      280W
      Specialist schools covers the 674 maintained, mainstream schools which were operational specialists as at September 2002, with 2002 GCSE/GNVQ results. 2003 GCSE/GNVQ results are due to be published in January 2004, so 2002 figures have been used.

      There were no operational engineering, science, mathematics and computing or business and enterprise specialist schools at the time of the 2002 GCSE/ GNVQ examinations.

      Child Database
      Tim Loughton
      To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will make a statement on plans to launch a database of children in the UK.[141025]

      Margaret Hodge
      The Queen's Speech said that a Bill will be introduced to improve services designed to protect children. Subject to the outcome of consultation on the "Every Child Matters" Green Paper, this will include proposals for local information systems to enable practitioners to share early information about children and young people where this will enable better safeguarding of children and appropriate services being provided to them and their families.

      Tim Loughton
      To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills who will have access to the proposed database of children in the UK; and what steps he will take to prevent unlawful access.[141026]

      Margaret Hodge
      Access to the proposed local databases on children would be given to practitioners on a "need to know" basis. We will put in place stringent access and security arrangements to prevent unlawful access.

      Tim Loughton
      To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what provision there is for subjects on the child database register to be able to amend the information held on them. [141027]

      Margaret Hodge
      Subjects on the child database would have access to the information held about them on the system, except where there is an exemption under the Data Protection Act 1998. Subjects would also be able to comment on any information held on the system that was in need of updating.

      Children's Bill
      Tim Loughton
      To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what subjects he proposes to include in the children's Bill announced in the Queen's Speech. [141028]

      Margaret Hodge
      The Government believes that every child should be given the best start in life supported by services focused around their needs.

      The Government consultation on the "Every Child Matters" Green Paper has just finished and the responses we have received will continue to inform development of the Bill provisions.
      281W
      We expect the Bill will include measures to:
      provide for a Children's Commissioner to be appointed as an independent children's champion;
      create the post of Director of Children's Services, to be accountable for local authority education and children's social services, and a lead council member for children;
      require local authorities to set up Local Safeguarding Children Boards which would give those who work with children, for example police and health services, a duty to work together and safeguard and promote children's welfare;
      require local authorities to promote the educational achievement of children in care;
      make provision to enable information sharing between those who work with children; and
      allow for the introduction of a new integrated inspection framework for children's services and appropriate intervention where services are failing.

      Tim Loughton
      To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills when he intends to publish the bill dealing with child protection announced in the Queen's Speech; and in what form. [141029]

      Margaret Hodge
      The consultation on the Green Paper "Every Child Matters" as just finished and we are now analysing the responses in detail. We will continue to discuss with partners how to shape the legislation resulting from the Green Paper and a Bill will be introduced later this Session.

      Connexions Advice Centres
      Charles Hendry
      To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans he has to require Connexions advice centres to be open(a) in evenings and (b) at weekends; and if he will make a statement. [140660]

      Margaret Hodge
      The opening hours of Connexions advice centres are determined by Connexions Partnerships in response to local need. Connexions Partnerships undertake regular consultations with young people and other partners to ensure that access to services reflects demand. A recent survey of Connexions One-Stop-Shops and Access Points found that over half were open in the evenings or at weekends and a third were linked to the Connexions Direct telephone helpline providing out of hours support to young people. As more One-Stop-Shops and Access Points are opened and Connexions Direct is rolled out nationally there will be further improvements in the availability of services in the evenings and at weekends.

      Drugs
      Mr. Hoban
      To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what guidance has been issued to schools on identifying drug use among pupils. [141926]

      Mr. Stephen Twigg
      [holding answer 4 December 2003]The Department has issued two guidance documents for schools on drugs: "Circular 4/95: Drug Prevention and Schools and Protecting Young People:282W
      Good practice in drug education in schools and the youth service (1998)". These documents are currently being revised and consolidated and will be reissued in 2004. This follows consultation on draft guidance earlier this year. The document will offer guidance to schools on all drug matters including identifying and managing drug use among pupils and supporting pupils with drug-related needs.

      Education (North-west)
      Mr. Woodward
      To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the ratio of teachers per pupil was in(a) nursery, (b) primary and (c) secondary education in (i) St. Helens, (ii) Merseyside and (iii) the North West Region, in each year since 1992. [141472]

      Mr. Miliband
      The information requested is shown in the table.

      Maintained nursery, primary and secondary schools1: Pupil:Teacher ratio2

      Position at January each year 1992–2003

      Nursery

      Primary

      Secondary

      St. Helens3

      1992

      20.0

      22.8

      15.3

      1993

      20.0

      22.2

      15.3

      1994

      20.0

      22.0

      15.3

      1995

      20.0

      22.2

      15.3

      1996

      20.6

      22.9

      15.6

      1997

      20.5

      23.3

      15.6

      1998

      21.3

      23.2

      16.0

      1999

      21.6

      23.6

      15.9

      2000

      22.0

      23.2

      16.1

      2001

      19.4

      22.9

      16.1

      2002

      18.9

      22.4

      15.8

      2003

      17.0

      22.9

      15.8

      Merseyside3,4

      1992

      17.3

      22.9

      15.6

      1993

      18.0

      23.0

      15.9

      1994

      19.0

      23.0

      16.1

      1995

      17.5

      23.2

      16.1

      1996

      17.8

      23.3

      16.2

      1997

      18.0

      23.4

      16.3

      1998

      17.2

      23.7

      16.5

      1999

      17.4

      23.4

      16.5

      2000

      16.4

      23.0

      16.6

      2001

      14.7

      22.5

      16.2

      2002

      14.5

      21.9

      15.7

      2003

      13.6

      21.8

      15.8

      North West3,5

      1992

      19.1

      22.8

      15.6

      1993

      19.4

      23.0

      16.0

      1994

      20.4

      23.2

      16.3

      1995

      20.2

      23.4

      16.5

      1996

      20.0

      23.7

      16.6

      1997

      19.6

      23.9

      16.6

      1998

      19.3

      24.0

      16.7

      1999

      19.0

      23.9

      16.8

      2000

      18.7

      23.4

      16.8

      2001

      18.1

      22.9

      16.6

      2002

      17.1

      22.3

      16.3

      2003

      16.2

      22.3

      16.4

      1Includes middle schools as deemed.

      2Only includes the full-time and the full-time equivalent of part-time teachers with qualified teacher status.

      283W
      3The boundaries for each area are for the year in question. Figures have not been adjusted to take into account of any boundary changes.

      4Includes Knowsley, Liverpool, St. Helens, Sefton and Wirral local education authorities.

      5Includes Merseyside.

      Mr. Woodward
      To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the average class sizes in(a) nursery schools, (b) primary education and
      (c) secondary education in (i) St. Helens, (ii) Merseyside and (iii) the North West Region were, in each year since 1992. [141473]

      Mr. Stephen Twigg
      Information on the average class size in nursery schools is not collected centrally. The requested information for primary and secondary schools is shown in the table.

      Maintained primary and secondary schools1: average class size2,3: position in January each year 1992 to 2003

      Average class size2,3

      Primary4

      Secondary4

      St. Helens

      5Merseyside

      6 North west

      St. Helens

      5Merseyside

      6 North west

      1992

      27.0

      26.6

      27.2

      19.7

      20.3

      20.8

      1993

      26.2

      26.7

      27.3

      19.6

      20.5

      20.7

      1994

      26.8

      26.8

      27.4

      19.7

      20.7

      21.4

      1995

      27.0

      27.1

      27.6

      20.3

      21.0

      21.6

      1996

      27.5

      27.0

      27.7

      20.0

      20.9

      21.8

      1997

      27.8

      27.1

      27.9

      19.9

      20.9

      21.8

      1998

      27.6

      27.2

      28.0

      20.1

      20.9

      21.8

      1999

      27.6

      27.0

      27.7

      20.0

      21.1

      21.8

      2000

      27.3

      26.7

      27.1

      20.6

      21.3

      22.0

      2001

      26.6

      26.1

      26.7

      20.6

      21.1

      22.0

      2002

      26.0

      25.5

      26.1

      20.3

      20.8

      21.8

      2003

      26.9

      25.3

      26.1

      20.8

      20.8

      21.8

      1Includes middle schools as deemed.

      2Classes taught by one teacher.

      3Classes as taught during one selected period in each school on the day of the Census in January.

      4The boundaries for each area are for the year in question. Figures have not been adjusted to take into account of any boundary changes.

      5Includes Knowsley, Liverpool, St. Helens, Sefton and Wirral local education authorities.

      6Includes Mereseyside.

      Source:

      Annual School's Census

      Family Mediation
      Tim Loughton
      To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans he has to bring forward reform of family courts to enable them to play a greater role in mediation. [141185]

      Pupils achieving both GCSEs and GNVQs who:

      Pupils achieving GCSEs only who:

      Year

      Number achieving 5+A*-C GCSE/GNVQ

      Percentage 5+A*-C

      Achieved 5+A*-c

      %

      Achieved 5+A*-C

      %

      Achieved 5+A*-C

      %

      1999–00

      285,718

      49.2

      4,550

      1.6

      2,289

      0.8

      278,880

      97.6

      2000–01

      301,617

      50.0

      7,962

      2.6

      3,597

      1.2

      290,058

      96.2

      2001–02

      312,739

      51.6

      19,098

      6.1

      8,367

      2.7

      285,274

      91.2

      2002–03

      327,301

      52.6

      40,747

      12.4

      47,582

      5.4

      268,972

      82.2

      Note:

      2003 figures are provisional and may change once the performance tables checking process is complete. The figures quoted in the answer relate to the achievements of pupils that were aged 15 at the start of the academic year—ie those pupils aged 15 on 31 August.
      284W
      Margaret Hodge
      The Government encourage the use of family mediation as an alternative to court proceedings in appropriate cases. Mediation can be particularly beneficial in resolving disputes over child contact. Public funding for family mediation is now available throughout England and Wales through the Community Legal Service.

      Courts can allow cases to be adjourned so that parties can attempt to resolve the dispute by using family mediation. As part of its project to reduce the proportion of cases resolved by resort to the courts the Government have arranged a pilot whereby selected courts send out information about family mediation to parties in various family proceedings, including child contact disputes.

      The Government are also testing the provision of a Family Advice and Information Service (FAInS) which will provide advice for people with family difficulties and will facilitate referrals to other appropriate agencies, including family mediation services.

      Foundation Degrees
      Chris Grayling
      To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) what the total cost has been of introducing foundation degrees; [142033]

      (2) what the total cost is to his Department of the (a) creation and (b) promotion of foundation degree courses. [142372]

      Alan Johnson
      Foundation Degrees were announced by the Secretary of State in February 2000. The budget for Foundation Degrees was included in the 'Grants to HEFCE' and the 'other' Higher Education outturn figures published in the Departmental Report of 2002–03 (page169). The figures are; 2000–01—£4,390 million; 2001–02—£4,798 million; 2002–03—£5,043 million
      (estimated). Spending plans for Foundation Degrees for the period 2003–04 to 2005–06, totalling £32 million, were published in the White Paper 'The future of higher education' (ISBN: 0 10 157352 9, page 66) and set out clearly against specific activities in "Foundation Degrees—Meeting the need for higher level skills" (ISBN: 1 84478 076 07, page 18) published on 7 October 2003.

      GCSEs
      Mr. Gibb
      To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will make a statement on the change in the number of pupils achieving(a) five A* to C grades at GCSE only and (b) five A* to C grades with the addition of a GNVQ between 2000–03. [141834]

      Mr. Miliband
      The statistical information requested is detailed in the following table:
      285W
      Mr. Gibb
      To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what boundaries were set by the Oxford, Cambridge and RSA awarding body for GCSE grades A* to U in (a) English literature, (b) English language and (c) mathematics in each year from 1988 to 2002. [141900]

      Mr. Miliband
      The answer can be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

      Graduate Income
      Mr. Alan Williams
      To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) what the(a) upper and (b) lower parameters are of Government estimates of extra life-time earnings of graduates; [140797]

      (2) whether Government estimates of extra lifetime earnings of graduates differentiate between (a) different subjects and (b) different professions; [140800]

      (3) whether Government estimates of graduates extra life-time earnings differentiate between male and female graduates. [140798]

      Alan Johnson
      Higher education is undoubtedly a good investment for the average graduate. Individuals with higher education qualifications earn on average around 50 per cent, more than those without. Separate analysis of the benefits of higher education estimates that first degree graduates earn on average around £120,000 more—in present value terms—over their working lives than those with two or more A-levels1. This estimate is technically different from the 50 per cent, graduate premium because it controls for background factors that affect earnings, independently of the qualification itself.

      No specific estimates have been made of the extra lifetime earnings of graduates by degree subject, profession or gender. However, other studies suggest that there will inevitably be some variation in the lifetime differential because graduate earnings are influenced by a number of factors, including subject studied and occupational choices, which in turn may differ by gender.
      1The 50 per cent, graduate earnings premium is derived by dividing the raw average earnings of those with first or sub-degrees by the average earnings of non-graduates. The £120,000 differential is derived by constructing a lifetime earnings stream for first degree graduates and comparing it against the lifetime earnings of A-level holders. Both earnings streams are discounted, adjusted for real earnings growth and other factors affecting earnings, other than the qualification itself. The difference between the two earnings streams sums to £120,000.

      Higher Education
      Michael Fabricant
      To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what percentage of students in higher education did not complete their degrees in(a) the last year for which data is available, (b) 1997 and (c) 1992. [141959]

      Alan Johnson
      Since 1996–97, information on non-completion rates has been published annually by the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) in 'Performance Indicators in Higher Education'. The latest figures cover students starting courses in 1999–00; overall non-completion rates for students starting full-time first degree courses in the UK are as follows.
      286W

      Students starting courses in:

      Non completion rate (percentage)

      1999–2000

      17

      1997–98

      17

      Non completion rates for earlier years were calculated and published by the Department and figures are shown in the table below for 1992/93. These figures also cover students on full-time first degree courses, but the methodology and institutional coverage used by the Department was different to that used by HEFCE, so the two sets of figures are not directly comparable.

      Students starting courses in:

      Non completion rate (percentage)

      1992–93

      17

      Figures published in 2003 by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) show that the UK as a whole has one of the lowest non-completion rates among OECD countries.

      Mr. McLoughlin
      To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what percentage of(a) GCSE and (b) sixth form students have continued to higher education in (i) West Derbyshire, (ii) the East Midlands and (iii) England in each year since 1990. [141449]

      Alan Johnson
      Figures at constituency level are not currently available. However, the available information on participation rates by local authority and region shows the proportion of 18-year-olds entering full-time undergraduate courses in the UK via the Universities and Colleges Admissions Service (UCAS), and is given in the table. Comparable figures for the years prior to 1994 are not available centrally.

      It should be noted that the proportions in the table are based only on the number of 18-year-olds entering full-time HE. This is a different definition to the Department's main measures of HE participation: the Age Participation Index (API), which measures the proportion of UK domiciled students who enter full-time HE by the age of 20, and the Initial Entry Rate (IER) which measures the proportion of 17–30 year old English domiciled first time entrants to full or part-time HE. Neither the API nor the IER are calculated for each LEA, because of the lack of detailed data at local authority level.

      Proportion of 18-year-olds entering full-time undergraduate courses via UCAS

      Students from:

      Year of entry

      City of Derby1

      Derbyshire1

      East Midlands2

      England

      1994

      —

      16.1

      17.1

      17.9

      1995

      —

      16.2

      18.6

      19.5

      1996

      —

      17.6

      19.1

      19.9

      1997

      17.6

      19.1

      19.8

      20.5

      1998

      16.3

      19.9

      19.5

      20.0

      1999

      17.9

      19.9

      19.3

      20.0

      2000

      17.9

      20.4

      19.8

      20.6

      2001

      19.5

      21.9

      21.3

      21.5

      2002

      18.5

      22.5

      21.5

      22.0

      1The local education authority of Derbyshire was split into the City of Derby and Derbyshire due to local government reorganisations in 1997.

      287W
      2Covers the local education authorities of City of Derby, Derbyshire, Leicester, Leicestershire, Lincolnshire, Northamptonshire, Nottingham, Nottinghamshire and Rutland.

      Independent Schools
      Mr. Hoban
      To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will list for each local education authority the(a) number and (b) proportion of children resident in that authority area attending independent schools. [141257]

      Mr. Miliband
      [holding answer 2 December 2003]The number of pupils resident in an authority is only available for pupils attending maintained primary, secondary and all special schools as well as city technology colleges and academies as at January 2003.

      The best available information has been placed in the House of Commons Library and shows (a) the number of pupils attending independent schools that are located in the local education authority (LEA) and (b) these pupils expressed as a percentage of all pupils attending schools within the same LEA. These figures therefore refer to the pupils in such schools irrespective of the pupils' normal place of residence.

      Non-resident Parents
      Tim Loughton
      To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many cases involving disputes over contact with children for non-resident parents involved accusations of sexual abuse in the last year for which figures are available. [141064]

      Margaret Hodge
      Data about the factors underpinning contact applications, such as allegations about injuries caused to children during previous contact with an allegedly violent parent, are not collected, either by the courts or centrally. In recent research commissioned by the Department for Constitutional Affairs in three County Courts from year 2000 files, there were indications that in 22 per cent. of the cases reviewed, physical or emotional abuse towards a family member was indicated. A more specific reference to child sexual abuse appeared in 6 per cent. of cases, though there may be overlap between the two categories.

      Pathfinder Projects
      Mr. Luff
      To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many schools benefit from Pathfinder projects in the current financial year, broken down by local education authority; and what the total funding made available in the current financial year under the programme is in each education authority area. [141463]

      Mr. Ivan Lewis
      The following table shows the number of schools involved in Pathfinder projects, and the total amount of funding available for such projects, in each local education authority in England in 2003–04. A school may be involved in more than one Pathfinder project and it will be counted once for each project. The Pathfinder projects are:Key Stage 2 Language Pathfinders launched in September 2003 to find out how primary language learning might best be delivered.
      288W
      Diversity Pathfinders, which aim to raise standards through developing a strategic and coherent approach to the expansion of school diversity in secondary schools, particularly in relation to specialist school expansion and inter-school collaboration. The extent to which primary and special schools benefit through collaborative partnerships with secondary schools as a result of Diversity Pathfinders depends on the focus of each Pathfinder project.
      Transforming the School Workforce Pathfinders to pilot new ways of working to relieve teacher workload and raise standards. The learning from these schools and good practice will be shared with other schools across the country. The National Remodelling Team has been established to develop a network of support for all schools building on the learning from the Pathfinder.
      Enterprise Pathfinders, which are exploring the most innovative and effective ways to deliver Enterprise Education in preparation for the new enterprise entitlement from September 2005.
      14–19 Pathfinders designed to test local delivery of 14–19 education and training in a range of settings building on the increasingly distinctive specialisms of local schools, colleges and training providers. There are 39 such Pathfinders based around the country. Details of the number of institutions benefiting from these projects are not held centrally.

      Police Officers (Schools)
      Mr. Chope
      To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will list the local education authorities where police officers are based in schools; and for each local education authority what funding from his Department is made available in support. [141522]

      Mr. Miliband
      My Department and the Home Office have encouraged schools and the police to set up Safer School Partnerships (police in schools). To fund administrative staff and equipment for SSP officers, those partnerships in Behaviour Improvement Programme (BIP) areas are able to negotiate locally for a share of the area's BIP fund. We are paying over £1 million this year in BIP funds for all eligible activities including SSPs in each of the local education authorities listed as follows. We have many reports of good work achieved by BIP-funded SSPs in their first year. Some areas have also taken the initiative to start SSPs in non-BIP areas, using their own local funds.

      Birmingham

      Bolton

      Bradford Brent

      Bristol

      Camden

      Ealing

      Greenwich

      Hackney

      Hammersmith and Fulham

      289W

      Haringey

      Hartlepool

      Hounslow

      Hull

      Islington

      Kensington and Chelsea

      Lambeth

      Leeds

      Lewisham

      Liverpool

      Manchester

      Middlesbrough

      Newham

      Nottingham

      Nottinghamshire

      Oldham

      Reading

      Rochdale

      Salford

      Sandwell

      Sheffield

      Slough

      Solihull

      Southwark

      Stoke on Trent

      Tower Hamlets

      Waltham Forest

      Wandsworth

      Westminster

      Wolverhampton.

      Post-16 Education
      Mr. Drew
      To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will publish the protocol for the reorganisation of post-16 education with specific reference to the responsibilities held by(a) local education authorities and (b) local learning and skills commissions. [142309]

      Mr. Miliband
      We have no plans to publish a protocol for the reorganisation of sixth form education, with specific reference to the responsibilities held by Local Education Authorities and local Learning and Skills Councils.

      Section 113A of the Learning and Skills Act 2000 as inserted by section 72 of the Education Act 2002, gave the Learning Skills Council powers from 1 April 2003 to re-organise sixth form provision in schools—including powers to make proposals to establish, alter or discontinue school sixth forms and 16–19 schools. Local LSCs can propose re-organisation following recommendations in an Ofsted Area Inspection Report or where they can demonstrate that the proposals will improve participation, raise standards or broaden the range of provision. The Secretary of State will decide on LSC re-organisation proposals.

      LEAs have powers under sections 28 and 29 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 to publish statutory proposals to change 16–19 provision in schools. They can publish proposals to establish or discontinue secondary schools with sixth forms and
      290W
      16–19 schools, and to alter provision in a school—for example by the addition or closure of a sixth form. LEAs may implement their proposals if there are no objections, otherwise the proposals will be decided locally by the School Organisation Committee for the area or an independent Adjudicator if the Committee cannot agree.

      Should an LEA publish proposals that impact on final re-organisation proposals as published by the LSC, a decision on the LEA proposals will be deferred pending the Secretary of State's decision on the LSC proposals.

      Mr. Drew
      To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what discussions he has had with(a)Gloucestershire Local Education Authority and (b) Gloucestershire Learning and Skills Commission on the review of post-16 education. [142310]

      Mr. Miliband
      The Secretary of State has had no discussions with Gloucester local education authority or Gloucestershire Learning and Skills Council about the review of post-16 education in Gloucestershire.

      Public Service Support Staff
      Chris Grayling
      To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will make a statement on the number of specialist public service support staff providing support to pre-school nursery and playgroups involved in implementing the foundation stage. [141142]

      Margaret Hodge
      Figures for the total number of public sector staff working with nurseries and pre-schools in the private, independent and voluntary sectors are not available.

      Local authority specialists offer a wide range of support and advice to help maintain the quality of Government funded early education delivered by over 19,000 private, independent and voluntary settings, including nurseries and playgroups.

      Their role includes ensuring that all settings have access to a Qualified Teacher and an Area Special Educational Needs Co-ordinator.

      In addition, as part of the National Primary Strategy, the new Foundation Stage Director, Lesley Staggs, and her team of 12 regionally based experts will be engaging with local authorities to spread effective practice throughout the country.

      School Finance
      Mr. Hoban
      To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will make a statement on the extent to which schools have used devolved capital allocations to meet shortfalls on their revenue budgets. [141927]

      Mr. Miliband
      [holding answer 4 December 2003]Local education authorities (LEAs) were requested to provide details of the amount of capital flexibility agreed with their schools by 30 November. The total amount agreed across all LEAs was £40,911,409 (Including Voluntary Aided schools). The total devolved formula allocation for 2003–04 to all LEAs was £681,277,138. This means that the total take up of the flexibility available was 6 per cent.
      291W
      Miss McIntosh
      To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what representations he has received on funding for schools in(a) North Yorkshire and (b) the City of York; and if he will make a statement. [142046]

      Mr. Miliband
      We have received few recent representations about school funding issues in North Yorkshire and the City of York. Since the beginning of September we have, according to our records, received one letter about each. On 29 October my right hon. Friend announced proposals to restore stability to school funding. Further information about funding for next year was announced on 19 November as part of the provisional Local Government Finance Settlement. In 2004–05 all authorities will see an increase in their School Formula Spending Share of at least 5 per cent. per pupil: North Yorkshire's increase is 6 per cent. and the City of York's is 6.8 per cent.

      Miss McIntosh
      To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what his policy is on how to bridge the funding shortfall for schools in North Yorkshire. [142047]

      Mr. Miliband
      On 29 October my right hon. Friend announced proposals to restore stability to school funding. Among the package of measures, we are ensuring that for 2004–05 all schools will see a guaranteed minimum increase in their per pupil budget amounting to 4 per cent. per pupil where pupil numbers remain the same. In addition, we have ensured that schools will receive an increase in the amounts of Standards Fund, School Standards Grant and funding from the LSC for sixth forms in line with the minimum guarantee.

      We are increasing the School Formula Spending Share by a minimum of 5 per cent. per pupil —North Yorkshire's increase is 6 per cent. This will give the Authority the headroom and flexibility to deliver the guarantee and provide support to help schools facing additional pressures.

      However, if North Yorkshire or any other LEA is able to put forward a compelling case that additional, transitional funds are needed in the short term—above and beyond those already available to the LEA—my right hon. Friend will be prepared to consider bringing forward grant payments from my Department, so that the LEA will have funds available in 2004–05 for this purpose, with the expectation of a consequential reduction to what they will receive in future years. The maximum amount that North Yorkshire might be able to bring forward in this way is would be £604,000.

      School Meals
      Mr. Evans
      To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what provisions are in place to ensure that school meals are balanced and follow the guidelines set down by the Department of Health for healthy eating. [141920]

      Mr. Stephen Twigg
      In April 2001, this Department introduced regulations that set nutritional standards for school lunches, together with complementary guidance to assist caterers in preparing school meals. The standards are based on the Government's "Balance of Good Health"—a pictorial representation of the five 292W
      food groups that make up a healthy balanced diet. The standards prescribe the types of foods that should be available from the four main food groups, along with the frequency with which they should be served. The four main food groups are: fruit and vegetables; starchy foods; meat, fish and other non dairy sources of protein; and milk and dairy foods.

      Research, jointly commissioned by this Department and the Food Standards Agency, is currently underway in 80 secondary schools in England. This will assess whether the food available at lunchtime meets the requirements of the standards and associated guidance. We expect the findings of this exercise to be available in late spring 2004.

      School Playing Fields
      Mr. Evans
      To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many school playing fields have been(a) sold and (b) acquired in each year since 1997. [141921]

      Mr. Stephen Twigg
      Section 77 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 was introduced on 1 October 1998 to stop the indiscriminate sale of school playing fields that occurred in the 1980s and early to mid 1990s. Local authorities and governing bodies of all maintained schools now need the Secretary of State's consent before they can dispose of a playing field or any part of a playing field. Applications to sell school playing fields are only approved where it is clear that they meet the published criteria and, in particular, that any proceeds will be used to improve school sports provision or education facilities.

      There are no central records of how many school playing fields were sold before October 1998. Between October 1998 and December 1998, the Government approved seven applications to sell school playing fields larger than a sports pitch; 42 applications were approved in 1999, 32 in 2000, 22 in 2001. 23 in 2002, and so far 10 have been approved in 2003.

      There are no central records of how many school playing fields have been acquired.

      School Sports
      Mr. Evans
      To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what percentage of the school day is accounted for by sports activities in each county. [141918]

      Mr. Stephen Twigg
      The Department for Education and Skills does not collect information on the percentage of the school day devoted to sports activities broken down by county.

      The Government are investing more than £1 billion in England to transform physical education, school sport and club links. The funding will help deliver an ambitious Public Service Agreement target, shared by the Departments for Education and Skills and for Culture, Media and Sport, to increase the percentage of 5 to 16- year-olds who spend a minimum of two hours each week on high quality PE and school sport within and beyond the curriculum to 75 per cent. by 2006. Data collected during the autumn term 2002 suggested that about a third of schools provided this entitlement at Key Stage 1, two fifths at Key Stage 2 and a third at

      293W
      Key Stages 3 and 4. Data are now being collected for the first time—for publication in April 2004—on the number of pupils who choose to take up this entitlement.

      Sixth Forms
      Mr. Drew
      To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what guidance is given to(a) local education authorities and (b) learning and skills commissions on the operation of school sixth forms in rural areas. [142312]

      Mr. Miliband
      No specific guidance has been issued to local education authorities or the Learning and Skills Council on the operation of sixth forms in rural areas.

      Under section 2 of the Learning and Skills Act 2000, the Learning and Skills Council has a duty to secure the provision of proper educational facilities for people who are above compulsory school age but have not attained age 19. LEAs have powers to secure post-16 educational facilities under Section 15A and 15B of the Education Act 1996, which are discretionary.

      Our published principles underpinning 16–19 provision set out our expectation that provision will be organised to show that young people have access, within reasonable travelling distance, to high quality learning opportunities across the school, college and work-based training routes that will meet their interests, aptitudes and aspirations and will promote participation and attainment in learning.

      Mr. Drew
      To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what powers local learning and skills commissions have to overturn recommendations from local education authorities with regard to reorganisation of school sixth forms. [142313]

      Mr. Miliband
      Local education authorities have powers under sections 28 and 29 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 to publish statutory proposals to establish or discontinue schools with sixth forms, including 16–19 schools, and to make changes to schools—for example they may propose to add or close a school sixth form. LEAs may implement their proposals if there are no objections during consultation, otherwise the proposals will be decided locally by the School Organisation Committee for the area.

      If the local Learning and Skills Council disagrees with the proposals it can object during consultation and use its vote on the School Organisation Committee to have the case referred to an independent schools adjudicator.

      Only if the LSC has published final re-organisation proposals do they take precedence over any simultaneous related LEA/school proposals. In these cases a decision on the LEA's proposals must be deferred pending a decision by the Secretary of State on the LSC proposals.

      Mr. Drew
      To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what guidelines there are on the minimum acceptable size for a school sixth form; and whether these guidelines were communicated to(a) local education authorities, (b) learning and skills commissions and (c) Ofsted. [142311]
      294W
      Mr. Miliband
      We do not prescribe a minimum acceptable size of school sixth form. The issue is whether a sixth form provides a high quality, broad curriculum for its students, rather than its size.

      We have made clear in our published principles for the organisation of 16–19 provision that well-managed collaboration can enable popular and successful sixth forms, including small sixth forms, to remain viable and to share and build on their particular areas of expertise.

      Special Mediation Courts
      Tim Loughton
      To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans he has to launch pilots for special mediation courts for parental contact based on the Florida system. [141024]

      Margaret Hodge
      I am actively considering a proposal we have received for a pilot project to divert contact disputes away from the courts. I expect to make an announcement shortly, as part of the work we have been undertaking in formulating a final response to the Children Act Sub-Committee (CASC) report "Making Contact Work".

      Specialist Schools
      Mr. Gibb
      To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many schools gained specialist status in(a) technology, (b) sports, (c) arts, (d) languages, (e) engineering, (f) science, (g) mathematics and computing and (h) business and enterprise (i) before and (ii) after September 2002. [141798]

      Mr. Miliband
      The data requested is given in the table set out as follows.

      Gained specialist status:

      (i) Before September 2002

      (ii) After September 2002

      Total

      (a) Technology Colleges

      465

      60

      525

      (b) Sports Colleges

      161

      68

      229

      (c) Arts Colleges

      173

      57

      230

      (d) Language Colleges

      162

      32

      194

      (e) Engineering Colleges

      4

      10

      14

      (f) Science Colleges

      24

      97

      121

      (g) Maths & Computing

      12

      65

      77

      (h) Business & Enterprise

      18

      63

      81

      Combined specialisms

      10

      10

      1,019

      462

      1,481

      Mr. Gibb
      To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills whether aptitude selection by specialist schools is permitted under the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 in the(a) engineering, (b) mathematics and computing and (c) business and enterprise specialisms. [141823]

      Mr. Miliband
      The specialist subjects covered by the engineering specialism include design and technology and information technology. The specialist subjects covered by the mathematics and computing and the business and enterprise specialisms include information technology.

      Design and technology and information technology are both included in the list of prescribed subjects in the Regulations made under Section 102 of the 1998 School

      295W
      Standards and Framework Act. Schools designated in these three categories could therefore identify a specialism in which to select up to 10 per cent. of their pupils on the basis of their aptitude for that specialism.

      Dr. Kumar
      To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many schools in each region have been awarded specialist status; for what subjects; and if he will make a statement.[141869]

      Specialist school designations by region

      Region

      Arts

      Business and Enterprise

      Engineering

      Language

      Maths and Computing

      Science

      Sports

      Technology

      Combined Specialisms

      Total

      North East

      9

      2

      1

      9

      4

      5

      16

      35

      1

      82

      East Midlands

      20

      6

      2

      14

      3

      11

      16

      54

      1

      127

      York & the Humber

      20

      8

      2

      19

      10

      10

      23

      49

      2

      143

      Eastern

      26

      12

      1

      22

      11

      16

      23

      58

      1

      170

      South West

      26

      10

      2

      20

      8

      18

      28

      63

      1

      176

      London

      30

      13

      24

      12

      17

      24

      57

      1

      178

      West Midlands

      32

      9

      1

      18

      6

      17

      31

      66

      180

      South East

      31

      7

      1

      34

      15

      15

      32

      73

      1

      209

      North West

      36

      14

      4

      30

      8

      12

      36

      74

      2

      216

      Total

      230

      81

      14

      190

      77

      121

      229

      529

      10

      1,481

      Specialist Technology Colleges
      Dr. Kumar
      To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many schools in(a) the North East and (b) each local authority area (i) have been designated and (ii) are being considered for status as a specialist technology college. [141868]

      Mr. Miliband
      The data requested are set out in the following table.

      Technology college designations

      LEA/region

      Technology college designations

      Being considered for technology college status

      North East region

      35

      0

      Local education authorities

      London borough of Barking and Dagenham

      1

      —

      London borough of Barnet

      3

      1

      Barnsley

      1

      —

      Bath and North East Somerset

      3

      —

      Bedfordshire

      2

      —

      London borough of Bexley

      1

      —

      Birmingham

      17

      1

      Blackburn with Darwen

      3

      —

      Blackpool

      —

      —

      Bolton

      2

      —

      Bournemouth

      1

      —

      Bracknell Forest

      1

      —

      Bradford

      3

      —

      London borough of Brent

      3

      —

      Brighton and Hove

      2

      —

      City of Bristol

      1

      1

      London borough of Bromley

      5

      1

      Buckinghamshire

      5

      —

      Bury

      1

      —

      Calderdale

      2

      —

      Cambridgeshire

      7

      —

      London borough of Camden

      2

      —

      Cheshire

      8

      1

      Corporation of London

      —

      —

      Cornwall

      7

      —

      Coventry

      3

      1

      London borough of Croydon

      2

      —

      Cumbria

      5

      1

      Darlington

      2

      —

      City of Derby

      2

      —

      296W
      Mr. Miliband
      The data requested are set out in the following table.

      The Specialist Schools Programme is contributing to the creation of a specialist system in which every secondary school has its own special ethos and works with others to spread best practice and raise standards. There are now specialist schools in all areas of England, and every local education authority that has secondary schools has a specialist school.

      Technology college designations

      LEA/region

      Technology college designations

      Being considered for technology college status

      Derbyshire

      8

      2

      Devon

      6

      —

      Doncaster

      3

      —

      Dorset

      5

      —

      Dudley

      1

      —

      Durham

      9

      —

      London borough of Eating

      3

      —

      East Riding of Yorkshire

      4

      —

      East Sussex

      6

      —

      London borough of Enfield

      2

      —

      Essex

      12

      1

      Gateshead

      2

      —

      Gloucestershire

      12

      —

      London borough of Greenwich

      2

      —

      London borough of Hackney

      3

      —

      Halton

      2

      —

      London borough of Hammersmith and Fulham

      —

      —

      Hampshire

      9

      3

      London borough of Haringey

      1

      —

      London borough of Harrow

      2

      —

      Hartlepool

      1

      —

      London borough of Havering

      2

      —

      Herefordshire

      2

      —

      Hertfordshire

      10

      1

      London borough of Hillingdon

      2

      —

      London borough of Hounslow

      2

      —

      Isles of Scilly

      —

      —

      Isle of Wight

      1

      —

      London borough of Islington

      1

      —

      Royal borough of Kensington and Chelsea

      —

      —

      Kent

      12

      —

      City of Kingston upon Hull

      1

      —

      Royal borough of Kingston-upon-Thames

      2

      —

      Kirklees

      5

      —

      Knowsley

      —

      —

      London borough of Lambeth

      2

      —

      Lancashire

      18

      2

      Leeds

      6

      1

      Leicester City

      2

      —

      Leicestershire

      7

      —

      London borough of Lewisham

      —

      —

      Lincolnshire

      15

      1

      Liverpool

      7

      —

      297W

      Technology college designations

      LEA/region

      Technology college designations

      Being considered for technology college status

      Luton

      1

      —

      Manchester

      3

      —

      Medway

      3

      —

      London borough of Merton

      1

      —

      Middlesborough

      1

      —

      Milton Keynes

      1

      —

      Newcastle upon Tyne

      5

      —

      London borough of Newham

      3

      —

      Norfolk

      10

      —

      North East Lincolnshire

      2

      —

      North Lincolnshire

      2

      —

      North Somerset

      2

      —

      North Tyneside

      2

      —

      North Yorkshire

      9

      1

      Northamptonshire

      7

      —

      Northumberland

      5

      —

      City of Nottingham

      3

      —

      Nottinghamshire

      9

      1

      Oldham

      2

      —

      Oxfordshire

      7

      —

      City of Peterborough

      2

      —

      City of Plymouth

      4

      —

      Poole

      2

      —

      Portsmouth

      1

      —

      Reading

      1

      —

      London borough of Redbridge

      4

      1

      Redcar and Cleveland

      1

      —

      London borough of Richmond-upon-Thames

      —

      —

      Rochdale

      2

      —

      Rotherham

      2

      —

      Rutland

      1

      —

      Salford

      1

      —

      Sandwell

      3

      —

      Sefton

      2

      —

      Sheffield

      4

      —

      Shropshire

      6

      —

      Slough

      1

      —

      Solihull

      1

      —

      Somerset

      9

      —

      South Gloucestershire

      3

      —

      South Tyneside

      2

      —

      Southend-on-Sea

      2

      —

      Southampton

      1

      —

      London borough of Southwark

      2

      —

      St. Helens

      2

      —

      Staffordshire

      11

      1

      Stockport

      1

      1

      Stockon on Tees

      2

      —

      Stoke on Trent

      1

      1

      Suffolk

      11

      1

      Sunderland

      3

      —

      Surrey

      12

      3

      London borough of Sutton

      1

      —

      Swindon

      2

      —

      Tameside

      1

      —

      Telford and Wrekin

      2

      —

      Thurrock

      1

      —

      Torbay

      1

      —

      London borough of Tower Hamlets

      1

      —

      Trafford

      3

      —

      Wakefield

      3

      —

      Walsall

      3

      —

      London borough of Waltham Forest

      2

      —

      London borough of Wandsworth

      1

      —

      Warrington

      3

      —

      Warwickshire

      7

      1

      West Berkshire

      3

      —

      West Sussex

      5

      —

      London borough of Westminster

      1

      —

      Wigan

      4

      —

      298W

      Technology college designations

      LEA/region

      Technology college designations

      Being considered for technology college status

      Wiltshire

      5

      1

      Royal borough of Windsor and Maidenhead

      1

      —

      Wirral

      4

      1

      Wokingham

      —

      —

      Wolverhampton

      3

      —

      Worcestershire

      6

      —

      City of York

      2

      —

      Total

      529

      31

      Student Finance
      Dr. Cable
      To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the reasons are for the increase in interest rates on student loans from 1.3 per cent, to 3.1 per cent.; and what the criteria are for calculating the interest rates applied to student loans. [142291]

      Alan Johnson
      Student loans are not commercial loans. The Government subsidises the actual cost of interest on the loans. However, to make sure that all borrowers pay back the same amount that they sorrowed in real terms, the Government uprate the value of what is owed in line with the general rate of inflation. This is done by using the Retail Prices Index RPI) and fixing the interest charged to that rate. The interest rate on student loans is set every year from I September and is based on the RPI for the financial year ending the previous March. For last year this was 1.3 per cent, and for this year it is 3.1 per cent.

      Mr. Cousins
      To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will estimate the period required for full recovery of his proposed top-up fees, given a starting salary threshold for repayment of(a) £15,000, (b) £18,000 and (c) £20,000 per year. [142430]

      Alan Johnson
      The level of loan a student accrues as an undergraduate will depend on the level of fee charged by the university they choose to attend, how much loan they take out to cover that fee, and how much maintenance loan they take out. The time taken to repay that loan will depend not only on the threshold above which repayment commences, but also on the graduate's salary in the years following graduation, and whether they experience any periods during which their earnings drop below the threshold, for example because of career breaks.

      Chris Grayling
      To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what he estimates the annual cost will be of means-testing students from mainland Europe for liability to pay university tuition fees. [142009]

      Alan Johnson
      The public contribution to fees for European Union students in 2001–02 was £17 million. This can be expected to rise slightly with the enlargement of the EU.

      Mr. Willis
      To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills whether student teachers on postgraduate teacher training courses will continue to
      299W
      be exempt from tuition fees at all universities and colleges following the introduction of top-up fees; and if he will make a statement. [142649]

      Alan Johnson
      I refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Paul Farrelly) on 20 November 2003,Official Report, columns 1497–498W.

      Unqualified Teachers
      Mr. Willis
      To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many lessons in(a) mathematics, (b) science and (c) English in each Key Stage were identified in the 2003 Curriculum and Staffing Survey as being taught by teachers without a subject-specific qualification in the subject being taught. [141788]

      Mr. Miliband
      The information is not available in the form requested. The final results of the Secondary Schools Curriculum and Staffing Survey will include estimates of the total number of periods taught by full-time teachers in secondary schools by subject and level of qualification, but not by Key Stage. These will be published next month in the statistical volume "The School Workforce in England (2003 edition)".

      Value Added Data
      Mr. Jenkins
      To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans he has to introduce value added data into secondary school performance tables for England which take account of external influences on performance, with particular reference to pupils' economic, social and cultural backgrounds. [141809]

      Mr. Miliband
      The publication in performance tables last year of value added measures based on the prior attainment of each pupil—by far the most important factor in explaining pupil performance—was a ground breaking step forward. It is largely thanks to that publication that value added is now generally understood by the wider educational establishment and is becoming familiar to parents. Now that those foundations have been laid, we can begin to explore more sophisticated systems of adding context to the national test and examination results by exploiting the wealth of pupil level data that are becoming available. Other contextual factors account for only a small further element, and taking them into account would make our approach to value added far more complicated. We therefore need to balance all of these considerations before deciding on the way forward for performance tables. In the meantime, we provide LEAs and schools with a wealth of benchmarking material which allows them to assess their performance and that of their pupils using tools such as the Pupil Achievement Tracker.

      Young People (Mental Distress)
      Charles Hendry
      To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) what steps his Department is taking to limit(a) suicide and (b) deliberate self-harm in young people; [140654]

      (2) what steps his Department is taking to raise public awareness of (a) suicide and (b) deliberate self-harm in young people. [140655]
      300W
      Margaret Hodge
      The Department for Education and Skills contributes in a number of ways to reducing suicide and deliberate self-harm among young people. This involves minimising so far as possible the risk factors that may lead to suicide or self-harm. We are doing this by ensuring that all children and young people have the support and services they need, and have a structured programme of learning opportunities through which they can develop self-awareness and confidence needed for life.

      We also seek to raise awareness of these issues. In June 2001 the Department published guidance "Promoting Children's Mental Health within Early Years and School Settings". The guidance and the summary provide useful tools for local education authorities, schools and others who are striving to ensure that the mental health needs of children are met. The guidance includes specific advice on useful approaches to addressing the needs of children and young people who show deliberate self harm or suicidal behaviour. We also encouraged schools to celebrate World Mental Health Day on 10 October.

      Across England, children with behavioural problems, learning difficulties and those exhibiting antisocial behaviour are receiving the greatest proportion of investment from the Children's Fund. This investment underpins the priority being given to mental health and well-being and to the gains to be made in improving self-esteem and consequentially performance at school. 21 per cent. of Children's Fund services which provided information during April-June 2003 explicitly target children with mental health problems.

      The Government's proposals in the Children Bill and the other non-legislative measures in the Green Paper "Every Child Matters" will help us build on the support for young people we have already put in place through Sure Start, full service extended schools, Child and adolescent mental health services, the Connexions Service and the PSHE curriculum and anti-bullying measures in schools. Children's Trusts will provide the means to deliver of integrated, multi-agency services to all children and young people in an area. This will enable the provision of high-quality preventive measures and early interventions tailored to help individual children who may already be considering suicide or engaging in self-harm.

      Charles Hendry
      To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what guidance is issued through the Connexions service to(a) parents, (b) young people, (c) schools and (d) organisations working with young people on (i) suicide and (ii) deliberate self-harm in young people. [140656]

      Margaret Hodge
      The Connexions service does not issue specific guidance on these subjects. Suicide and deliberate self-harm are very serious issues requiring specialist advice and support. Where young people present with such issues or give cause for concern or where parents, schools or other organisations approach Connexions for guidance. Connexions will take responsibility for ensuring that they are quickly and efficiently linked up with specialist organisations who offer the necessary support and guidance. In all cases, robust child protection policies and procedures will be adhered to.
      301W
      Charles Hendry
      To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what qualifications and expertise Connexions personal advisers have in dealing with young people suffering from mental distress. [140657]

      Margaret Hodge
      Connexions Personal Advisers are trained in an awareness of mental heath issues and in identifying young people who demonstrate behaviour which could indicate mental health disorders but they are not experts in mental health matters. Connexions Personal Advisers can access a range of specialist services for young people. They have links with Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services and other services that provide the specialist help on mental health problems.

    HEALTH

      Alcohol Treatment Programmes
      Norman Lamb
      To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much money has been directed towards alcohol treatment programmes by the Government in each of the past five years; and if he will make a statement. [141985]

      Miss Melanie Johnson
      The majority of the funding for alcohol treatment is spent via the general budgets of primary care trusts and local social service departments, consistent with provision being determined following a local consideration of need. Latest estimates indicate that around £95 million is spent each year on treatment in England, and that most of this funding is provided by the Government.

      Norman Lamb
      To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the Government's future plans for alcohol treatment strategies. [141986]

      Miss Melanie Johnson
      The Government's Alcohol Harm Reduction Strategy for England is due to be published and implemented from 2004 in accordance with the timetable set out in the NHS Plan.

      This strategy will set the future direction for the development of alcohol treatment.

      Ambulance Staff
      Gregory Barker
      To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will make a statement on plans to expand the(a) training, (b) qualifications and (c) skills of ambulance staff; [142397]

      (2) whether the planned expansion to the training given to ambulance staff will take place in-house; and if he will make a statement; [142398]

      (3) if he will make a statement on changes in the (a) workload and (b) expertise of ambulance (i) paramedics and (ii) technicians. [142402]

      Ms Rosie Winterton
      The latest information available about ambulance workloads is contained in the Department of Health Statistical Bulletin, "Ambulance Services, England 2002–03". A copy of the bulletin is available in the Library and on the Department's website at www.doh.gov.uk/public/sb0313.htm.
      302W
      Increases in the workload have meant additional work for all grades of ambulance staff. Clinical and technological advances have extended the nature and range of pre-hospital interventions available. Front line ambulance staff—both technician and paramedic—have undergone further training and developed additional treatment skills leading to higher standards of patient care.

      This has included expanding the role of paramedics to provide more out of hospital care through the administering of clot busting drugs and in some areas being based in general practitioner surgeries. New ways of working have seen ambulance services introducing community/first responder schemes in a number of areas across the country.

      It is the responsibility of local trusts to determine the training needs of their staff.

      Gregory Barker
      To ask the Secretary of State for Health which procedure is used to determine whether ambulances should be sent with a police escort when answering an emergency call. [142401]

      Ms Rosie Winterton
      The decision to request a police escort lies with the individual ambulance crew. Policies and procedures for the request of a police escort are agreed at a local level between the ambulance trust and its local police force.

      Ankylosing Spondylitis
      Mrs. Helen Clark
      To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what plans he has to improve treatment facilities for ankylosing spondylitis; [140486]

      (2) what information he has collated on the availability of anti-TN F treatment for ankylosing spondylitis; [140488]

      (3) what estimate he has made of the numbers of patients with ankylosing spondylitis who (a) might benefit from anti-TNF treatment and (b) benefit from anti-TNF treatment. [140489]

      Dr. Ladyman
      The anti-TNF drug. Remicade (Infliximab), is licensed for ankylosing spondylitis for patients who have not responded adequately to conventional drugs. It is given by injection into a vein (intravenously) every four to eight weeks.

      Infliximab for the treatment of ankylosing spondylitis was referred to the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) in October 2003. Until NICE publishes its guidance on treatments for ankylosing spondylitis, national health service bodies are expected to continue with local arrangements for the managed introduction of new technologies where guidance from NICE is not available at the time the technology first became available. These arrangements should involve an assessment of all the available evidence. Funding for such treatments should not be withheld simply because of an absence of guidance from NICE. The anticipated date for publication of the NICE guidance is due on its website at www.nice.org.uk shortly.

      Information is not collected centrally on the number of patients who benefit or who might benefit from anti-TNF treatment. However, the table shows figures which relate to hospital admissions.
      303W

      Primary diagnosis (ICD-10 M45,-) Ankylosing Spondylitis—Count of finished admission episodes: NHS hospitals, England 2001–02

      Number

      Admissions

      1,379

      Notes:

      1. Admissions—Admissions are defined as the first period of inpatient care under one consultant within one healthcare provider. Please note that admissions do not represent the number of inpatients, as a person may have more than one admission within the year.

      2. Diagnosis (Primary Diagnosis)—The primary diagnosis is the first of up to 14 (seven prior to 2002–03) diagnosis fields in the Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) data set and provides the main reason why they patient was in hospital.

      3. Grossing—Figures have not (yet) been adjusted for shortfalls in data (i.e. the data are ungrossed).

      Source:

      Hospital Episode Statistics (HES), Department of Health.

      Body Mass Index
      Mr. Burstow
      To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information he has collated on the average body mass index in England for each year since 1990. [141581]

      Ms Rosie Winterton
      Figures for average body mass index in England are available from the Health Survey for England from 1991, when the survey began, for adults and children and are shown in the table. Figures are not available for 1990.

      Body mass index (BMI) by survey year and sex

      BMI(kg/m2)

      Men

      Women

      Boys1

      Girls1

      1991–922

      25.7

      25.4

      —

      —

      1993

      25.9

      25.7

      —

      —

      1994

      26.0

      25.8

      —

      —

      1995

      26.1

      25.9

      17.6

      18.0

      1996

      26.3

      26.0

      17.7

      18.0

      1997

      26.5

      26.2

      17.7

      18.0

      1998

      26.5

      26.4

      17.7

      18.2

      1999

      26.5

      26.4

      18.1

      18.2

      2000

      26.8

      26.6

      17.9

      18.4

      2001

      27.0

      26.7

      18.0

      18.3

      Bases

      1991–922

      3,114

      3,430

      —

      —

      1993

      7,247

      8,037

      —

      —

      1994

      6,795

      7,884

      —

      —

      1995

      6,707

      7,729

      1,890

      1,872

      1996

      6,997

      8,064

      2,098

      1,978

      1997

      3,685

      4,254

      2,966

      2,975

      1998

      6,600

      7,730

      1,908

      1,811

      1999

      3,204

      3,699

      946

      920

      2000

      3,260

      3,703

      848

      812

      2001

      6,267

      7,414

      1,555

      1,587

      1The Health Survey for England collected data on children only from 1995 for children.

      2The sample sizes in 1991 and 1992 were smaller than in subsequent years and for reporting purposes the estimates from both years were combined.

      Note:

      Figures for men and women are for ages 16 and over. For children, ages are 2–15, except 2001, which is 0–15.

      Source:

      Health Survey for England, Department of Health.

      Breast Cancer
      Mr. Baron
      To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what the change has been in non-urgent referral waiting times for breast cancer following the introduction of the two-week target for urgent referrals; [141879]

      (2) what effect the two week urgent referral target for breast cancer patients has had on (a) other and (b) overall waiting times; [141880]

      (3) what assessment he has made of the effect the emphasis on the two-week target for urgent referrals for breast cancer patients has had on the number of patients that would have previously been put on this list being put on the non-urgent referral list. [141881]

      Miss Melanie Johnson
      [holding answer 4 December 2003]Data are not collected centrally on waiting times for those women who were not urgently referred with breast conditions and who were later diagnosed with cancer. The two week waiting time standard has been a success with over 98 per cent. of women with suspected breast cancer now seeing a specialist with two weeks of urgent referral. It is vital that general practitioners (GPs) refer suspected breast cancer appropriately and we have issued GP cancer referral guidelines to assist GPs in determining those patients who need to see a specialist urgently within two weeks.

      However, the two week waiting time standard should not be seen in isolation but as part of the Government's wider programme for improving and modernizing cancer services. We are making significant extra investment in cancer services (an extra £570 million a year in 2003–04); the biggest ever single cash investment in cancer equipment; extending breast cancer screening, ensuring the provision of additional doctors and nurses working in new ways, and modernization of care provision through the cancer services collaborative.

      The maximum waiting time standard of one month from diagnosis to first treatment, from December 2001, also applies to those women who were routinely referred to ensure they receive speedy treatment following diagnosis.

      Cancelled Operations
      Simon Hughes
      To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many operations were cancelled at London hospitals in each of the last 16 quarters for which figures are available; what percentage of the cancelled operations were consequently carried out within four weeks; and if he will make a statement. [140856]

      Mr. Hutton
      [holding answer 2 December 2002]As part of the NHS Plan cancelled operations guarantee introduced on 1 April 2002, data are collected on the number of operations cancelled by the hospital 'at the last minute' due to non-clinical reasons, and the number of patients not admitted within 28 days of a 'last minute' cancellation.

      Data at England level and by national health service trust and strategic health authority level are available in the Library and on the Department's website at: www.doh.gov.uk/hospitalactivity/data requests.htm.

      This data includes all London trusts.
      305W
      The NHS Plan states that, from 1 April 2002, if a patient's operation is cancelled by the hospital on the day of surgery for non-clinical reasons, the hospital will have to offer another binding date within a maximum of the next 28 days or fund the patient's treatment at the time and hospital of the patient's choice.

      Since 1 April 2003 the guarantee has been extended to cover those patients who are cancelled at the last minute i.e. on the day patients are due to arrive, or after arrival in hospital, or on the day of their operation.

      Notes:
      1. Since 1 April 2003 quarterly data are collected on the number of operations cancelled by the hospital for non-clinical reasons:
      (i) at the last minute (i.e. on the day patients are due to arrive, or after arrival in hospital, or on the day of their operation), and
      (ii) the number of patients not admitted within 28 days of a 'last minute' cancellation.
      2. From 1 April 2002 to 31 March 2003, quarterly data were collected on the number of operations cancelled by the hospital for non-clinical reasons:
      (i) on the day of surgery, and
      (ii) the number of patients not admitted within 28 days of a cancellation on the day of surgery.

      Choice and Plurality Conference
      Mr. Blizzard
      To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish the All Data Report of the Norfolk, Suffolk and Cambridgeshire Strategic Health Authority conference on Choice and Plurality in the NHS held on 2 and 3 July. [140617]

      Dr. Ladyman
      Norfolk, Suffolk and Cambridgeshire Strategic Health Authority forwarded a copy of "Fair for all, Personal to You", their all data report, as part of their response to the national consultation on "Choice, responsiveness and equity in the NHS and social care". The formal consultation ran until 11 November. with a Government document to be published before the end of the year setting out the broad themes that have arisen from the consultation and how these will shape future policy and action.

      Correspondence
      Mr. Hancock
      To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will reply to the letter from the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South of 9 September on the importation of dietary supplements. [142197]

      Miss Melanie Johnson
      I replied to the hon. Member on 26 November 2003.

      Dementia
      Mr. McWalter
      To ask the Secretary of State for Health what his estimate is of(a) the number of people suffering from (i) severe dementia and (ii)moderate to severe dementia in Hertfordshire and (b) the number of residential places within the country which might accommodate those with (i) severe dementia and (ii) moderate to severe dementia. [141915]

      Dr. Ladyman
      There is no routine collection of information at national or local level about the number of people living with dementia. Research evidence shows that about five per cent. of the population over 65 has dementia. The research quoted by the older people's national service framework in 2001 estimated that 306W
      approximately 600,000 people in the United Kingdom have dementia, of whom there are about 17,000 people under the age of 65.

      All care homes which have the client group/service user category of DE (dementia under 65 Years) or DE(E) (dementia over 65 years) are able to accept client/service users with dementia.

      Mr. Frank Field
      To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what measures(a) have been recently introduced and (b) are proposed to provide appropriate residential care for those less than 50 years of age suffering from dementia in (i) England and (ii) Wirral; [141461]

      (2) what (a) recent measures have been introduced and (b) what measures are proposed to support those under 50 years of age suffering from dementia in (i) England and (ii) Wirral. [141462]

      Dr. Ladyman
      The national service framework for older people includes a standard about promoting good mental health in older people and treating and supporting those older people with depression and people of all ages with dementia. The standard sets out the key interventions required for people with dementia, a service model, action required by the national health service and councils, and milestones for assessing progress.

      In March 2003, my right hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn), announced that, as part of the eighth wave of its work, the National Institute for Clinical Excellence will be producing guidelines on dementia care. These will benefit people of all ages with dementia.

      Local councils are responsible for identifying the care needs of those living in their area and for purchasing or providing the appropriate care. This includes the need for residential care for people with early onset dementia.

      Dentists
      Mr. Andrew Turner
      To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people(a) aged 17 or under and (b) aged 18 or over were registered with an NHS dentist in (i) Hampshire and the Isle of Wight Strategic Health Authority and (ii) the Isle of Wight Primary Care Trust in each of the last five years; and what proportion each represents of the relevant age group. [142425]

      Ms Rosie Winterton
      Information on the number and percentage of child and adult registrations in Hampshire and the Isle of Wight Strategic Health Authority and each of the primary care trusts in Hampshire and Isle of Wight for September 2002 and 2003 are shown in table 1 together with the registration rates of the relevant populations.

      Table 2 shows the number and percentage of child and adult registration in Isle of Wight health authority and Hampshire health authority areas for September 1999, 2000 and 2001 together with the registration rates of the relevant populations.

      Registrations lapse if patients do not return to their dentists within 15 months. Registrations will exclude patients who haven't been to their general dentist service

      307W
      (GDS) dentist within the past 15 months and patients who receive dental treatment from other national health service dental services.

      Table:1 General Dental Service: Number of registrations and percentage of the population at 30 September each year—England

      2002

      Strategic health authority/Primary care Trust

      Child registration

      Percentage

      Adult registration

      Percentage

      Hampshire and Isle of Wight

      243

      61.9

      558

      41.1

      New Forest

      24

      69.4

      60

      44.9

      North Hampshire

      30

      61.1

      59

      37.2

      Isle of Wight

      14

      52.7

      37

      35.2

      Mid Hampshire

      26

      69.0

      61

      46.5

      East Hampshire

      23

      59.1

      40

      31.0

      Portsmouth City

      27

      66.8

      73

      53.1

      Blackwater Valley and Hart

      24

      58.4

      50

      39.2

      Southampton City

      27

      60.7

      82

      47.6

      Fareham and Gosport

      24

      56.8

      48

      34.4

      Eastleigh and Test Valley South

      24

      64.0

      49

      39.4

      2003

      Strategic health authority/Primary care Trust

      Child registration

      Percentage

      Adult registration

      Percentage

      Hampshire and Isle of Wight

      239

      60.9

      528

      38.9

      New Forest

      24

      68.5

      55

      41.3

      North Hampshire

      29

      59.9

      56

      35.9

      Isle of Wight

      14

      51.3

      32

      30.6

      Mid Hampshire

      27

      71.3

      64

      48.6

      East Hampshire

      21

      55.0

      33

      25.3

      Portsmouth City

      27

      66.8

      74

      53.5

      Blackwater Valley and Hart

      24

      58.9

      51

      39.7

      Southampton City

      25

      56.1

      72

      41.9

      Fareham and Gosport

      22

      54.1

      39

      27.8

      Eastleigh and Test Valley South

      25

      66.8

      52

      42.4

      Notes:

      1. Registration numbers are in thousands.

      2. Population data are estimates of 2001 census.

      Table 2: General Dental Service: Number of registrations and percentage of the population at 30 September each year—England

      1999

      Health authority

      Child registration

      Percentage of the population

      Adult registration

      Percentage of the population

      Isle of Wight

      16

      61.6

      42

      41.6

      Portsmouth and South East Hampshire

      72

      59.1

      171

      40.6

      Isle of Wight, Portsmouth and SE Hampshire combined

      88

      59.5

      214

      40.8

      North and Mid Hampshire

      76

      58.5

      165

      38.3

      Southampton and South West Hampshire

      79

      66.6

      201

      47.0

      2000

      Health authority

      Child registration

      Percentage of the population

      Adult registration

      Percentage of the population

      Isle of Wight

      16

      61.6

      43

      42.1

      Portsmouth and South East Hampshire

      74

      59.1

      167

      39.5

      Isle of Wight, Portsmouth and SE Hampshire combined

      90

      60.9

      210

      40.0

      North and Mid Hampshire

      79

      58.5

      175

      40.5

      Southampton and South West Hampshire

      77

      66.6

      194

      45.2

      2001

      Health authority

      Child registration

      Percentage of the population

      Adult registration

      Percentage of the population

      Isle of Wight

      —

      —

      —

      —

      Portsmouth and South East Hampshire

      —

      —

      —

      —

      Isle of Wight, Portsmouth and SE Hampshire combined

      89

      60.3

      207

      39.2

      North and Mid Hampshire

      79

      60.7

      177

      40.9

      Southampton and South West Hampshire

      76

      64.6

      191

      44.3

      Notes:

      1.Registration numbers are in thousands.

      2.Population data are estimates of 1991 and 2001 census.

      3.Isle of Wight, Portsmouth and South East Hampshire HA merged in 2001.
      308W
      Patients wishing to register with a CDS dentist can obtain details of dentists accepting new patients by contacting NHS Direct.
      309W
      Brian Cotter
      To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many dentists in the Weston-super-Mare constituency(a) offer NHS treatment and (b) have vacancies for NHS patients. [142495]

      Ms Rosie Winterton
      Information is not collected on a constituency basis. Figures for Somerset Primary Care Trust are shown in the table.

      General Dental Service (CDS) dentists in North Somerset PCT—30 September 2003

      North Somerset Primary Care Trust

      Number

      Total

      89

      Principals

      82

      Assistants

      6

      VDPs

      1

      Note:

      The number of dentists shown are those whose main work is in North Somerset PCT.

      Source:

      Dental Practice Board

      NHS Dental Services: Number of General Dental Service dentists in North Somerset PCT registering charge exempt adults, charge paying adults and children under 18 years for NHS treatment, 4 December 2003

      North Somerset Primary Care Trust

      Number

      Registering charge paying adults for NHS treatment

      10

      Registering charge exempt adults for NHS treatment

      17

      Registering children under 18 years for NHS treatment

      24

      Note:

      This data has been extracted from the www.nhs.uk website. The information on this site is provided by Primary Care Trusts Webmasters and is used by NHS Direct to advise patients on the availability of dental services in their area.

      Source:

      www.nhs.uk

      Departmental Hospitality
      Mr. Burstow
      To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much his Department spent on hospitality in each year since 1997, broken down by main expenditure heading. [140473]

      Ms Rosie Winterton
      Expenditure arises on hospitality only in the context of promoting the Department's business objectives. All such expenditure is made in accordance with published Departmental

      All NHS doctors and nurses within Hampshire and Isle of Wight strategic health authority and in the specified organizations, as at 30 September 2002

      Number (headcount)

      Of which:

      Hampshire and Isle Of Wight SHA

      Portsmouth City PCT

      East Hampshire PCT

      Portsmouth Hospitals NHS Trust

      Total doctors1

      3,595

      150

      202

      569

      Of which:

      HCHS medical and dental general staff1

      2,426

      45

      75

      569

      General Medical Practitioners2

      1,169

      105

      127

      —

      Total nurses Of which:

      11,658

      473

      732

      2,019

      Practice nurses3

      867

      95

      98

      —

      Qualified nursing, midwifery and health visiting staff

      10,791

      378

      634

      2,019

      310W
      guidance on financial procedures and propriety, based on principles set out in "Government Accounting". Information on hospitality expenditure since 1997 is shown in the table. A more detailed breakdown is not readily available.

      The expenditure listed is for hospitality provided by both Ministers and officials in the Department.

      Department of Health hospitality expenditure

      £

      1996–97

      105,192

      1997–98

      90,883

      1998–99

      67,953

      1999–2000

      50,114

      2000–01

      93,091

      2001–02

      121,968

      2002–03

      125,291

      2003–04

      38,073

      Note:

      2003–04 expenditure is for April to October 2003.

      Diabetes
      Tim Loughton
      To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will promote research to enable a comparison to be made of(a) mortality and (b) diabetic complication rates from using (i) animal and (ii) human insulin. [141159]

      Ms Rosie Winterton
      I am not aware of any past or current research comparing clinical outcomes, mortality and complications, from treatment with animal or human insulin. It was not a topic which was raised in the public consultation exercise that was organised for the joint Department of Health and Medical Research Council's review of current and future research on diabetes in 2002.

      Doctors/Nurses
      Mr. Hancock
      To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) nurses and (b) doctors are employed in the Portsmouth and South East Hampshire health authority. [141358]

      Ms Rosie Winterton
      Information on the number of nurses and doctors employed by Portsmouth Hospitals National Health Service Trust, Portsmouth City Primary Care Trust and East Hampshire Primary Care Trust is shown in the table.
      311W
      1Excludes hospital medical hospital practitioners and hospital medical clinical assistants, most of whom are GPs working part time in hospitals.

      2All practitioners include GMS unrestricted principals, PMS contracted GPs, PMS salaried GPs, restricted principals, assistants, GP registrars, salaried doctors (Para 52 SFA), PMS other and GP retainers.

      3Practice nurses are employed by unrestricted principals and equivalents (UPEs). UPEs include GMS unrestricted principals, PMS contracted GPs and PMS salaried GPs.

      Sources:

      Department of Health General and Personal Medical Services Statistics

      Department of Health Medical and Dental Workforce Census

      Department of Health Non-medical Workforce Census

      Epilepsy
      Mr. Baron
      To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to reduce the number of epilepsy sufferers estimated to be misdiagnosed or inappropriately treated following referral to an epilepsy clinic. [141877]

      Dr. Ladyman
      [holding answer 4 December 2003]I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 19 November 2003,Official Report, column 1111W. We expect several related policies to help reduce the number of people who may be misdiagnosed and inappropriately treated following referral to an epilepsy clinic.

      The National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) has already made its report of the "National Clinical Audit of Epilepsy Related Death" available to local national health service clinicians and organisations to help improve the management of epilepsy and epilepsy-related death. The NICE clinical guideline for the diagnosis, management and treatment is planned for publication next year and will be available to the NHS to support improvements in services. Additionally, implementation of the clinical quality standards of the new general medical services contract from next April will help improve the management of epilepsy in primary care.

      We are also developing the national service framework (NSF) for long term conditions, which will focus on improving the standard of neurology services across England for conditions such as epilepsy. We currently plan to publish the NSF late next year for implementation from 2005.

      Fertility Clinics
      Jim Dobbin
      To ask the Secretary of State for Health what improvements will need to be made to standards of quality and safety in UK licensed fertility clinics in order to comply with European Union Document No. 10122/ 03 on the Quality and Safety of Human Tissues and Cells. [141563]

      Miss Melanie Johnson
      The proposed Directive on the quality and safety of human tissues and cells, will, if adopted, set common standards covering donation, procurement, testing, processing, storage and distribution. It will be a legal requirement for all establishments undertaking activities within the scope of the Directive to be inspected and accredited by a designated body in each member state. However, the precise standards of quality and safety required for accreditation have yet to be developed. The Directive will provide for an expert committee to develop detailed annexes setting out the requirements.

      Foundation Hospitals
      Tim Loughton
      To ask the Secretary of State for Health what powers foundation hospitals will have to appoint their own auditors. [141022]

      Mr. Hutton
      [holding answer 1 December 2003]Schedule 1, Paragraph 22 (2) of the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Act 2003 provides for the Board of Governors to appoint the auditor of a national health service foundation trust.

      GPs
      Brian Cotter
      To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action the Government are taking to increase the number of general practitioners in the Weston Area Health Trust. [142492]

      Ms Rosie Winterton
      We are committed to increasing the general practitioner (GP) work force and have introduced a range of measures to improve GP recruitment and retention. These include financial incentives to new and returning GPs and older GPs who delay their retirement from the national health service, flexible retirement options, a GP Returners Campaign and the Flexible Career Scheme which will help to create additional part-time and flexible posts within general practice.

      We have also substantially increased the number of GP Registrars (GPRs)—the GPs of the future and we expect GPR numbers to grow further this year and beyond.

      I am advised that North Somerset Primary Care Trust is working closely with all practices to provide flexible packages to encourage GPs into the area.

      Haemophilia
      Mr. Brady
      To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action he has taken to ensure that recombinant treatment is made available to adults with haemophilia who live in(a) England and (b) Northern Ireland. [141249]

      Miss Melanie Johnson
      We have been working with key stakeholders, including the Haemophilia Society, clinicians, primary care trusts and others to put in place a strategy to roll out access to recombinant products. We aim to begin the roll out as soon as possible. More information about the issues that the working group has had to consider prior to the roll out can be obtained from www.doh.gov.uk/blood/rcfwg.

      Recombinant clotting factors have been made available for all adult haemophilia patients in Northern Ireland, except for a small group of adult patients with severe haemophilia. It is expected that these patients will receive recombinant early in 2004.

      HFEA
      Jim Dobbin
      To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much remuneration the Right Reverend Richard Harries, Bishop of Oxford will receive per annum as a member of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority. [141561]

      Miss Melanie Johnson
      Members of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) spend approximately three days a month on HFEA business and receive £169 per day, plus travel and subsistence expenses.

      Long-Term Conditions
      Dr. Tonge
      To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the key priorities are of the National Consultation's Expert Group on long-term conditions for(a) 2003–04 and (b) 2004–05. [141695]

      Dr. Ladyman
      Eight national task groups, including one for people with continuing, long-term conditions, contributed to the consultation on choice, responsiveness and equity in the national health service and social care. The Government intend to publish a document shortly setting out the broad themes that have emerged from the national consultation and how these will shape future policy and action.

      Mr. Baron
      To ask the Secretary of State for Health if the Government will provide ring-fenced funding to implement the national service framework for long-term conditions. [142629]

      Dr. Ladyman
      We currently plan to publish the national service framework for long-term conditions at the end of next year. Implementation will take place over 10 years from 2005 and will be in line with our overall strategy to support delivery of the NHS Plan, which is to set a clear national framework of standards backed up by independent inspection and, increasingly, to give more responsibility to front-line health and social services providers so that local organisations have more flexibility and freedom to plan, resource and deliver services. As a result we are increasing general funding allocations to local national health service and social care organisations.

      Malnutrition
      Dr. Murrison
      To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the(a) causes of malnourishment in England and (b) extent to which the incidence of malnutrition in England has altered since 1990. [141035]

      Miss Melanie Johnson
      Malnourishment is caused by an imbalance of nutrients, particularly energy intake, which impacts on body weight. Eating a balanced diet and keeping physically active helps people to maintain a healthy body weight.

      The table shows the count of finished in year admissions episodes for national health service hospitals in England from 1995–96 to 2001–02, where the primary diagnosis is malnutrition. Comparable data are not available prior to 1995–96.
      314W

      Number

      1995–96

      244

      1996–97

      234

      1997–98

      249

      1998–99

      271

      1999–2000

      234

      2000–01

      209

      2001–02

      299

      Source:

      Hospital Episodes Statistics (HES), Department of Health.

      In the NHS Plan (2000), the Government made a commitment to reduce under-nutrition by developing a hospital nutrition policy to improve the outcome of care of patients by 2004. A number of measures and strategies are in place to manage, monitor and screen patients for under nutrition in hospitals, residential care and the wider community. Nutritional screening is recommended for the care of specific groups, such as those outlined in the national service framework for older people (2001).

      Medicinal Self-administration
      Sandra Gidley
      To ask the Secretary of State for Health who is responsible for monitoring which hospitals have introduced self-administration schemes for medicines for older people. [142052]

      Dr. Ladyman
      Responsibility for monitoring this service development rests with individual strategic health authorities.

      Mental Health Bill
      Tim Loughton
      To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) when he will publish the revised Mental Health Bill; [140987]

      (2) whether the consultation responses to the draft Mental Health Bill will be published before the proposed pre-legislative scrutiny committee on the bill is appointed; [140989]

      (3) whether the proposed pre-legislative scrutiny committee on the Mental Health Bill will consider a revised version of the draft Mental Health Bill; [140990]

      (4) what revisions he proposes to make to the draft Mental Health Bill. [140991]

      Ms Rosie Winterton
      [holding answer 1 December 2003]A revised and completed Mental Health Bill will be brought forward for pre-legislative scrutiny as soon as possible.

      We have been carefully considering the responses to consultation on the draft Bill that was published in June 2002, and further points raised in subsequent meetings with stakeholders.

      The Government's response to the consultation will be published prior to introduction of the Bill. It will be available in hard copy and on the Department's website. At that time, copies of responses to the draft Bill will be placed in the Library, except in cases where respondents have asked for confidentiality.

      The Government response will set out the changes that have been made to the Bill.
      315W
      Tim Loughton
      To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) whether he intends that Members of both Houses should be included on the proposed pre-legislative scrutiny committee on the Mental Health Bill;[141032]

      (2) what remit he proposes for the proposed pre-legislative scrutiny committee on the Mental Health Bill. [141033]

      Ms Rosie Winterton
      A revised and completed Mental Health Bill will be brought forward for pre-legislative scrutiny in this session.

      What committee, or form of committee, should conduct the pre-legislative scrutiny is currently under negotiation through the usual channels in both Houses.

      Neurological Conditions
      Mr. Baron
      To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action the Government are taking to collect figures on the numbers of people with neurological conditions in England. [142630]

      Dr. Ladyman
      We do not ask the national health service to collect data on the incidence of individual neurological conditions such as neurology because of the enormous range of conditions and diseases that exist.

      However, the Department of Health has already commissioned a series of research studies, following the announcement of the national service framework (NSF) for long-term conditions, to assist the work of the external reference group. Emphasis has been placed on reviews of existing evidence, rather that on the collection of new data.

      The studies include:
      an epidemiological study of head injury data gathering in four UK sites;
      around (£2 million) of research to underpin the implementation of the NSF;
      a working group looking at research and evidence issues for the NSF.

      Also, the Neurological Alliance recently published a brief review of the numbers of people in the UK with a neurological condition.

      NHS Trust Laboratories
      Mr. Burstow
      To ask the Secretary of State for Health how funding for specialist public health work will be provided to NHS trust laboratories in(a) 2005–06, (b) 2006–07 and (c) 2007–08. [142244]

      Admission type

      Decisions to admit

      Admissions

      Failed to attend

      Removals

      Self deferrals

      Suspensions

      Ordinary

      442

      414

      6

      81

      23

      6

      Day case

      8,589

      7,250

      341

      1,167

      552

      211

      Source:

      Department of Health forms KH07, KH06 and KH07A.

      Mr. Baron
      To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much the NHS has spent in each of the last five years on pain management research.[140576]
      316W
      Miss Melanie Johnson
      The central funding which supports public health work will continue to be provided to national health service trusts, via the Health Protection Agency (HPA), under service level agreements. Specialist and reference microbiology, for both clinical and public health purposes, is provided by the laboratories of the HPA.

      The public health outputs of NHS microbiology pathology laboratories will be monitored by the HPA's regional microbiologists and their procedures and practices will be inspected by the Department's Inspector of Microbiology.

      Pain Management Services
      Mr. Baron
      To ask the Secretary of State for Health what waiting-time information he collates on consultant referrals to pain management services. [140575]

      Mr. Hutton
      [holding answer 1 December 2003]The Department does not collect waiting time information on referral from consultant to pain management service.

      The Department does collect waiting time information on written referral from general practitioner to first out-patient appointment with a pain management consultant, and for patients waiting for elective admission where the main specialty is pain management. Latest published information for England on these two areas is shown in the tables.

      Patients waiting for 1st consultant out-patient appointment following G(D)P referral: England: Quarter 2 2003–04:Provider based

      Not yet seen at end of quarter who have been waiting (weeks)

      13 to < 17

      859

      17 to < 21

      261

      21 to < 26

      0

      26 and over

      0

      Source:

      Department of Health form QM08.

      Patients waiting for elective in-patient admission and elective in-patient admission events: England: Quarter 2 2003–04:Provider based

      Patients waiting for admission by months waiting

      Admission type

      Total number of patients waiting for admission

      Less than 3 months

      3–5 months

      6–8 months

      9–11 months

      Ordinary

      264

      155

      79

      27

      3

      Day case

      6,921

      4,752

      1,523

      535

      111

      Mr. Hutton
      [holding answer 1 December 2003]Management of much of the research supported by national health service research and development
      317W
      funding is devolved and expenditure at project level is not held centrally by the Department. Details of on-going and recently completed research projects funded by, or of interest to, the NHS are available on the national research register at www.doh.gov.uk/research/nrr.htm.

      Current projects include a £0.7 million trial of a primary-care based cognitive behavioural programme for low back pain, a £0.6 million study of the comparative effectiveness of topical and oral Ibuprofen for the treatment of chronic knee pain in older people, and a £0.6 million study of interventions for pain relief in patients with abdominal malignancy.

      Sexual Health
      Mr. Burns
      To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what the average waiting time for each genito-urinary medicine clinic in England from first walking into the clinic to being treated for(a) men and (b) women was in 2003; and what the figures were in (i) 2000 and (ii) 1997; [140601]

      (2) what the average time is an (a) man and (b) woman has had to wait in a (i) genito-urinary medicine clinic and (ii) sexual health clinic between walking into the clinic and being seen by a specialist in 2003; and what the figures were in (A) 2000 and (B) 1997; [140602]

      (3) how many (a) men and (b) women have been initially turned away without treatment from a (i) genito-urinary medicine clinic and (ii) sexual health clinic in the last 24 months; and for what reasons this happened; [140603]

      (4) if he will make a statement on (a) the mean and (b) the median waiting time for (i) men and (ii) women to receive treatment from a sexual health clinic in (A) the last year for which figures are available, (B) 2000 and (C) 1997; [140604]

      (5) what the longest waiting times for treatment in (a) genito-urinary medicine clinics and (b) sexual health clinics was in (i) the last year for which figures are available, (ii) 2000 and (iii) 1997; and if he will make a statement; [140689]

      (6) what the average waiting time from first contact with a sexual health clinic to being treated is for (a) men and (b) women in each sexual health clinic in England was in the last year for which figures are available; and what the waiting times were in (i) 2000 and (ii) 1997; [140690]

      (7) how many and what proportion of (a) men and (b) women waited (i) 1 to 3 days, (ii) 4 to 7 days, (iii) 8 to 14 days, (iv) 15 to 21 days, (v) 21 to 28 days and (vi) over 28 days for treatment after their first examination at (A) genito-urinary medicine clinics and (B) sexual health clinics in (1) the last year for which figures are available, (2) 2000 and (3) 1997; and if he will make a statement; [140694]

      (8) what the (a) mean and (b) median waiting times for (i) men and (ii) women to receive treatment for a sexually transmitted infection from (A) a GP and (B) a genito-urinary medicine clinic were in (1) the last year for which figures are available, (2) 2000 and (3) 1997; [140717]
      318W
      (9) how many genito-urinary medicine clinics provided walk-in facilities in the past and no longer do so. [140718]

      Miss Melanie Johnson
      These data are not currently collected centrally. We are examining with the Health Protection Agency ways in which data on waiting times at genito-urinary medicine clinics can be obtained. Early next year, we will be undertaking pilot surveys in a number of genito-urinary medicine clinics, where patients will be asked to complete a short anonymous questionnaire seeking information on waiting times in days. Because data on postcode will be collected it will be possible to calculate average waiting times for the residents of individual primary care trusts. If the pilots are successful the first main survey of clinics will be undertaken in 2004.

      Mr. Burns
      To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on measures to tackle the incidence of sexual ill health; and what steps he is taking to improve access to(a) medical advice and (b) treatment for people suffering from a sexually transmitted infection. [140695]

      Miss Melanie Johnson
      The Government are concerned about the poor state of sexual health and remain committed to tackling increasing rates of HIV and sexually transmitted infections (STIs) through the Sexual Health and HIV strategy. Reducing transmissions of STIs is a complex issue that will involve people in changing their behaviour. We are drawing on the best evidence on what works to achieve this. Our "sex lottery"' campaign is designed to improve awareness of STIs and how to avoid them. The Department has invested over £35 million in the past two years in specialist genito-urinary medicine clinics, including an additional £15 million just announced for capital investment. This funding will increase capacity in services and reduce waiting times, thereby helping primary care trusts to offer quicker access to diagnosis and treatment. We are also rolling out a chlamydia screening programme and investing £8 million to convert laboratories in every area to a superior and more reliable test for chlamydia.

      Mr. Burns
      To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) sexual health and (b) genito-urinary medicine clinics there are in England; how many there were in (i) 2000 and (ii) 1997; and how many have walk-in facilities. [140705]

      Miss Melanie Johnson
      There are currently 208 genito-urinary medicine (GUM) clinics in England. In 2000 there were 207 and in 1997 there were 208. The Department is investing £1.8 million this year and in next two financial years to pump-prime development of GUM services in 10 areas and expand service capacity.

      Sexual health clinics are integrated services providing a range of advice, testing and treatment for sexually transmitted infections and contraception. Data are not collected on numbers of these services or how many clinics provide walk-in facilities.

      Speech Therapists
      Mr. Baron
      To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the effect "Agenda for
      319W
      Change" will have on the pay levels for speech and language therapists; and if he will make a statement on how it will affect their professional status. [142627]

      Mr. Hutton
      As part of the agreement with trades unions earlier this year on the new national health service pay system, "Agenda for Change", NHS speech and language therapists, like other health service workers, will receive a minimum 10 per cent. increase in basic pay over the period 2003–04 to 2005–06. It is too early to assess in more detail the impact of "Agenda for Change" on speech and language therapists' pay levels. The impact will vary between posts depending on a range of factors, including the national job profile to which the particular post matches or—where there is no match with a national profile—the results of local job evaluation. The national job profiles for speech and language therapists have only recently been agreed with the trade unions.

      "Agenda for Change" will provide a framework for pay and career progression that is fair, consistent and transparent across all groups of NHS staff. It provides greater opportunities to recognise and reward NHS staff who take on extra responsibilities and use increased knowledge and skills in their work. It provides greater scope to create new roles that enable staff to deliver more patient-centred care.

      Sports
      Mr. Gardiner
      To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much per head of population has been spent by his Department on promoting and facilitating sport and physical activity in(a) 2001, (b) 2002 and (c) 2003. [140499]

      Miss Melanie Johnson
      This information is not available.

      Suicides
      Mr. Burstow
      To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action his Department is taking to reduce the number of suicides happening in December and January; and if he will make a statement. [141209]

      Ms Rosie Winterton
      The National Suicide Prevention Strategy for England recognises that the factors associated with suicides are many and varied. This is why the strategy sets out a broad approach, involving a wide range of organisations and individuals in the public, private and voluntary sectors. The strategy also identifies some groups that are at high risk of suicide and has targeted them for specific action, although the winter months of December and January are not singled out for special attention. Whatever the causes of suicide, and we do not fully understand them all, it is a matter of great concern to the Government and to those delivering mental health services. Improving mental health services is a priority.

      Tuberculosis
      Mr. Hancock
      To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many cases of tuberculosis have been reported in the Portsmouth and South East Hampshire health authority area in each year since 2000–01. [141357]
      320W
      Ms Rosie Winterton
      Information on notified cases of tuberculosis is collated by the Communicable Disease Surveillance Centre (CDSC) of the Health Protection Agency through the notification of infectious diseases (NOIDs) system. The number of notified cases in the local and unitary authorities corresponding to the old Portsmouth and South East Hampshire health authority area, since 2000 is shown in the table.

      Number of cases

      2000

      8

      2001

      7

      2002

      32

      Valuing People
      Mr. Burstow
      To ask the Secretary of State for Health what monitoring his Department has undertaken to ensure that the funding announced to support Valuing People and allocated to strategic health authorities and primary care trusts was spent on initiatives to support Valuing People; how the remaining capital element of the LDDF was spent in 2002–03; and for what reasons the decision was taken to change the way the capital fund was distributed for 2003–04. [140474]

      Dr. Ladyman
      Capital allocations from the Learning Disability Development Fund (LDDF) are included in monthly returns which strategic health authorities (SHAs) make to the Department. It is for SHAs to monitor how individual primary care trusts and national health service trusts use the funds.

      Local authorities provide information to the Department about the use of the revenue element of the LDDF as part of their delivery and improvement statements.

      In 2002–03, the allocation of the LDDF capital was handled centrally. Learning disability partnership boards were invited to submit bids as part of their joint investment plans. £16.7 million of the £20 million available was allocated to support the development priorities for capital investment in the learning disability White Paper "Valuing People". It was not possible to spend the full amount because of the long lead in time on capital projects and the remaining £3.3 million was therefore used on other centrally funded projects.

      In accordance with our policy of decentralisation, it was decided to simplify the procedure for 2003–04 and enable decisions about the use of the money to be taken as closely as possible to the point of spending. The £20 million per annum LDDF capital was therefore distributed to SHAs as part of their three-year strategic capital allocations. This enabled us to issue their funds to them more quickly. Given the long lead in for many capital schemes, making three-year allocations should also enable the SHAs to make better use of the money. SHAs were informed about the change of procedure through the Chief Executive's Bulletin and a more detailed note setting out the priorities for use of the fund was included on the Department's web site.

  WORK AND PENSIONS

    Benefit/Pensions Payment
    Mr. Andrew Turner
    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how pensions will be paid to pensioners with neither a bank account nor a Post Office Card Account. [142426]

    Mr. Pond
    Almost 50 per cent. of pensioners are already paid by Direct Payment and 90 per cent. of pensioners already have an account suitable to receive Direct Payment. And for those who do not, new easy to operate accounts, which are accessible at the Post Office, are widely available.

    We have always recognised that there will be a small number of people who we cannot pay directly into an account. Our plan is to design an exceptions method of payment to properly meet the needs of customers in these circumstances. Detailed arrangements for this method of payment are not finalised yet, but it is anticipated that it will be a cheque-based solution. Payment outlets will include Post Office branches.

    Mr. Andrew Turner
    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many claimants have(a) phoned his Department to request a Post Office Card Account, (b) completed a Card Account application form and returned it to EDS and (c) returned an invitation pack form with card account details to his Department. [142427]

    Mr. Pond
    Key figures on the progress of conversion to Direct Payment are available in the Library, updated every four weeks.

    Information regarding the number of Post Office card account applications completed and returned are matters that fall within the responsibilities of Post Office Ltd. (POL).

    Mr. Hancock
    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make it his policy(a) to end the practice of his Department's managers and agencies seeking to dissuade claimants from using the Post Office to access their benefits in preference to banks and building societies and (b) to promote the use of the Post Office for such a purpose on an equal basis; and if he will make a statement. [140925]

    Mr. Pond
    No such practice exists. All Department for Work and Pensions staff have been provided with information on all of the account options available to the customer. The role of the staff member is to provide factual information and not advise which option the customer should choose. It will be up to the customers themselves to decide which type of account they wish to have their money paid into.

    Miss McIntosh
    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what targets his Department set for the number of people opting to use(a) bank or building society accounts and (b) Post Office card accounts to receive their benefits payments; and where these targets are published. [141507]

    Mr. Pond
    The Department has a published Public Service Agreement (PSA) that by 2005. 85 per cent. of customers will have their benefits paid by Direct 322W
    Payment. Direct Payment includes both bank/building society current and basic accounts and the Post Office card account.

    The PSA can be found in the 2002 Spending Review which is available in the House of Commons Library.

    Mr. Challen
    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will withdraw the guidance circulating within his Department that encourages the use only of direct payments of benefits. [142215]

    Mr. Pond
    Payment directly into a bank or building society account, including the Post Office card account is the normal method of payment for benefits and pensions.

    All staff have been provided with appropriate, up to date, guidance on all of the account options and it will be up to customers to choose the best account to suit their circumstances.

    Chronic Pain
    Mr. Sheerman
    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the cost of incapacity benefit paid to sufferers of chronic pain in the UK was in 2002–03. [140477]

    Maria Eagle
    The information is not available.

    Employers Liability Insurance
    Brian Cotter
    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what plans he has to change enforcement arrangements for employers liability compulsory insurance; and if he will make a statement. [142494]

    Mr. Browne
    The Department has set out its proposals for changing enforcement arrangements for employers' liability compulsory insurance (ELCI) in the second stage report of the review of ELCI published on 4 December. This also makes reference to the latest research on compliance which has been commissioned by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE). A copy of the report is available in the Library.

    Health and Safety
    Mr. Nicholas Brown
    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what recent representations he has received from the Health and Safety Commission concerning the Health and Safety Executive's priorities. [140645]

    Mr. Browne
    On 8 October 2003, we launched a consultation on the Health and Safety Commission's draft "Strategy for Workplace Health and Safety in Great Britain to 2010 and beyond". The strategy sets out what the Commission and Health and Safety Executive see as priorities to ensure that the health and safety system remains relevant and effective in the changing economy. It deals with the active management of risk in the workplace, and the need to place greater emphasis on rehabilitation and access to occupational health provision.

    The Commission will shortly finalise and submit the strategy to Ministers. The Commission will then determine programmes of activity to deliver its objectives and targets for improvements in health and safety at work.
    323W
    Mr. Nicholas Brown
    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what representations he has received from the Health and Safety Commission concerning the setting of measurable targets for the work of the Health and Safety Executive. [140647]

    Mr. Browne
    The Government and Health and Safety Commission first set targets for health and safety at work in the Revitalising Health and Safety Strategy Statement in June 2000. The Commission set out how they will deliver their contribution to the targets in their Strategic Plan 2001–04 and annual Business Plans. Priority programmes are in place with the aim of addressing those hazards and industries where significant improvements in health and safety are needed to achieve the targets.

    The Commission is introducing high level targets for the Executive's work in major hazard industries intended to achieve a sustained reduction in the occurrence of precursor incidents in these industries between 2004 and 2006. The Commission is also keen to promote improved heath and safety in the public sector and to set measurable targets to secure these improvements.

    Housing Benefit
    Mr. Flook
    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions when district councils will be informed of the element of the rate support grant for handling Housing Benefit. [142792]

    Mr. Pond
    Responsibility for payment of the Housing Benefit subsidy element, previously distributed by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, The National Assembly for Wales and the Scottish Executive through the Revenue Support Grant, has been transferred to the Department for Work and Pensions. This element represented the 5.5 per cent. residual subsidy paid to authorities for Rent Allowance, Council Tax Benefit and non Housing Revenue Account Rent Rebates, which supplemented the 95 per cent. direct subsidy we already pay.

    Our agreement that all funding relating to Rent Allowance, Rent Rebate and Council Tax Benefit would transfer to the Department for Work and Pensions from April 2004 provided the opportunity to review all subsidy rates and rules, in order to produce a more transparent and simplified system.

    From April 2004 we will pay all subsidy as a direct grant, payable at 100 per cent. for correct claims. Authorities will not therefore receive any indirect subsidy through the Revenue Support Grant relating to Housing Benefit. Although the overall levels of funding have not changed, we recognise that individual authorities may gain or lose under the new regime; a transitional protection scheme has been put in place, which ensures that no authority will lose more than 1 per cent. in the first year over that which they would have received had the rates not changed.

    A subsidy circular (S9/2003) was issued to all authorities on Monday 1 December to explain the funding changes in greater detail. A copy has been placed in the Library.

    New Deal for Communities
    Mr. McLoughlin
    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what assessment he has made of the impact of the New Deal for Communities since 1998 in(a) West Derbyshire and (b) the East Midlands on(i) Reducing crime, (ii) creating jobs and (iii) raising standards in education. [141434]

    Yvette Cooper
    I have been asked to reply.

    There are no New Deal for Communities (NDC) Partnerships in West Derbyshire so there is no direct benefit to West Derbyshire from New Deal for Communities programme.

    In the East Midlands, there are three NDC Partnerships, in Leicester (Braunstone), Derby (Derwent) and Nottingham (Radford and Hyson Green).

    The NDC programme is scrutinised and reviewed using two, complementary and linked streams of work:
    a performance management system, which drives annual and mid-year reviews, lead by the Government Offices for the Regions
    the NDC National Evaluation, providing external assessment at partnership, programme and theme level, lead by Sheffield Hallam University.

    The performance management system was introduced in 2003 and used for the first time for the 2002–03 annual reviews. Partnerships reviewed their own performance and the results that they are starting to achieve.

    The evidence provided in these reviews by the NDC Partnerships show that Partnerships in the East Midlands are beginning to make an impact in reducing crime, creating jobs and raising standards in education. For example:
    In Nottingham the NDC has recruited and trained local residents to act as teaching assistants;
    In the Derby NDC area, GCSE results are up 30 per cent. in the first two years of the programme;
    In Braunstone, Leicester, unemployment has fallen from 12.6 per cent. to 8.5 per cent.;
    Nottingham NDC's achievements on reducing crime include target hardening, street lighting, extra policing and Neighbourhood Wardens;
    In the Braunstone area of Leicester, Burglary has fallen by 20 per cent. and vehicle crime by 16 per cent.

    Data from the national NDC evaluation about the progress NDC Partnerships are making towards achieving their outcome targets are now beginning to come through. An overview of the latest position was recently published in the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister Research Report 7 "New Deal for Communities: The National Evaluation: Annual Report 2002/03". Copies are available in the Library of the House.

    Mr. McLoughlin
    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what proposals he has to(a) continue and (b) develop New Deal for Communities schemes in (i) West Derbyshire and (ii) the East Midlands. [141435]

    Yvette Cooper
    I have been asked reply.
    325W
    There are no New Deal for Communities (NDC) schemes in West Derbyshire. There are no plans to develop any NDC schemes in West Derbyshire.

    In the East Midlands, there are three NDC schemes, in Leicester (Braunstone), Derby (Derwent) and Nottingham (Radford and Hyson Green). The Leicester programme is scheduled to complete in seven years (in 2006–07), the Nottingham programme is scheduled to run over 10 years and will continue until 2009/10 and the Derby Partnership, also over 10 years, until 2010–11. There are no plans to develop any further rounds of NDC.

    Mr. McLoughlin
    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will list the(a) schemes and (b) funding made available to West Derbyshire since 1998 under the New Deal for Communities. [141436]

    Yvette Cooper
    I have been asked to reply.

    There are no New Deal for Communities (NDC) schemes in the West Derbyshire district and so no funding has been made available in the area under the NDC scheme.

    New Deal for Young People
    Mr. Gibb
    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what assessment he has made of the finding of the National Audit Office report on the New Deal for Young People of 28 February 2002 on the average annual cost per additional person of any age in employment. [141796]

    Mr. Browne
    The National Audit Office (NAO) estimates of the average annual cost per additional job were similar to those found in earlier research. Cost per job figures such as those produced by NAO count all the expenditure on the programme up to a point in time, but not all the benefits that will ultimately result from that expenditure—such as social benefits. They are, therefore, likely to over-estimate the long-run cost of the programme to the economy.

    A study by the National Institute for Economic and Social Research found that for every £5 spent on the New Deal for Young People, the Government gets £3 back in higher tax returns and lower social security spending.

    Pension Credit
    Mr. McLoughlin
    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many pensioners in West Derbyshire(a) are receiving Pension Credit, (b) are entitled to Pension Credit but are not yet claiming it, (c) are receiving Pension Savings Credit, (d) are entitled to Pension Savings Credit but are not yet claiming it, (e) received free eye tests in the last year for which figures are available, (f) received free TV licences in the last year for which figures are available and (g) will be entitled to winter fuel payment (i) at the standard rate and (ii) at the higher rate for older pensioners in 2003–04; and if he will make a statement. [141437]

    Malcolm Wicks
    Information is not available in the format requested. Such information we can give is as follows.
    326W
    As at 17 October, 2003 the number of pensioner households receiving Pension Credit in West Derbyshire constituency was 2,185 of whom 1,640 were in receipt of the savings element. Around 300,000 pensioner households in the East Midlands region are entitled to Pension Credit.

    Notes:
    1. Figures on the number of Pension Credit recipients have been rounded to the nearest five.
    2. Figures are based on 100 per cent. Generalised Matching Service (GMS) data.
    3. Parliamentary constituencies are assigned by matching postcodes against the relevant ONS postcode directory.

    Source:

    IAD Information Centre, 100 per cent sample

    For the year ending 31 March, 2003, there were 27,800 free eye tests in the North Derbyshire Health Authority and 40,700 in South Derbyshire Health Authority for people aged 60 and over.

    Notes:

    1. West Derbyshire falls within North Derbyshire and South Derbyshire Health Authorities.

    2. Sight tests cannot be equated to the numbers of patients. Although most people do not come back for a sight test within the year, some patients suffering from medical conditions are advised to have re-examinations sooner.

    3. Everyone over 60, regardless of income, was entitled to free NHS sight tests for this period.

    4. This information is derived from six monthly returns from health authorities.

    5. Figures are rounded to the nearest hundred.

    As at 31 May 2003, the number of people in the West Derbyshire constituency aged 75 and over eligible for a free TV licence was 8,600. However, as only one TV licence is required per household, the number of free TV licences issued will be lower than this figure.

    Notes:

    1. Figures based on 5 per cent. data taken from the Client Group Analysis of the population over State Pension age, and are therefore subject to a degree of sampling variation.

    2. Figures are based on based on those receiving key benefits which are Attendance Allowance, Disability Living Allowance, Severe Disablement Allowance, Incapacity Benefit, Minimum Income Guarantee and State Pension.

    3. Figures are rounded to the nearest hundred

    Source:

    IAD Information Centre, 5 per cent. sample of people on key benefits.

    The number of people in West Derbyshire parliamentary constituency who received a Winter Fuel Payment for winter 2002–03 was 20,620. We expect the number to be around the same for 2003–04. Of that figure 4,225 were aged 80 and over and we therefore expect a similar number would become eligible to receive a higher amount of Winter Fuel payment.

    Notes:

    1. Figures taken from the Matching Intelligence Data Analysis Service Winter Fuels Payment 2002–03 exercise 100 per cent. data.

    2. 100 per cent. data figures are rounded to the nearest five.

    Source:

    IAD Information Centre 100 per cent sample

    Pensioners (St. Helens)
    Mr. Woodward
    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the average pensioner income in St. Helens was in each year since 1992. [141300]
    327W
    Malcolm Wicks
    Statistically reliable information on average pensioner incomes in St. Helens is not available due to insufficient sample size. St. Helens is in the Government Office Region of North West England. The following table gives average pensioner incomes in North West England between 1994–95 and 2001–021.

    1Family Resources Survey data is unavailable prior to 1994–95.

    Pensioner incomes in the North West in 2001–02 prices:

    Pensioner units North West England

    £

    1994–95

    198

    1995–96

    201

    1996–97

    206

    1997–98

    210

    1998–99

    230

    1999–2000

    232

    2000–01

    238

    2001–02

    239

    Pensions
    Mr. Woodward
    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what plans the Government have to review the policy of unlimited pension contribution holidays in final salary pension schemes. [142381]

    Malcolm Wicks
    Since pension provision by employers is voluntary, the levels of contributions are a matter for agreement between pension scheme trustees and sponsoring employers.

    Under the new scheme-specific funding regime, which is intended to replace the Minimum Funding Requirement, trustees and sponsoring employers will be required to develop and agree, with the scheme actuary's advice, the funding principles for their scheme—including a determination of whether the level of contributions is sufficient to meet a scheme's long-term pension commitments.

    The new proposed, simpler tax regime for approved pension schemes (set out in the document "Simplifying the taxation of pensions: increasing choice and flexibility for all" (December 2002)) would abolish the rules requiring approved occupational pension schemes to run off their surplus funds (for example by agreeing contributions holidays) or lose their full tax-exempt status. In addition, the document "Action on Occupational Pensions" announced that pension funds will be able to make payments to employers from an actuarial surplus only where the scheme is funded above a level sufficient to secure full buy-out of scheme liabilities".

    Post Office Card Account
    Mr. Challen
    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions when he will reply to the letter to him of 13 November from the Communication Workers Union on Post Office card accounts. [142214]

    Mr. Pond
    I wrote to Andy Furey, of the Communication Workers Union (CWU), on 26 November on behalf of myself and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. My reply covered a328W
    number of matters relating to Direct Payment, including those raised in CWU's letter of 13 November to all MPs. A copy of this letter has been placed in the Library.

    State Pension (Payment Abroad)
    Chris Grayling
    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what rules apply to the payment of state pensions to pensioners who retire to Commonwealth countries; and whether they differ according to country. [141841]

    Malcolm Wicks
    State Pension, which is payable abroad, is uprated in the normal way for pensioners living in some Commonwealth countries and certain other countries abroad where there is a legal requirement or a reciprocal social security agreement to do so.

    The Commonwealth countries with which the UK has reciprocal agreements allowing State Pension upratings to be paid are: Barbados, Cyprus, Jamaica, Malta and Mauritius. Pensions are not uprated in any other Commonwealth country.

  TREASURY

    Annuities
    Mr. Woodward
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate the Government has made of the market for index-linked annuities in relation to the supply of index-linked gilts. [142388]

    Ruth Kelly
    No specific assessment has been made. Index-linked gilts make uppart of gross gilt sales and contribute to the Government's overall financing requirement. There are a range of factors affecting the market for annuities of all kinds, including index-linked annuities.

    Mr. Woodward
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the Government's policy is on the expansion of the number of companies from which trustees of employer final salary schemes in wind-up can purchase bulk annuities. [142392]

    Ruth Kelly
    The purchase of bulk annuities is a commercial matter for the companies concerned and the pension scheme trustees.

    Cervical Cancer
    Mrs. Calton
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people aged(a) 30–39, (b) 40–49, (c) 50–59 and (d) 60–69 were diagnosed with cervical cancer per 100,000 population in each year since 1986. [141996]

    Ruth Kelly
    The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician, who has been asked to reply.

    Letter from Len Cook to Mrs. Patsy Calton, dated 8 December 2003:
    As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your recent question concerning how many people aged (a) 30–39. (b) 40–49, (c) 50–59 and (d) 60–69 were diagnosed with cervical cancer per 100,000 population each year since 1986. [141996].
    329W
    The latest available figures, for people diagnosed with cervical cancer, are for 2000. The rate of registrations of newly diagnosed

    Rates per 100,000 women of newly diagnosed cases for cervical1 cancer in England, selected age groups, 1986–2000.

    Age

    1986

    1987

    1988

    1989

    1990

    1991

    1992

    1993

    30–39

    26

    25

    28

    25

    24

    22

    20

    20

    40–49

    26

    27

    24

    23

    26

    20

    18

    20

    50–59

    23

    23

    26

    21

    23

    18

    17

    16

    60–69

    31

    30

    29

    28

    28

    23

    20

    17

    Age

    1994

    1995

    1996

    1997

    1998

    1999

    2000

    30–39

    19

    17

    17

    16

    17

    16

    14

    40–49

    18

    17

    17

    16

    15

    16

    15

    50–59

    15

    14

    13

    13

    12

    13

    11

    60–69

    16

    16

    14

    13

    13

    13

    11

    1For the years 1986 to 1994, International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision Code (ICD-9), code 180. For the years 1995 to 2000, International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision (ICD-10), code C53.

    Source:

    Office for National Statistics.

    Child Benefit
    Mr. George Osborne
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what amount of child benefit he estimates was saved as a result of children being in local authority care in the last 12 months for which figures are available; [141836]

    (2) what the annual cost would be of providing child benefit for children in local authority care. [141840]

    Dawn Primarolo
    Local authorities provide financial support for children in care under section 23 of the Children Act 1989. The amount of child benefit that would be paid in respect of children in local authority care would depend on the rate or rates payable. The total cost to public funds of making these payments would depend on what other changes were made to the financing of the care.

    Mr. George Osborne
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the take-up of child benefit as a percentage of those eligible was in the last 12 months for which figures are available. [141839]

    Dawn Primarolo
    Precise figures are not available, but the take up rate of child benefit is thought to be around 98 per cent.

    Pregnancy Statistics
    Mrs. Calton
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many pregnancies in females under the age of 20 there were in each year since 1986 per 100,000 population. [141995]

    Ruth Kelly
    The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician, who has been asked to reply.

    Letter from Len Cook to Mrs. Patsy Calton, dated 8 December 2003:
    As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your recent question asking how many pregnancies in females under the age of 20 there were in each year since 1986 per 100,000 population. (141995)
    330W
    cases of cancer of the cervix in England for the age groups requested are given in the table below for the years 1986 to 2000.

    Prior to 1987, the method used for calculating mother's age at conception was not comparable to that used in later years.
    The data shown in the attached table are for 1987 to 2001, the latest year available. Please note that these data only cover conceptions that led to a maternity (i.e a live or still birth). Conceptions which resulted in miscarriage or termination are not included.

    Conceptions leading to maternities (numbers and rates),1987–2001—England and Wales. Women aged under 20

    Year

    Number

    Rate**

    1987

    79,227

    42.6

    1988

    76,167

    42.2

    1989

    74,502

    43.0

    1990

    72,825

    43.7

    1991

    66,576

    42.0

    1992

    61,770

    40.9

    1993

    57,303

    39.3

    1994

    55,723

    38.3

    1995

    56,639

    38.4

    1996

    60,485

    40.2

    1997

    60,708

    39.7

    1998

    63,216

    40.9

    1999

    60,661

    39.0

    2000

    59,238

    38.1

    2001*

    57,221

    36.3

    * Figures for 2001 are provisional.

    ** Rates per 1,000 women aged 15–19.

    Mr. Ruane
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many births to girls conceiving under the age of 16 there were in each local authority area in Wales in each of the past 20 years, expressed as a percentage of the total population of girls under 16 in each local authority area. [142631]

    Ruth Kelly
    The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician, who has been asked to reply.

    Letter from Len Cook to Mr. Chris Ruane dated 8 December 2003:
    As National Statistician I have been asked to reply to your recent question asking how many births to girls conceiving under the age of 16 there were in each local authority in Wales in each of the past 20 years, as expressed as a percentage of the total population of girls under 16 in each local authority area. (142631)
    Population Figures by local authority prior to 1991 are not available by single year of age. It is therefore not possible to provide percentage calculations for under 16s for this period.
    Figures shown in the attached table are for 1991 to 2001, the latest year for which data are available.
    331W

    Births to girls conceiving under the age of 16: Number and percentage of total population of girls aged under 16, Wales—1991 to 2001

    1991

    1992

    1993

    1994

    1995

    1996

    Births

    %

    Births

    %

    Births

    %

    Births

    %

    Births

    %

    Births

    %

    Blaenau Gwent

    10

    0.1

    8

    0.1

    11

    0.1

    16

    0.2

    14

    0.2

    16

    0.2

    Bridgend

    10

    0.1

    18

    0.1

    14

    0.1

    16

    0.1

    22

    0.2

    27

    0.2

    Caerphilly

    15

    0.1

    28

    0.2

    28

    0.1

    27

    0.1

    36

    0.2

    36

    0.2

    Cardiff

    23

    0.1

    33

    0.1

    30

    0.1

    20

    0.1

    40

    0.1

    39

    0.1

    Carmarthenshire

    7

    0.0

    9

    0.1

    10

    0.1

    12

    0.1

    7

    0.0

    11

    0.1

    Ceredigion

    1—

    1—

    1—

    1—

    1—

    1—

    1—

    1—

    1—

    1—

    1—

    1—

    Conwy

    3

    0.0

    6

    0.1

    10

    0.1

    9

    0.1

    12

    0.1

    16

    0.2

    Denbighshire

    5

    0.1

    5

    0.1

    6

    0.1

    9

    0.1

    1—

    1—

    8

    0.1

    Flintshire

    4

    0.0

    8

    0.1

    14

    0.1

    9

    0.1

    10

    0.1

    14

    0.1

    Gwynedd

    7

    0.1

    10

    0.1

    9

    0.1

    7

    0.1

    1—

    1—

    12

    0.1

    Isle of Anglesey

    5

    0.1

    7

    0.1

    9

    0.1

    5

    0.1

    6

    0.1

    1—

    1—

    Merthyr Tydfil

    7

    0.1

    16

    0.2

    13

    0.2

    14

    0.2

    12

    0.2

    8

    0.1

    Monmouthshire

    4

    0.1

    5

    0.1

    1—

    1—

    5

    0.1

    7

    0.1

    9

    0.1

    Neath Port Talbot

    10

    0.1

    8

    0.1

    12

    0.1

    8

    0.1

    25

    0.2

    9

    0.1

    Newport

    21

    0.1

    16

    0.1

    19

    0.1

    25

    0.2

    14

    0.1

    16

    0.1

    Pembrokeshire

    1—

    1—

    1—

    1—

    7

    0.1

    6

    0.1

    7

    0.1

    10

    0.1

    Powys

    7

    0.1

    4

    0.0

    6

    0.1

    1—

    1—

    6

    0.1

    7

    0.1

    Rhondda, Cynon, Taff

    39

    0.2

    25

    0.1

    26

    0.1

    25

    0.1

    40

    0.2

    39

    0.2

    Swansea

    22

    0.1

    12

    0.1

    15

    0.1

    20

    0.1

    27

    0.1

    34

    0.2

    The Vale of Glamorgan

    8

    0.1

    9

    0.1

    1—

    1—

    13

    0.1

    10

    0.1

    12

    0.1

    Torfaen

    7

    0.1

    9

    0.1

    9

    0.1

    18

    0.2

    12

    0.1

    17

    0.2

    Wrexham

    13

    0.1

    12

    0.1

    11

    0.1

    8

    0.1

    14

    0.1

    13

    0.1

    Wales

    230

    0.1

    253

    0.1

    267

    0.1

    276

    0.1

    330

    0.1

    360

    0.1

    1997

    1998

    1999

    2000

    20012

    Unitary authority

    Births

    %

    Births

    %

    Births

    %

    Births

    %

    Births

    %3

    Blaenau Gwent

    10

    0.1

    17

    0.2

    9

    0.1

    13

    0.2

    13

    0.2

    Bridgend

    16

    0.1

    21

    0.2

    13

    0.1

    20

    0.2

    11

    0.1

    Caerphilly

    32

    0.2

    26

    0.1

    24

    0.1

    28

    0.2

    16

    0.1

    Cardiff

    37

    0.1

    40

    0.1

    34

    0.1

    23

    0.1

    25

    0.1

    Carmarthenshire

    12

    0.1

    15

    0.1

    12

    0.1

    12

    0.1

    12

    0.1

    Ceredigion

    5

    0.1

    1—

    1—

    1—

    1—

    5

    0.1

    1—

    1—

    Conwy

    11

    0.1

    7

    0.1

    14

    0.1

    7

    0.1

    8

    0.1

    Denbighshire

    7

    0.1

    9

    0.1

    5

    0.1

    10

    0.1

    6

    0.1

    Flintshire

    10

    0.1

    13

    0.1

    21

    0.1

    5

    0.0

    7

    0.0

    Gwynedd

    9

    0.1

    1—

    1—

    5

    0.0

    10

    0.1

    12

    0.1

    Isle of Anglesey

    1—

    1—

    5

    0.1

    5

    0.1

    1—

    1—

    1—

    1—

    Merthyr Tydfil

    9

    0.1

    13

    0.2

    11

    0.2

    11

    0.2

    12

    0.2

    Monmouthshire

    1—

    1—

    1—

    1—

    1—

    1—

    5

    0.1

    4

    0.0

    Neath Port Talbot

    11

    0.1

    16

    0.1

    9

    0.1

    16

    0.1

    13

    0.1

    Newport

    19

    0.1

    12

    0.1

    21

    0.1

    10

    0.1

    13

    0.1

    Pembrokeshire

    5

    0.0

    12

    0.1

    5

    0.0

    10

    0.1

    1—

    1—

    Powys

    4

    0.0

    8

    0.1

    8

    0.1

    7

    0.1

    4

    0.0

    Rhondda, Cynon, Taff

    45

    0.2

    32

    0.1

    25

    0.1

    26

    0.1

    32

    0.1

    Swansea

    30

    0.1

    38

    0.2

    25

    0.1

    23

    0.1

    21

    0.1

    The Vale of Glamorgan

    17

    0.1

    9

    0.1

    10

    0.1

    1

    1

    8

    0.1

    Torfaen

    10

    0.1

    12

    0.1

    6

    0.1

    9

    0.1

    7

    0.1

    Wrexham

    15

    0.1

    8

    0.1

    15

    0.1

    9

    0.1

    1—

    1—

    Wales

    318

    0.1

    322

    0.1

    282

    0.1

    265

    0.1

    235

    0.1

    1 Figure supporessed to prevent disclosure of a count less than 3 or disclosure by differencing.

    2 2001 conception data are provisional.

    3 2001 percentages are based on revised population figures. All other years are subject to futher revision.

    Preventive Health Strategies
    Mr. Gardiner
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much per head of population has been spent by the Government on preventive health strategies in(a) 2001, (b) 2002 and (c) 2003. [140497]

    Mr. Boateng
    I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer my hon. Friend the Minister for Public Health gave to him on 4 December 2003 (Official Report, column 182W).

    Aid and Trade Conference
    Annabelle Ewing
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list those invited to the conference the Treasury is hosting in February 2004 to discuss aid and trade. [142724]

    John Healey
    The Treasury is delighted to be hosting a conference on behalf of Lord Carey of Clifton and Lord Griffiths of Fforestfach to discuss issues surrounding trade and aid. The conference is being organised by Christian Responsibility in Public Affairs whose
    333W
    invitees will include representatives from faith groups, media, business, government, and non-governmental organisations from across the UK.

    Air Passenger Duty
    Mr. Woodward
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the Government's policy is on(a)reducing and (b) providing an exemption from air passenger duty for (i) Merseyside and (ii) Objective 1 areas. [142180]

    John Healey
    The Government have no such plans.

    Art Acquisition
    Norman Baker
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much his Department has spent on the acquisition of works of art in each year since 1997, broken down by amounts spent on(a) paintings and (b) sculpture; what the single most expensive piece of art purchased by his Department since 1997 was; how much it cost; and what the total revenue raised by his Department through sales of its works of art has been since 1997. [142370]

    Ruth Kelly
    The amount spent by the Treasury is as follows.

    £

    1997–98 to 2001–02

    nil

    2002–03

    46,534

    2003–04

    41,505

    This expenditure relates to paintings, prints and photography for the Treasury's refurbished building, occupied in the summer of 2002. The most expensive pieces were two items at £3,500 each; the next most expensive was £525. No works of sculpture have been acquired. No departmental-owned works of art have been sold during this period.

    Census (2001)
    Mr. Collins
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he will publish the results of the 2001 census at parish level; and if he will make a statement. [142330]

    Ruth Kelly
    The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician, who has been asked to reply.

    Letter from Len Cook to Mr. Tim Collins, dated 8 December 2003:

    Net council tax paid as a percentage of gross income by equlvalised disposable income quintile, 1996–97 to 2001–02: Great Britain

    1996–97

    1997–98

    1998–99

    Quintile

    Income boundary1 (£ per year)

    Net council tax as % of gross income

    Income boundary1 (£ per year)

    Net council tax as % of gross income

    Income boundary (£ per year)

    Net council tax as % of gross income

    Bottom

    3.2

    3.3

    3.9

    8,059

    8,564

    8,832

    2nd

    2.8

    2.9

    3.1

    11,393

    11,936

    12.582

    3rd

    2.4

    Z5

    2.6

    15,619

    16,442

    17,281

    4th

    2.0

    2.0

    2.1

    22,063

    23,588

    24,384

    Top

    1.3

    1.4

    1.4

    Average for all households

    1.9

    2.0

    2.1

    334W
    As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your recent question asking when the results of the 2001 Census at parish level will be published. (142330)

    The results of the 2001 Census for parishes in England and communities in Wales form part of the series of reports to Parliament. Although the remaining release timetable is currently under review, it is planned to release the parish results in March 2004.

    Results for many parishes can already be derived using the results for small areas published in August-September 2003, together with information also available from the Office for National Statistics on how these small areas relate to parishes.

    Council Tax
    Mr. Cousins
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the proportion of income represented by net payments of council tax after benefits in each income quintile from 1996–97.[142419]

    Ruth Kelly
    The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician, who has been asked to reply.

    National Statistician and Registrar General

    Letter from Len Cook to Mr. Jim Cousins dated 8 December 2003:
    As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your recent question asking for the proportion of income represented by net payments of council tax after benefits in each income quintile group from 1996–97 onwards. (142419)
    Estimates in the following table are produced from the Office for National Statistics' analysis "The effects of taxes and benefits on household income" published on the National Statistics website on October 21st 2003 at http://www.statistics.gov.uk/taxesbenefits. The analysis includes measures of income inequality for the United Kingdom as a whole based on data from the Expenditure and Food Survey. This is a sample survey covering about 7,500 households in the UK and sample sizes are only sufficient to give approximate estimates. In particular, results for the lowest quintile are less reliable than for others because of greater variability. The Family Resources Survey would have been an alternative source with a larger sample size, but the taxes and benefits analysis has been used for consistency with answers to other recent parliamentary questions.
    The table shows, from 1996–97 to 2001–02, the net council tax paid by all households in Great Britain as a percentage of gross income and for each income quintile group where households are ranked by equivalised disposable income. Council tax is not paid in Northern Ireland. Equivalisation is a standard methodology that takes into account the size and composition of households and adjusts their incomes to recognise differing demands on resources. The net council tax figures are gross council tax less reported council tax benefits and discounts. The table also shows the boundaries between equivalised disposable income quintiles for GB. For example, the 1st quintile boundary is the income level below which one fifth of those households are estimated to lie.
    335W

    1999–2000

    2000–01

    2001–02

    Quintile

    Income boundary1 (£ per year)

    Net council tax as % of gross income

    Income boundary1 (£ per year)

    Net council tax as % of gross income

    Income boundary1 (£ per year)

    Net council tax as % of gross income

    Bottom

    4.2

    4.2

    4.8

    9,193

    9,821

    10,397

    2nd

    3.4

    3.3

    3.3

    13,221

    13,893

    14,717

    3rd

    2.7

    2.1

    2.8

    18,324

    19,134

    20,042

    4th

    2.2

    2.2

    2.3

    26,295

    27,296

    28,596

    Top

    1.4

    1.5

    1.4

    Average for all households

    2.2

    2.2

    2.2

    1 Boundary point between equivalised disposable income quantities

    Source:

    Office for national Statistics, based on the analysis 'The effect of taxes and benefits on household income', published on the ONS website and in Economic Trends.

    Customs (Shoreham Harbour)
    Tim Loughton
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the future of the HM Customs Unit based at Shoreham Harbour. [141094]

    John Healey
    UK criminality is becoming ever more sophisticated and organised. To meet these threats Customs need to change tactics and respond by operating more flexibly and organising and targeting their law enforcement activity to respond to the greatest risks.

    The activities carried out by Customs staff based in Shoreham are no longer concentrated in and around the locality. More often the operational teams will be working together with colleagues from larger principal offices dealing with criminals who operate on a UK-wide scale. Customs have therefore outlined proposals to consider bringing together posts from Shoreham with other Law Enforcement staff in larger centralised locations by 2006.

    I am informed that discussions with local staff affected by these proposals and with the departmental trade union will take place before any final decisions are taken.

    EU Aid Budget
    Mr. McFall
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the EU aid budget for developing countries. [141930]

    Ruth Kelly
    The Government believe it is vital that the EU puts development assistance to the most effective use and maintains flexibility in the budget to meet new international challenges such as Iraq. Research evidence strongly suggests that development assistance is most effective when focused on the poorest regions that want to reform, and on poverty reduction programmes. In addition, the ED, through its member states, is committed to meeting the Millennium Development Goals, placing poverty reduction at the heart of the Union's development objectives.

    However, the proportion of EU assistance spent on poverty reduction is still only around 50 per cent. (provisional figure for 2002). A substantial shift in favour of poorer regions, poverty programmes and quality is
    336W
    called for. To support this my right hon. Friend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, presented at ECOFIN in May an action plan, designed to improve the effectiveness of EU development assistance, particularly in terms of poverty reduction and meeting the Millennium Development Goals. The action plan covers the remainder of the current Financial Perspective and seeks to ensure that reform is institutionalised after 2006.

    The action plan builds on the Commission's on-going reforms and has been well received by Finance Ministers and by the Commission. Some elements of it are already being implemented, albeit at the early stages. However, it will take time to bear fruit: the Government does not expect significant changes in the allocation of EU development assistance before 2007, when most assistance programmes are due for renewal. The Government will be working in ECOFIN and the General Affairs and External Relations Council, to pursue implementation of the plan.

    Fair Trade Products
    Mr. Bercow
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it is the policy of his Department to use fair trade products. as a matter of course, in(a) sales on Departmental premises and (b) receptions and meetings involving staff and visitors. [142814]

    Ruth Kelly
    The Treasury's catering contractor offers fair trade products for sale to staff. Such products are not used as a matter of course in catering for official functions.

    Inland Revenue (IT System)
    Richard Burden
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the problems with the Inland Revenue's IT system to which paragraph 9 of the Government Response to the Treasury Committee's Tenth Report refers, on Inland Revenue Matters (HC 834) of Session 2002–03 have been resolved; and what corrective measures have been taken by the Inland Revenue to ensure that similar problems do not reoccur when end-of-year-reconciliation occurs. [141307]

    Dawn Primarolo
    The IT support for the new tax credits is a major system. Though there were a number of difficulties in the early days of live running, the system
    337W
    has been stable for some months with significantly improved performance. We have carefully reviewed our plans for future IT releases. An audit by independent IT consultants was commissioned as part of that review. Its results are informing the implementation of the next major IT releases, which will deliver the processes for finalising tax credit awards and renewing claims in 2004. We have also asked the consultants to support the Inland Revenue and its IT supplier in implementing the lessons learned from previous IT releases.

    Parliamentary Questions
    Mr. Martlew
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what his estimate is of the average cost of answering(a) a written and (b) an oral parliamentary question. [142316]

    Ruth Kelly
    The average cost of answering a written parliamentary question was £135 in April 2002, as I announced in a written answer on 11 April 2003,Official Report, column 466W. The April 2002 figure for an oral question was £313. An annual uprating of these figures will take place in the new year.

    Private Finance Initiative
    Jon Trickett
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) how many Government construction projects with a net present value of £250 million or more are utilising(a) Private Finance Initiative methods and (b) conventional methods of procurement; [142321]

    (2) if he will list the (a) value and (b) nature of each PFI construction contract being undertaken. [142324]

    Mr. Boateng
    While construction is often a major element of a PFI project, it is not true for all. PFI procurement also involves design and maintenance of public facilities. We do not therefore breakdown contract value by the component parts and cannot therefore provide figures for PFI construction by value centrally. Individual departments may, however hold this information on an individual project basis.

    The Treasury does submit data on signed PFI projects to parliament biannually. This information, which includes the capital value and nature of each project, is submitted by departments and collated into a 'Signed Projects List' which is published on the Treasury's website www.hm-treasury.gov.uk.

    The most recent Signed Projects List states that there are 13 projects with a capital value of more than £250 million. I am happy to write to my hon. Friend

    Public Sector Jobs in the UK

    Thousand, not seasonally adjusted

    August 1997

    August 1998

    August 1999

    August 2000

    August 2001

    August 2002

    Number of jobs

    4,954

    4,944

    5,094

    5,094

    5,212

    5,298

    Change on previous year

    —

    -10

    150

    0

    118

    86

    Source:

    Administrative returns from public bodies
    338W
    with the details of these projects should he so wish. Departments do not submit information on the net present value of their projects.

    There is currently no central data source on the capital value or net present value of conventionally procured projects.

    Jon Trickett
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) in how many Private Finance Initiative contracts the value of the cost estimates increased after the time at which the relevant department had established the identity of the contractor; what the increase in value was in each case; and what the percentage increase was in each case; [142322]

    (2) if he will list the value of (a) the construction element and (b) the percentage added for risk when calculating the public sector comparator for each Private Finance Initiative contract which is being undertaken. [142323]

    Mr. Boateng
    PFI covers a broad range of procurements across government. This means that there is no standard breakdown of a public sector comparator. The new green book provides Departments with further advice on how to incorporate optimism bias and risk calculations into the project appraisal process.

    The information requested by my hon. Friend is not held by the Treasury. Where available, information on individual PFI projects will be held by the procuring authority or sponsoring Department in question. Information on construction performance, both general and project specific, is also available on the NAO website at www.Nao.gov.uk

    Public Sector Employment
    Mr. Cousins
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the stock of public sector jobs was in each region and nation in 1997; what the net change in such jobs in each region and nation has been in each year since 1997; and what the stock of such jobs was in each region for the most recent period for which figures are available. [142329]

    Ruth Kelly
    The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician, who has been asked to reply.

    Letter from Len Cook to Mr. Jim Cousins, dated 8 December 2003:
    As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your recent question about jobs in the public sector. (142329)
    Information about jobs in the public sector in the United Kingdom is compiled by the Office for National Statistics from returns made by public bodies. The latest available statistics are for 2002. The attached table shows the number of jobs in the public sector in each year from 1997 to 2002, together with the change from the previous year. Comparable information is not available for individual nations or regions.

    Public Sector Pay
    Dr. Cable
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many public sector employees are covered by index-linked pay; what their total pay has been for each year since 1997; and what it would have been if the Harmonised Index of Consumer Prices had been applied. [142290]

    Mr. Boateng
    Police are the only public sector employees whose pay is index linked. Individual employers and departments are responsible for the pay arrangements of particular groups of employees.

    Public Sector Pensions
    Dr. Cable
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many public sector pensioners are paid index-linked pensions; what the annual payouts to them were in each year since 1997; and what the payouts would have been if the Harmonised Index of Consumer Prices index had been applied. [142289]

    Mr. Boateng
    All public service pensions are increased annually in line with the retail prices index (RPI) directly under, or by analogy to, provisions of the Pensions (Increase) Act 1971 and section 59 of the Social Security Pensions Act 1975. In addition a number other schemes in the wider public sector may opt to provide full RPI, but no information is held centrally on these schemes.

    There are approximately 3.3 million pensions in payment to members of public service pension schemes or their dependants. Expenditure on public service pensions was about £20 billion in 2002–03.

    Expenditure for previous years can be found in the schemes' published resource and appropriation accounts. There are no plans to change the indexation of public service pensions from the RPI to the harmonised index of consumer prices (HICP) and no analysis has been carried out on what the costs and benefits would be of doing so.

    Research and Development Tax Credit
    John Barrett
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the take-up of the research and development tax credit in Scotland. [142821]

    Dawn Primarolo
    Research and development tax credits were introduced for small and medium companies in 2000. They were extended to all companies in 2002 and further improvements were made in 2003. No specific figures are available for Scotland, but the credits helped over 3,000 innovative SM E companies nationally in 2001–02, the latest year for which complete data is available.

    Regional Pay Flexibility
    Mr. Cousins
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will place in the Library his guidance on regional flexibilities in pay. [142328]

    Mr. Boateng
    I have already done so. The guidance is also accessible on the Treasury's website.

    Regulations (Consultation)
    Brian Cotter
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proportion of regulations introduced by the 340W
    Department have been subject to a consultation period of less than 12 weeks since the introduction of the Code of Practice on Consultations. [142486]

    Ruth Kelly
    I refer the hon. Gentleman to my answer to the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) on 21 October 2003 Official Report, column 489W.

    Small Businesses (Consultation)
    Brian Cotter
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his Department uses a database of individual small businesses for consultation purposes. [142479]

    Ruth Kelly
    HM Treasury uses a variety of methods to engage small businesses in consultation exercises. As well as being available on the department's website and through its public enquiries unit all consultation documents are also often circulated alongside the Budget and Pre-Budget Reports. Where appropriate, the department has used 'roadshows' or visits around the UK to further engage with interested parties, including small businesses. The department works closely with the DTI's Small Business Service, which maintains strong contacts with small businesses and acts as secretariat to the Small Business Council. As such the department maintains close relationships with many small businesses and their representatives, but does not maintain a single database for this purpose.

    Tax Cases
    Mr. Cousins
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the tax cases involving United Kingdom companies which have been(a) decided and (b) entered for decision in the European Court of Justice in the last five years; and if he will estimate the net revenue effect in each case. [142184]

    Dawn Primarolo
    Notice is published in the Official Journal of the European Communities (C Series) of the commencement of all cases before the European Court of Justice, including tax cases. A summary of judgments of the court is also so published, and the full text is available on the Europa website. The Official Journal is available in the Library of the House.

    Tax Revenue
    Mr. Chope
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer pursuant to the answer of 2 December 2003,Official Report, column 38W, if he will give separate figures for (a) Bournemouth and (b) Poole. [142500]

    Dawn Primarolo
    The requested information is given in the following table.

    Additional full-year yield of increasing the basic rate of tax by 1p in 2000—01

    £ million

    Bournemouth Unitary Authority

    7.7

    Poole Unitary Authority

    6.9

    Estimates are based upon the 2000–01 Survey of Personal Incomes. The effects of the illustrative changes can be scaled up or down over a reasonably wide range. The results exclude any behavioural response to the tax change.

    Taxation
    Mr. Edward Davey
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what(a) social security contributions and (b) taxes on income were as a percentage of household income in each year since 1999. [142219]

    Ruth Kelly
    The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician, who has been asked to reply.

    Letter from Len Cook to Mr. Edward Davey, dated 8 December 2003:
    As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your recent question asking for social security contributions and taxes on income as a percentage of household income. (142219)
    Estimates in the following table are taken from Table 3 in the analysis "The effects of taxes and benefits on household income 2001–02" produced by the Office for National Statistics and published on 21st October 2003 on the National Statistics website at: http://www.statistics.gov.uk/taxesbenefits.
    The analysis includes measures of income inequality for the United Kingdom as a whole based on data from the Expenditure and Food Survey (EPS), formerly the Family Expenditure Survey (FES). This is a sample survey covering about 7,500 households in the UK. The Family Resources Survey would have been an alternative source with a larger sample size, or National Accounts estimates for the households and non-profit institutions serving households (NPISH) sector, but the taxes and benefits analysis has been used for consistency with answers to other recent parliamentary questions.
    The table shows social security contributions and taxes on income as a percentage of gross income for UK households. Social security contributions are defined as employees' and self employed contributions to National Insurance and National Health Services. Taxes on income are defined as income tax less tax relief at source on life assurance premiums. Gross income includes income from earnings, occupational pensions and investments and cash benefits such as state retirement pensions and income support. It does not take account of deductions for taxes.

    Social security contributions and taxes on income as as a percentage of gross income for ALL households, 1999–2000 to 2001–02

    United Kingdom

    1999–2000

    2000–01

    2001–02

    Social security contributions

    3.9

    3.8

    3.8

    Taxes on income

    13.4

    13.7

    13.8

    Source:

    Office for National Statistics, based on the analysis 'The effects of taxes and benefits on household income', published on the ONS website and in Economic Trends.

    Top-up Fees
    Annabelle Ewing
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the impact of the Government's proposals for top-up fees on the operation of the Barnett Formula; and if he will make a statement. [142766]

    Mr. Boateng
    Tuition fees are a devolved matter for the Scottish Executive. The Barnett Formula provides the devolved administrations with a population-based share of comparable increases in spending of Government Departments.

    VAT (Places of Worship)
    Sue Doughty
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will raise with his counterparts in the Council of 342W
    Ministers the feasibility of a change to the rules preventing reduced rates of VAT for repair and maintenance of places of worship; and if he will make a statement. [142202]

    John Healey
    I refer the hon. Lady to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, North (Helen Jones) on 18 September 2003,Official Report, column 971W.

    Waste Generation
    Mr. Drew
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans there are to bring forward a public service agreement target to reduce the amount of waste generated in the UK; and what discussions he has had with the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister on this subject in advance of the forthcoming Spending Round. [142255]

    Mr. Boateng
    The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs currently has a PSA target to enable 25 per cent. of household waste to be recycled or composted by 2005–06. We will be reviewing this target as part of Spending Review 2004.

  DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

    Brighton and Hove Albion
    Norman Baker
    To ask the Deputy Prime Minister which directors of Brighton and Hove Albion football club(a) he has and (b) other Ministers in his Department have met since 1 January 2002; and if he will make a statement. [142431]

    Yvette Cooper
    The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister was set up in May 2002. No Ministers in the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister have held meetings with any directors of Brighton and Hove Albion Football Club since the Office was established.

    Norman Baker
    To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will list those hon. Members from whom he has received oral representations in respect of the outstanding planning application relating to the possible construction of a football stadium at Falmer, East Sussex. [142432]

    Keith Hill
    I understand that the hon. Member appeared at the inquiry held into the proposals at Falmer. No other hon. Members have made oral representations on this case.

    Consultation
    Brian Cotter
    To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what proportion of regulations introduced by the Department have been subject to a consultation period of less than 12 weeks since the introduction of the Code of Practice on Consultations. [142482]

    Yvette Cooper
    The Cabinet Office Code of Practice on Written Consultation came into effect on 1 January 2001. In the period 1 January 2001 to 31 December 2002, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (and its predecessor, the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions) published 119 consultations under the Code, of which 18 were less than
    343W
    12 weeks. Information on which consultations have led to regulation is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

    Council Housing
    Mr. Byers
    To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how much is held by each housing authority in receipts from the sale of council houses. [142209]

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

    Defence Fire Service
    Mr. Hammond
    To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what assessment he has made of the impact of a decision by the Ministry of Defence to privatise the Defence Fire Service on the Government's ability to provide emergency fire cover in the event of a future strike by civilian fire-fighters. [141254]

    Phil Hope
    No final decision has been made in relation to the Airfield Support Services Project. In evaluating bids consideration is being given to military assistance to the civil authority and military assistance to Government Departments.

    Hazardous Waste
    Sue Doughty
    To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what discussions his Department has held with the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on the planning requirements for the disposal of hazardous waste required by the EU Hazardous Waste Directive. [142520]

    Phil Hope
    The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister works closely with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to achieve sustainable waste management and has contributed to the work of the Hazardous Waste Forum. The Forum has been set up by Government to bring together key stakeholders to advise on the way forward on the management of hazardous waste and has, among a number of matters, considered the waste planning and permitting processes for new facilities.

    Sue Doughty
    To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what assessment he has made of the impact of delays in the implementation of the Hazardous Waste Requirements of the Landfill Directive (1999/31/EC) on the regeneration of brownfield sites required to meet housing targets. [142522]

    Phil Hope
    The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is working to ensure that all policies affecting the re-development of brownfield land do not create unintended obstacles to regeneration. Discussions are currently taking place within Government, and with industry on the implications of the implementation of the Landfill Directive for the regeneration of brownfield sites.

    Fire-fighters Pay Dispute
    Mr. Hammond
    To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what his estimate is of the net cost to Fire Authority employers of meeting the fire-fighters' pay settlement in 344W
    (a) 2003–04, (b) 2004–05 and (c) 2005–06, taking account of financial savings from modernisation under the June agreement. [141896]

    Phil Hope
    The Independent Review of the Fire Service estimated that the net costs and savings of its proposals would be:

    2003–04: £25 million net cost

    2004–05: £4 million net cost

    2005–06: £34 million net saving

    The Local Government Association (LGA) has said that the fire-fighters' pay settlement will balance over the Spending Review 2002 period. The Government agrees but recognises that there may be a lag between costs and savings of modernisation. An additional £30 million transitional funding is therefore available for England and Wales, which will be released subject to satisfactory progress on on-going pay negotiations and modernisation and repaid by fire and rescue authorities over the Spending Review 2002 period.

    Head of Land and Property
    Mr. Hammond
    To ask the Deputy Prime Minister whether the post of Head of Land and Property in his Department has been filled. [141906]

    Yvette Cooper
    No.

    Homes (Physical Disabilities)
    Miss Begg
    To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what plans he has to increase the number of appropriate homes for people with physical disabilities. [142190]

    Keith Hill
    The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is increasing the number of appropriate homes for people with physical disabilities through adaptations to existing homes.

    Through the Disabled Facilities Grants (DFG) programme, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister continues to provide resources for local authorities to help disabled homeowners and tenants to pay for essential adaptations. Recently the level of funding has increased, giving authorities new, supplementary powers to help the disabled and issued draft guidance to local authorities to help them deliver a first class adaptations service.

    The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is also increasing the number of appropriate homes for people with physical disabilities by ensuring newly built homes are accessible and convenient for everyone.

    All newly built homes must meet the requirements of 'Part M' of the building regulations, which the Government revised in 1999 to improve the accessibility and convenience of new housing. The revised regulations include requirements to ensure that entrances, lifts, corridors, doorways and WCs are accessible, including to wheelchair users.

    All new build schemes funded by the Government through the Housing Corporation must comply with the Corporation's scheme development standards which adopt criteria for accessibility and internal environments that help to make homes even more adaptable to long-term needs.

    House Construction (Timber)
    Norman Baker
    To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what guidance is given to the Housing Corporation regarding the use of timber in house construction to ensure that all timber used comes from legal and sustainable sources; and if he will make a statement. [142230]

    Keith Hill
    The Housing Corporation sets out requirements and recommendations for all housing projects which receive Social Housing Grant (SHG) in its Scheme Development Standards. The Government works with the Housing Corporation on reviews of the Scheme Development Standards.

    The standards make clear that housing projects should endeavour to incorporate measures which aid environmental sustainability. Compliance and performance on environmental sustainability is tested using the EcoHomes assessment framework developed by the Building Research Establishment (BRE). The credit requirements under the EcoHomes assessment scheme include criteria for the use of timber from sustainably managed sources, or reused timber, in both the basic building elements and the finishing elements of homes.

    All new built homes funded by the Housing Corporation are required to achieve a BRE EcoHomes rating of 'Pass' as a minimum essential condition of grant and housing associations are encouraged to aim for the higher 'Good' rating. The Housing Corporation intends to increase the minimum requirement to a `Good' rating from April 2005 with housing associations encouraged to aim for the higher 'Very Good' rating from the same date.

    Housing
    Mr. Hammond
    To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what assessment his Department has made of the impact of the withdrawal of local authority social housing grant on the rate of completion of affordable homes by Runnymede borough council. [141907]

    Keith Hill
    Local Authority Social Housing Grant (LASHG) has been abolished to allow the resources to be better targeted, in particular, to achieve the objectives set out in "Sustainable Communities: Building for the Future". Transitional arrangements over the 2003–04 to 2005–06 period are expected to provide around 14,000 homes but no estimates have been made on the impact this will have on the number of social housing dwellings provided, either in total or in particular locations. That will depend on a number of factors, including on what and where the available resources should be spent following the recommendations from the new Regional Housing Boards.

    Sir George Young
    To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many excess winter deaths he estimates could be avoided by bringing homes of vulnerable households up to minimum legislative standards; and what his estimate is of the cost of such work. [142005]

    Keith Hill
    In 2000–01 it was estimated that there were around 25,000 excess winter deaths. It is not possible to say how many of those were as a direct result of housing condition.
    346W
    The relationship between indoor temperatures and ill health is complex and the causes of excess winter deaths are not clear but cold weather and illnesses such as flu play an important part alongside other factors such as outside exposure and behavioural patterns.

    Local Government Finance
    Dr. Starkey
    To ask the Deputy Prime Minister in relation to Stage 1 of the Special Grants Programme from his Department for 2004–05, if he will(a) list the recipients and (b) the value of all grants awarded. [140688]

    Yvette Cooper
    No grants are awarded at Stage 1 of the Special Grants Programme. A number of Stage 1 applicants are prioritised and invited to submit full Stage 2 applications. Grants are awarded after Stage 2 applications have been appraised. The list of successful applicants and the amount awarded to each is published each year on the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister's website. Successful applications to the 2004–05 competition will be announced early in 2004.

    Mr. Hayes
    To ask the Deputy Prime Minister (1) how many renewal areas have been established by local authorities in each of the last 10 years; and how many renewal areas were established between 18 July 2002 and 18 July 2003; [141017]

    (2) how many renewal areas have been established since 18 July. [141018]

    Keith Hill
    The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister records show that the following number of renewal areas were declared in each of the last 10 years:

    Number of renewal areas declared

    1993

    22

    1994

    9

    1995

    3

    1996

    11

    1997

    8

    1998

    12

    1999

    3

    2000

    7

    2001

    4

    2002

    1

    The Regulatory Reform (Housing Assistance) (England and Wales) Order 2002 repealed the requirement for local authorities to send their declaration of renewal areas to my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister from 18 July 2002. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister therefore does not hold a record of the number of renewal areas declared after 18 July 2002.

    Miss McIntosh
    To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what representations he has recently received on the funding settlement for(a) North Yorkshire county council and (b) district councils in North Yorkshire. [142037]

    Phil Hope
    Since the start of consultation on the provisional local government finance settlement 2004–05 on 19 November the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has received a representation from North Yorkshire county council and one from Scarborough borough council.
    347W
    The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister's proposals for the funding of local authority revenue spending provide local government overall with a 4.7 per cent. increase in general grant or, a like for like basis. This is the seventh successive year of real terms increases for local government and means that since 1997, we have increased grants to local authorities by some 29 per cent. in real terms.

    Regional Assemblies
    Andrew Rosindell
    To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will estimate the cost of(a) setting up and (b) the annual manning of a regional assembly. [141721]

    Mr. Raynsford
    The information is as follows:

    (a) The actual cost of setting-up an elected regional assembly will vary from region to region, mainly because of the different sizes of their electorates and membership. It is expected to be around £30 million in each region. This estimate includes all costs necessary to establish an assembly, including the cost of referendums, local government reviews and the first elections.

    (b) The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister estimates that each assembly would cost around £25 million a year to run. But £5 million of this cost will be directly offset because staff will be transferring from existing bodies such as the region's Government Office. The remaining costs could be absorbed within the assembly's programme budget through efficiency savings of around 5 per cent. or less in larger regions.

    Mr. Gordon Prentice
    To ask the Deputy Prime Minister when he expects to publish the full list of(a) powers and (b) functions of the proposed regional assemblies. [142567]

    Phil Hope
    The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister published the Regional Governance White Paper, Your Region, Your Choice Revitalising the English Regions in May 2002. This set out our proposals for elected regional assemblies for regions that chose to have them. The powers and functions of assemblies were set out in full in the White Paper.

    The Fire White Paper, "Our Fire and Rescue Service", published in June of this year, announced that responsibility for the fire and rescue service will transfer to a regional level in regions that choose to have an elected assembly.

    We hope to publish a draft Bill to establish elected regional assemblies before the referendums take place next autumn in the North East, the North West and Yorkshire and the Humber.

    Mr. Gordon Prentice
    To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make it his policy to set a minimum percentage participation threshold in referendums for regional assemblies for the result to be acted upon; and if he will make a statement. [142569]

    Phil Hope
    I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given on 11 November 2003,Official Report, column 256W.

    Mr. Gordon Prentice
    To ask the Deputy Prime Minister in what circumstances the referendums on regional assemblies would be held after October 2004.[142570]
    348W
    Mr. Raynsford
    It is the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister's firm intention to hold referendums in the three northern regions in the autumn of 2004. But before that can happen, the Boundary Committee for England must make its recommendations on restructuring the local government of two tier areas in those regions and Parliament must approve Orders under sections 1 and 2 of the Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Act 2003.

    Sections 103 and 109 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 mean that there will need to be at least 10 weeks between the Orders being approved and the referendums being held.

    Mr. Gordon Prentice
    To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what steps he will take to maximise turnout in the proposed regional assembly referendums. [142571]

    Phil Hope
    The regional assembly referendums are being held by all-postal ballot. Recent all-postal ballots pilots in local government elections have produced increased turnout.

    The Electoral Commission is empowered under the Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Act 2003 to encourage voting.

    My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister and my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government, Regional Governance and Fire launched an information campaign in the North East, North West and Yorkshire and Humber on the 3 and 4 November. The purpose of the campaign is to raise awareness of the referendums and the issues around them. Further events will be held over the next year. Referendums websites have been established for each of the regions and copies of our explanatory leaflet will be widely available.

    Mr. Gordon Prentice
    To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what events he plans to hold in East Lancashire to promote the benefits of a North West Regional Assembly. [142996]

    Phil Hope
    My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister and my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government, Regional Governance and Fire launched the 'Your Say' information campaign for the North West in Warrington on 4 November. This was the start of a continuing information campaign to raise awareness of elected regional assemblies and the responsibilities that they will have, before the referendums.

    Ministers will visit the North West, including East Lancashire, to continue this awareness raising information campaign.

    Mr. Gordon Prentice
    To ask the Deputy Prime Minister when he expects the Electoral Commission to decide on the level of grant to award to designated organisations representing both sides in the regional assembly referendums. [142223]

    Phil Hope
    This is a matter for the Electoral Commission.

    Street Wardens (Suffolk)
    Mr. Spring
    To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the sources of funding are for street warden schemes in Suffolk; and how much funding is being received by each source in 2003–04. [140608]
    349W
    Yvette Cooper
    Street warden schemes can be funded from a number of sources such as the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister's warden programme, local authorities, housing associations and businesses. Suffolk's two street warden schemes, in Bury St. Edmunds and Lowestoft, and Ipswich have been allocated funding for 2003–04 from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister of £121,000 and £53,000 respectively. Match funding comes from Suffolk county council, St. Edmundsbury borough council and the local CDRP and Ipswich local authority.

    Sustainable Development
    Mrs. Helen Clark
    To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what action the Green Minister in his Department is taking to ensure that his bid to the forthcoming Government spending round contributes towards the United Kingdom's objectives on sustainable development. [142526]

    Phil Hope
    Sustainable development has been identified by Her Majesty's Treasury (HMT) as a key thematic issue for SR2004. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister's submission for SR2004, to support the creation of sustainable communities, will be framed in that context.

    Tenancy Deposit Scheme
    Mr. Jim Cunningham
    To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the estimated minimum potential cost of independent adjudication is under a tenancy deposit scheme. [142438]

    Keith Hill
    I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given on 13 November 2003,Official Report, column 461W. There are no estimates of minimum cost.

    Mr. Jim Cunningham
    To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what his assessment is of the potential benefits of a tenancy deposit scheme. [142439]

    Keith Hill
    In financial terms, we estimate that the amount of deposit currently wrongly withheld from tenants (which they would receive under a compulsory deposit protection scheme) is £20.1 million per year.

  CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS

    Trespass
    Mr. Laurence Robertson
    To ask the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State, Department for Constitutional Affairs if he will introduce measures to strengthen the ability of property and land owners to take legal action against persons entering their land or premises without permission; and if he will make a statement. [141939]

    Mr. Leslie
    The current law already provides property and landowners with the right to take legal action against trespassers where appropriate. Landowners whose property boundary has been breached by an unlawful visitor may seek an injunction to restrain the continuation of the trespass. The landowner may also 350W
    have a legal cause of action for any damage suffered because of the trespass. The Government currently has no plans to review the law in this area.

    Electoral Commission
    Denzil Davies
    To ask the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State. Department for Constitutional Affairs how many persons were interviewed for the position of Chair of the Electoral Commission when it was first established. [141901]

    Mr. Leslie
    There was not a separate application process for the position of Chair of the Electoral Commission. An open competition was held and applicants were asked to indicate if they wished to be considered for Chair and/or as a member. As a result of this process 16 people were invited to attend an interview, and the selection panel determined which, of those that had shown an interest in the position, should get the job of Chair.

    Court Fines
    Simon Hughes
    To ask the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State, Department for Constitutional Affairs how many and what value of court-imposed fines were defaulted on in(a) each London borough and (b) England in each year since 1997. [140857]

    Mr. Leslie
    [holding answer 2 December 2003]Magistrates' Courts Committees (MCCs) have a responsibility for the collection of a range of debts imposed by both the magistrates' courts and the Crown Court. Data on the number of court imposed fines are not collected at present. Information on the value of fines is available only from 1999–2000 when a new data collection procedure was implemented. The debt collected includes not only fines, but also fees, compensation, confiscation orders, legal aid contributions and some maintenance orders. It is not yet possible to separate out fines only from the total so the figures provided in the following table include all the elements above. The data available covers Greater London only as separate data are not available for each London borough. Also, separate data are not available for England only, so information provided is for England and Wales.

    Debt Analysis for 1999–2003

    £ million

    1999–2000

    2000–01

    2001–02

    2002–03

    Greater London

    Amount imposed in period

    95.0

    76.6

    77.6

    111.3

    Amount paid in period

    46.4

    39.4

    35.5

    44.5

    Closing balance owed1

    111.2

    118.5

    116.1

    145.0

    Total arrears at year end

    61.9

    60.6

    53.3

    72.3

    England and Wales

    Amount imposed in period

    431.1

    385.0

    387.0

    425.9

    Amount paid in period

    267.3

    242.5

    228.1

    236.3

    Closing balance owed1

    417.5

    419.1

    439.0

    486.7

    Total arrears at year end

    227.4

    225.9

    246.5

    276.9

    1 Including amounts not yet due

    351W
    Tim Loughton
    To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs what proportion of fines imposed have been collected by courts in each county in each of the last five years. [141063]

    Mr. Leslie
    Information on the proportion of fines imposed that have been collected is not available for each county. The information provided is for the 42 Magistrates' Courts Committees (MCCs) in England and Wales. A new data collection procedure was implemented in 1999–2000 and comparable figures are therefore only available from that period.

    Original payment rate by MCC

    Percentage

    MCC

    s1999–2000

    2000–01

    2001–02

    2002–03

    2003–041

    Avon and Somerset

    41

    62

    54

    64

    86

    Bedfordshire

    55

    55

    58

    58

    82

    Cambridgeshire

    63

    52

    36

    45

    150

    Cheshire

    73

    67

    58

    56

    84

    Cleveland

    83

    69

    54

    47

    84

    Cumbria

    80

    76

    76

    74

    98

    Derbyshire

    63

    67

    58

    58

    73

    Devon and Cornwall

    69

    73

    70

    63

    78

    Dorset

    71

    74

    89

    76

    76

    Durham

    68

    67

    75

    74

    80

    Dyfed Powys

    96

    100

    73

    65

    67

    Essex

    79

    76

    75

    74

    94

    Gloucestershire

    68

    60

    43

    84

    128

    Greater London

    49

    51

    46

    40

    62

    Greater Manchester

    53

    60

    61

    64

    55

    Gwent

    69

    67

    66

    57

    87

    Hampshire and Isle of Wight

    79

    67

    68

    77

    98

    Hertfordshire

    76

    75

    59

    67

    54

    Humberside

    71

    65

    71

    67

    120

    Kent

    50

    61

    64

    61

    80

    Lancashire

    69

    65

    68

    63

    81

    Leicestershire

    73

    63

    62

    69

    75

    Lincolnshire

    66

    97

    76

    59

    73

    Merseyside

    52

    47

    34

    33

    48

    Norfolk

    70

    69

    74

    75

    75

    North Wales

    55

    51

    69

    53

    104

    North Yorkshire

    79

    82

    75

    78

    90

    Northamptonshire

    59

    62

    52

    63

    107

    Northumbria

    65

    61

    62

    59

    75

    Nottinghamshire

    80

    70

    65

    65

    58

    South Wales

    59

    56

    40

    52

    80

    South Yorkshire

    65

    73

    66

    61

    76

    Staffordshire

    85

    90

    73

    57

    82

    Suffolk

    72

    77

    70

    69

    90

    Surrey

    74

    58

    79

    81

    80

    Sussex

    93

    63

    62

    62

    113

    Thames Valley

    63

    62

    75

    69

    58

    Warwickshire

    73

    71

    46

    87

    108

    West Mercia

    89

    62

    48

    71

    82

    West Midlands

    58

    64

    58

    49

    55

    West Yorkshire

    68

    71

    86

    47

    50

    Wiltshire

    82

    83

    67

    68

    92

    England and Wales

    61

    63

    59

    55

    722

    1 April to September.

    2 The basis on which the payment rate is calculated has been changed. The new payment rate ensures that confiscation orders (these are not fines) are excluded, and that judicially cancelled amounts are taken into account.

    352W
    In addition, earlier this year, I agreed to a revision of the fine enforcement payment rate target so that it provides a far clearer focus for the performance of those involved in this vitally important area.

    The April to September column of the table sets out year-to-date performance on the basis of the new formula which excludes things like confiscation orders.

    Further management information is awaited for the rest of the business year before we can be certain that the improvement in performance we expect is fully delivered. Nevertheless, we now have a much more robust baseline data on performance and early signs are encouraging.

    Illegal Meat Imports
    Tim Loughton
    To ask the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State, Department for Constitutional Affairs what guidance has been issued to magistrates on dealing with cases of illegal meat imports. [140992]

    Mr. Leslie
    My Department has issued no guidance to magistrates' on dealing with cases of illegal meat imports. However, on 3 November 2002, the Magistrates' Association made available on it's website a document entitled "Costing the Earth", which included guidance for sentencers and a case study on illegal meat imports. The Judicial Studies Board has been asked, in consultation with the Magistrates' Association and the Justices' Clerks Society, to consider this matter.

    Tim Loughton
    To ask the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State, Department for Constitutional Affairs what guidance is available to clerks of court on dealing with cases involving illegal meat imports. [140993]

    Mr. Leslie
    My Department has issued no guidance to court clerks on dealing with cases of illegal meat imports. The Justices' Clerks Society has been asked, in consultation with the Judicial Studies Board and the Magistrates' Association, to consider this matter further.

    Judges (Training)
    Mr. Allen
    To ask the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State, Department for Constitutional Affairs what plans he has to introduce(a) training programmes and (b) examinations for judges, with particular reference to shorthand for use during court proceedings. [141873]

    Mr. Leslie
    Judicial training is the responsibility of the Judicial Studies Board (JSB), an independent body chaired by Lord Justice Keene. The JSB already provides a full programme of training for judges. It has 354W
    no plans to provide training in shorthand. Neither are there plans to introduce formal examinations for the judiciary. An appraisal system is, however, already in place for a number of part-time judicial post-holders.

    Juries
    Mr. Jim Cunningham
    To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs what steps his Department is taking to ensure the impartiality of juries. [142085]

    Mr. Leslie
    Juries play a vital role in the criminal justice system. The Government are committed to ensuring that jurors are impartial; that the risk of jury tampering is minimised; and that jury panels are representative of their community.

    There are a variety of safeguards in place to ensure that juries try cases fairly, impartially and in accordance with the evidence presented at trial (and only in accordance with that evidence). For example, jurors are randomly selected; they are told (in jury leaflets and videos shown on arrival at court) that they must disclose any connection with the people involved in the trial and tell court officials if anyone tries to influence them in their decision. This last point is being reinforced by the introduction of posters in all Crown Courts advising jurors they are to report any attempts made on them to influence their decisions.

    Jurors are also required to swear an oath, the message of which is reinforced by directions from the trial judge at the end of the trial. It is also common practice for the judge, at the outset of the trial, to inform jurors that they can at any time, including during deliberations, raise questions or concerns with him or her.

    The Criminal Justice Act 2003 contains measures which will provide for a trial to be conducted without a jury where there is evidence of a real and present danger of jury tampering, or continued without a jury where the jury has been discharged because of jury tampering.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Baton Rounds
  The Minister for Crime Reduction, Policing and Community Safety (Ms Hazel Blears)
  On 1 August 1999, new operational guidelines on the use of baton rounds were issued by the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) and replaced previous Home Office guidance. ACPO have now put forward revised guidelines to take account of developments in the weapon system, training and procedures for deployment which are designed to reduce the potential for serious injury and life threatening injuries.

  The guidelines now include specific reference to the implications of the European Convention on Human Rights and also highlights that every effort should be made to ensure children are not placed at risk.

  The revised guidance also takes account of the Defence Scientific Advisory Council statement on the use of the L21A1 baton round at ranges from 1 to 19 metres, announced by the then Minister of State at the Home Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham), 6 November 2002, Official Report, Column 312W.

  A copy of this new guidance has been placed in the House Library.

  Immigration Control
  The Minister for Citizenship and Immigration (Beverley Hughes)
  The Government are firmly committed to maintaining effective immigration controls while at the same time ensuring that genuine passengers are able to pass through our ports with the least possible inconvenience.

  Visa regimes play an important part in the operation of our immigration controls. They allow for checks to be undertaken before a person embarks for the UK to confirm whether they qualify for admission. But we recognise that visa regimes do represent an inconvenience for some passengers and we will therefore only maintain them where the immigration threat is such as to justify doing so. At present Slovak nationals require a visa in order to visit the UK. However, we judge that there is no longer any significant threat to our immigration controls from Slovak nationals and therefore we have decided that the visa regime should be lifted and standard on-entry immigration controls will continue to be applied. Changes to the immigration rules will be made on 17 December and the visa regime will be lifted from 00.01 hours on 18 December.

TREASURY

  Butterfield Review
  The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (John Healey)
  On 15 July 2003 the Government published in full the independent report of Mr. Justice Butterfield on the current practices and procedures relating to disclosure, associated investigation techniques and case management in HM Customs and Excise's criminal cases. The Attorney-General and I had asked Mr. Justice Butterfield to examine the circumstances that led to the termination of the London City Bond prosecutions in Liverpool Crown Court on 25 November 2002, the changes in practice within Customs since the time of the cases to which those prosecutions related, and Customs' compliance with best practice in the use of investigation techniques. Mr. Justice Butterfield also examined the preparation for and presentation of cases for Court on behalf of Customs.

  On publication of the report, as I said in my written statement on 15 July, Official Report, Columns 18–20WS, the Government accepted in full a number of Mr. Justice Butterfield's recommendations, many of which have now been implemented. On the recommendation that—in order to make its independence from Customs even more transparent—the Customs and Excise Prosecution Office (CEPO) should become an entirely separate prosecuting authority accountable to the Attorney-General, the Government undertook to provide a response in the autumn.

  In his report, Mr. Justice Butterfield acknowledged the revitalisation of CEPO following the injection of additional resources and the improvement in the engagement with investigators. He referred to a palpable and detectable improvement in morale in CEPO. He went on to recommend that the Solicitor for Customs and Excise should relinquish responsibility for prosecutions resulting from Customs investigations.

  The Government agree that, to be most effective, these prosecutors must be independent, and be seen to be independent by judges, barristers and solicitors in the wider criminal justice system. The Government consider it essential that there should be full confidence in prosecutors acting on behalf of Customs and accept the case for radical change.

  The Government accordingly accept the recommendation of Mr. Justice Butterfield to separate the prosecution and investigation functions in Customs, and to create an independent Customs and Excise Prosecutions Office during the course of 2004, led by a Director accountable directly to the Attorney-General. The Office will be subject to a regular, independent and thorough inspection regime.

  The Government intend to move to appoint a Director as soon as practicable, who will be closely involved in the creation of an independent CEPO.

  The Government also accept the recommendation that Investigation Legal Advisers should now move to become the responsibility of HM Commissioners of Customs and Excise, and that these advisers will not be involved in the prosecution process. This arrangement will be reviewed after two years.
  71WS
  The creation of an independent CEPO will require the resolution of a number of practical issues, to which the Attorney-General and I are giving careful consideration.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Employment Tribunal Regulations
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe)
  This consultation covers the Government's proposals for revisions to the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations. Views are being invited from stakeholders on these proposed changes.

  It is intended that the new regulations will be laid in spring 2004 and come into force in October 2004.

  The aim of the revisions is to streamline procedures in order to promote the early settlement of cases through ACAS conciliation and, where that fails, to expedite the passage of cases through the Tribunal system.

  The changes arise from provisions of the Employment Act 2002, from recommendations of the Employment Tribunal System Taskforce, and from suggestions offered by the Employment Tribunal Presidents—for England and Wales and for Scotland—to help make the system run more smoothly. The revisions are designed to deliver a better service and swifter justice for all, and include, amongst other things, the adoption of a new pre-acceptance procedure for both claimants and respondents, and a re-structuring and re-writing of the Rules in plain English.

  These proposed tribunal regulations form part of an overall package of measures. They take account of, and dovetail with, the new dispute resolution regulations being introduced by the Government to encourage settlement of disputes in the workplace. The Government also intends to revise the Employment Appeal Tribunal rules to a similar timescale.

  In preparing the revised Regulations, DTI has been working closely with a wide range of stakeholders, including the judicial Presidents, the Employment Tribunals Service arid ACAS. Representatives of businesses and the trade unions have also been involved in the preliminary consultation process. These and other bodies will now, through this formal public consultation, have a further opportunity to offer views on the way the revised regulations are to be taken forward and to ensure that the procedures of the Employment Tribunals deliver fairness and justice to all.

  Consumer Credit
  The Minister for Women and Equality (Ms Patricia Hewitt)
  I have today published a White Paper "Fair, Clear and Competitive: A Consumer Credit Market for the 21st Century", setting out the Government's proposals for reform of the legislation governing consumer credit. The White Paper sets out the conclusions of the review of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 launched in July 2001 and is based on extensive consultation with stakeholders.
  72WS
  As part of the White Paper package, I have also today published for consultation detailed proposals—including draft legislation—for changes to the rules governing the early settlement of credit agreements; the advertising of consumer credit; and the form and content of credit agreements. The consultation also sets out new proposals on the calculation of credit card APRs and on facilitating the conclusion of credit agreements by electronic means.

  Britain has the most energetic and competitive consumer credit market in Europe. However, the legislation regulating it is almost thirty years old. Although it has generally stood the test of time extremely well, the credit market has developed to an extent never envisaged in the early 1970s.

  The time is right for a thorough-going modernisation of the consumer credit framework; one that encourages and enables innovation and competition in the marketplace, yet still provides appropriate protection for today's consumers.

  Credit has become an integral part of our daily lives. For many, it is the lifeline that enables them to deal with the emergencies that arise, helping match regular income against the irregular demands and risks of modern life.

  But credit, of course, can also introduce risks of its own. Some consumers take out loans that are inappropriate and expensive. Others are tipped into debt by a sudden change in circumstance. But there are also consumers that are preyed upon by loan-sharks, whose activities often exploit the socially deprived sections of our community. It is simply not possible to escape from poverty if what little people have is asset-stripped by predatory lenders. And this White Paper sets out tough measures to police and crack down on loan-sharks and other such rogue lenders.

  But it is also about providing consumers with the right information at the right time, so they can make informed decisions. Consumers need to be able to consider the key factors of a loan before they take it out. To do this they need clear, understandable information.

  New protections will go hand in hand with a series of changes to promote a more open, competitive market, offering more choice and less restriction.

  This White Paper proposes a range of legislative changes relevant to the credit market of today. It will be regulated in a way that provides consumers with choice, information and protection at the right time. It also outlines our plans for a strategic approach to minimising over-indebtedness and improving financial inclusion by educating consumers; providing easier access to financial advice; and ensuring access to affordable credit.

  I have placed copies of the White Paper and other related documents in the Libraries of the House.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  Higher Education Participation
  The Minister for Lifelong Learning, Further and Higher Education (Alan Johnson)
  In November 2002 my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Margaret Hodge), commissioned a quality review of the Initial Entry Rate (IER) statistic. The review, which was carried out independently in accordance with guidelines published by the Office for National Statistics (ONS), was designed to ensure that the IER statistic was rigorous and transparent.

  The findings of the review were published on 17 November 2003. The main recommendations were that:
  The IER statistic should measure initial participation rather than initial entry and as such should be renamed the "Higher Education Initial Participation Rate" (HEIPR).
  Only those students who attend their course for at least six months will count toward the HEIPR.
  The HEIPR should be published to the nearest whole number.

  The most recent data available for these measurements are for the academic year 2001–02. The IER figure for 2001–02 was 43.5 per cent. When the recommendations of the quality review are taken into account, the new HEIPR figure for 2001–02 is 43.9 per cent. or 44 per cent. when rounded. Figures for 2002–03 will be produced when data become available.

  The full report is available via the ONS website and a copy has been placed in the House of Commons Library.

TRANSPORT

  Autumn Performance Report
  The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Alistair Darling)
  I have today published my Department's autumn performance report for 2003. Copies have been laid before Parliament and placed in the House Libraries.

  The report sets out the Department's progress made on our seven public service agreement targets over the last six months since the publication of the annual report in May 2003.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Pakistan
  The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Jack Straw)
  The Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire (Mike O'Brien) is to visit Pakistan imminently. Pakistan is an important ally and partner of the UK. We work closely with Pakistan in a number of fields, and our bilateral relationship is warm and close. Our mutual commitment to developing this relationship is shown by the successful visits to the United Kingdom by President Musharraf and Foreign Minister Kasuri during the course of 2003.
  74WS
  Pakistan is a key partner for the UK in the campaign against terrorism. With US, UK and other international support, Pakistan has arrested over 500 terrorist suspects since 11 September 2001, including leaders like Khalid Sheikh Muhammad who is suspected of planning the attacks in New York. We also welcome and encourage measures taken by the Government of Pakistan against organisations which pose a threat to Pakistan's security and to regional and international stability, including efforts to root out the al-Qaeda and Taliban elements which continue to destabilise Afghanistan in particular.

  In the political sphere we value Pakistan's membership of the UN Security Council, and have welcomed their constructive contribution in that forum over the last year. We hope to continue and intensify our co-operation in the year ahead. We are also engaging with Pakistan on a whole range of regional and global issues. both bilaterally and in other international fora.

  We welcome recent progress in normalising relations between Pakistan and India, including the latest agreements on a ceasefire and resumption of air links. It has taken statesmanship by President Musharraf and Prime Minister Vajpayee to achieve the progress so far. This is an encouraging start to a process which we hope, with sustained efforts of both sides to address each others legitimate concerns, will lead to the resolution of all the outstanding issues between them, including on Kashmir.

  Our defence relationship is deepening following the re-establishment of the UK-Pakistan Defence Cooperation Forum in early 2002. We greatly value our important and historic links with the Pakistan armed forces. We will maintain and build on this progress.

  We have an important trade relationship. The UK is the biggest foreign investor in Pakistan and the UK is the country's 5th largest export market. All this is in the context of an increasingly stable and strong macroeconomic environment in Pakistan, and a government committed to liberalising reform, including privatisation. We appreciate the good work being done in this field by the Pakistan-Britain Trade and Investment Forum (PBTIF), and the Pakistan Britain Business Advisory Group (PBBAG). The UK was also a strong supporter of the establishment of the EU/Pakistan Trade Agreement in late 2001.

  We are also working together in the field of judicial cooperation through the Joint Judicial Cooperation Working Group.

  The UK remains committed to supporting Pakistan's long-term development. We are giving approximately £70 million of development assistance this year, four times more than previously, and last week agreed to the release of an additional tranche of £22.5 million in budget support for the Government of Pakistan's long-term Poverty Reduction Strategy, and the Health and Population Welfare Facility. This bilateral programme is focused on social sector development—particularly in education and health—to make a difference to the lives of those millions of Pakistanis who live in poverty. UK development assistance for Pakistan will amount to over £200 million over the next three years.
  75WS
  Finally, there are of course strong community links between the UK and Pakistan. 800,000 people of Pakistani heritage are estimated to live in the UK. Over 85,000 Pakistanis visited the UK in 2003, including 6,000 students, and we expect this to rise to over 100,000 next year. Under normal circumstances our visa operation in Pakistan is one of the busiest in the world, and we are working hard to restore a full service following the disruption caused by terrorist threats to High Commission personnel.

HEALTH

  Pharmaceutical Price Regulation Scheme
  The Minister of State, Department of Health (Ms Rosie Winterton)
  The seventh report to Parliament on the pharmaceutical price regulation scheme (PPRS) was published today.

  The report, entitled "PPRS: Seventh Report to Parliament", covers the management and operation of the 1999 scheme, which was introduced in October 1999 including the delivery of the 4.5 per cent. price cut. It explains the Government's objectives for the scheme and gives consolidated information on company annual financial returns. The report sets out the contribution made to the economy by the UK based pharmaceutical
  76WS
  industry and describes the review of the current PPRS and the publication of the discussion paper seeking views on options for the future.

  Copies of the report have been placed in the Library.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Export of Works of Art
  The Minister for the Arts (Estelle Morris)
  The report of the review of the Reviewing Committee on the Export of Works of Art will be published today.

  The Review was led by the Director of Arts and Culture at DCMS and supported by the Review Management Team of the Arts and Culture Directorate. An independent Steering Group guided the Review and the work of the Review was informed by a thorough consultation exercise.

  The report finds that the Committee is fulfilling Government and Departmental objectives in relation to the protection of objects of national importance and that there is widespread support for its continuation.

  The Department will consider in more depth the issues raised by the Review and also issues raised by the Goodison Review on "Saving Art for the Nation", which is due to be published later this week.

  Copies of the report will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses. The Review will also be available on the DCMS website http://www.culture.gov.uk.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers-Read by the Lord Bishop of Salisbury.

Traffic Calming
Lord Dubsasked Her Majesty's Government:
What assessment they have made of the benefits of road humps and other traffic-calming measures.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the Department for Transport has an extensive programme of research into the benefits of all forms of traffic calming, including road humps. Full details of current research and summaries of results of completed research are provided in the road safety and local transport research compendia, produced regularly. These are available on the department's website.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I think I am grateful to my noble friend. Does he agree that there has been an epidemic of road humps, certainly all over London, and that they do not help the police, ambulance or fire services'? I doubt very much whether they add to road safety. My noble friend did not really tell the House whether they did. But they may provide a bonanza for the firms that repair suspensions and shock absorbers.
Is it not a waste of money for local authorities—at a time when money is tight—to be putting in road humps, sometimes in streets that are unlikely to have speeding traffic? Can the Government do anything to advise local authorities to desist?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for those questions. I assure him that we regard traffic-calming measures, of which speed humps are the most effective, as very significant indeed in reducing road speeds and hence accidents. The figures are quite straightforward. Research shows that a 1 mile per hour reduction on mean speeds produces a 5 to 6 per cent reduction in personal injury accidents. So they are effective.
They are effective too for the police because speeding limits are enforced without policemen needing to be present. I bear in mind what my noble friend says about the issue of speed humps interfering with the emergency services—police, fire and ambulance—on certain occasions. The attempt is to seek to ensure that there are not speed humps on through routes. But in residential areas members of the public campaign for speed humps because they know they are safer for them and for their children.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that some of these humps, particularly the ones at entrances to railway stations—for example, Euston and
542
Waterloo—are notoriously vicious and dangerous? Can there be some kind of minimal or maximum specification on the size of these humps?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, there are specifications. The steepest humps are in places such as railway stations because of the vast amount of pedestrian activity, sometimes unaware pedestrian activity when people are in strange and unusual surroundings and can blunder into traffic. So the speed humps are there to make sure that the traffic moves at the slowest possible speed in such congested areas.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the word traffic "calming" is rather confusing? In fact, traffic-calming measures tend to aggravate even the nicest, kindest and slowest of drivers.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I think the concept of "calming" is addressed to the vehicle rather than to the personality of the driver.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that it is rather better to have vicious speed humps than cars that are speeding viciously from the view of a pedestrian or cyclist?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, that is the point. Traffic-calming measures are related to reducing accidents, particularly accidents to pedestrians, cyclists and other vulnerable road users.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, do the Government really have their policy right? Is it not as opaque as the Minister's Answer to the noble Lord, Lord Dubs? How does he explain that in Yorkshire a £4 million fleet of new ambulances is sitting idle because it cannot get over the road humps; and that Barnet council in London has recently made the decision to remove all the speed humps in its borough following a statement by the London Ambulance Service that speed humps cause delays and cost lives? How does he explain those two facts in the light of his answers and the Government's policy?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, it is interesting that the noble Viscount puts emphasis on the one borough which has taken this dramatic action and not on the other boroughs which have not. We must have regard to the needs of the emergency services. There have been some problems, particularly where speed humps have been on roads which are through routes and it has been necessary for emergency services to use them on occasions with some speed.
Overall, the position across the country is quite straightforward: local authorities are besieged by residents seeking to have traffic-calming measures in their neighbourhood. They have to reach a judgment between the increased safety they may well provide for residents and the proper needs of the emergency services and other traffic to proceed at reasonable speed.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that the problem is far from simple and that road humps cause a tremendous amount of inconvenience to everyone using the roads? As has been pointed out, they cause inconvenience to ambulances. One police force even said that they prevent it reaching accidents and emergencies. Why do not the Government do away with the stupid things altogether?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, there are more ways than one to achieve traffic calming. As the noble Earl will know, there are chicanes and flashing signs that state at what speed one should be travelling. But let me reassure him of this about traffic-calming measures. Our most recent research states that on the introduction of such calming measures, the average annual accident frequency fell by 60 per cent; child pedestrian accident frequency fell by 70 per cent; child cyclist accidents fell by 48 per cent; and there was an overall reduction of 67 per cent for all child accidents. That is a gain worth having.
Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, does the Minister agree that most of us who represent rural areas are besieged with applications for road humps and speed cameras because, in most villages, there are no police and people rely on self-enforcement—namely, cameras and humps—to give some peace to the residents of rural areas?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, that is certainly so and provides an additional answer to the question asked by the noble Viscount, Lord Astor. Of course a balance must be struck; we all recognise that. There may have been excessive enthusiasm in some areas that has affected routes that need to be used by the emergency services. But I do not believe that any of us denies the obvious fact that speed kills and that it is important to reduce excessive speed.
Baroness David: My Lords, am I right, as I have been told, to say that such humps are not good environmentally because cars must slow down and then accelerate, encouraging a greater use of petrol?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, any alteration in vehicle speeds involves extra fuel consumption and adds to environmental problems but, frankly, we must balance the question of the safety of our fellow citizens against that marginal environmental aspect.

Tax Harmonisation
2.46 p.m.
Lord Barnettasked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their policy in relation to the European Union's indirect tax harmonisation proposals.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Lord McIntosh of Haringey): My Lords, indirect taxation may be harmonised only to the extent necessary for the effective operation of the internal market, and tax measures may be decided only by unanimity.
Any change to unanimity on tax can itself be made only by unanimity. Tax matters are a key component of national sovereignty and vital to the social and economic well-being of the country. The Government have made it clear that tax must remain a matter for national governments.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, 1 appreciate that my noble friend has to answer in line with his Treasury brief, but perhaps I may ask him a personal question. I promise that I will not tell the Treasury. Does not he accept that, in a 25-member European Union, it makes a lot of sense and is helpful to trade to have at least some movement towards harmonisation of indirect taxation?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I do not know that I have any personality left after six and half years. That is a sacrifice that one makes in the greater cause. But even as a person I do not agree with my noble friend. As I said in my previous Answer—some of the wording was my own—tax matters are a key component of national sovereignty. I remain to be convinced that the new members of the European Community take a different view.
Lord Harrison: My Lords, does my noble friend recognise that he is indeed right to say that some judicious measures of indirect taxation facilitate the working of the single European market and, therefore, help British Ministers to succeed in that regard? Does he agree that those who oppose the judicious, case-by-case selection of appropriate measures are in essence against the running of a market?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, we have always said that we were against measures that produced unfair tax competition. We have opposed such measures since the beginning.
However, I must tell my noble friend that those fighting for tax harmonisation have lost the support of the European Commission. First in June 2000 and then in its strategy document published in October this year, the Commission refers not to harmonisation but—in our view, rightly—to simplification, modernisation, close co-operation between tax authorities and the better application of existing rules. The battle for tax harmonisation, which we might at some stage have had to fight, no longer needs to be fought.
Lord Newby: My Lords, does the Minister welcome the recent decision reached by the French significantly to increase taxation on cigarettes for health reasons? That will also have the effect of reducing the incentive to smuggle cigarettes into the UK. Can the UK

545
Government urge other EU member states which still have very low taxation on cigarettes to follow the French example?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, it is not for me to comment favourably or unfavourably on the tax policies of other member states, just as we would not wish them to comment on our policies. However, although I do not know the figures for tobacco, it is. worth saying that if we were to reduce our alcohol duties to the levels of those pertaining in France it would cost us £5 billion in revenue.
Baroness Wilcox: My Lords, Members on these Benches become worried when they hear a prestigious noble Lord, a former Chief Secretary to the Treasury, having to ask Ministers on his own Front Bench a Question such as this in the House. We, too, are worried that the Government may not stick to the line they are purporting; that is, that we shall be able to control our own tax affairs in this country. Perhaps I may ask one or two more questions for further edification. Do Her Majesty's Government agree that the UK's historically relatively low business taxes have helped UK businesses to be competitive in the global marketplace? Further, does the Minister share my view that tax competition between countries is important to enable countries to stimulate demand in times of poor economic growth?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I fear that the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, will have to look for more important things to worry about than the Question tabled by my noble friend Lord Barnett. However, the answer to her first question is yes, while the answer to her second question is as I have already said: we are in favour of dealing effectively with unfair tax competition.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that Members of the Opposition Front Bench seem to misunderstand the job of Chief Secretary to the Treasury? I was not suggesting for a moment that the Treasury should reduce the amount of tax revenue. What I sought to suggest, and what I thought would be perfectly sensible, would be to try to move towards some harmonisation of indirect tax rates with a view to being helpful to trade. I should have thought that even the Opposition would understand that.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Barnett has gone some way to assuaging the concerns of the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, or at least I hope that he has. However, my response to his subsequent question has to be the same: yes of course there are advantages in harmonisation for the effective operation of the internal market. If that is what my noble friend means, then I agree with him.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, is suggesting that VAT should be put on to children's clothes and on newspapers?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I did not hear him say that.

Press Complaints Commission
2.53 p.m.
Lord Taverneasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will empower the Press Complaints Commission to impose heavy fines on newspapers which publish inaccurate stories and refuse to publish prompt and prominent corrections.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Press Complaints Commission is an independent body. The Government have no control over it and, therefore, no powers to enable it to impose fines.
Lord Taverne: My Lords, is it not clear that the Press Complaints Commission as it is now constituted is a feeble body which fails to control the excesses of the press? One example, which unfortunately could be multiplied many times, was the recent lies concerning asylum seekers and the killing of swans and eating of donkeys. What alternative have the Government to offer that would deal effectively with newspapers which do not give a tinker's cuss about truth or accuracy in pursuing their own agenda, often causing considerable harm to people who are not in a position to defend themselves?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, as a citizen, the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, has every right to make complaints about the behaviour and accuracy of the press; he has the opportunity to do so through the Press Complaints Commission. As a former Minister, I know that he feels as I do now that the exposition, shall we say, of government policy in the newspapers is not always as complete, accurate and impartial as we might wish it to be. However, that is a very long way from saying that we should abandon the democratic principle of a free press in this country.
Lord Hughes of Woodside: My Lords, is it not the case that the ability to make a complaint to the Press Complaints Commission is restricted to those who are damaged by the reports? If an individual writes to the Press Complaints Commission, it can respond by saying, "No one has complained about that. As a member of the general public you have no locus. However, we may take a look at it". The commission then does nothing about it.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, there are other means of registering a complaint other than through the Press Complaints Commission. If someone has a genuine grievance against the press, they are able to write to the newspaper and to expect a response. In recent years, some of the more responsible newspapers have set up as a principle what is called the "readers' editor". Through that system even trivial errors are corrected, although some, such as readers of the Guardian, might think that that is done to excess. Those are matters for the newspapers and not ones on which the Government ought to have a view.
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the difficulty arising from the noble Lord's suggestion is that, even if that were instituted—and I have some doubts about it—it would be a remedy only for the rich and the powerful and would do nothing for ordinary people?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I was interested to read the recent report of the Select Committee for Culture, Media and Sport. It stated that space ought to be made available for a regime that was "gently punitive"—that is, adjusting registration fees for the Press Complaints Commission—and "modestly compensatory". The problem is, as the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, has just pointed out, that something which is "modestly compensatory" and causes no pain to a national newspaper could be desperately damaging financially to a small, local newspaper.
Lord McNally: My Lords, can I ask the Minister to comment on an area of the press where Ministers do have a direct responsibility? If the Daily Telegraph comes into play, will the Minister guarantee that the Government will ensure that any would-be purchaser goes through the most rigorous examination before ownership is allowed, to guarantee both probity and editorial independence?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, in that hypothetical situation, I am sure that the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry will exercise her powers with due diligence.
Lord Elton: My Lords, surely my noble friend Lord Wakeham has put his finger on what is wrong with the system. Any system which provides a remedy only for the rich and the powerful is absolutely useless to the general public and, indeed, for unnamed groups of people such as immigrants who do not have a voice. Does the Minister agree that what is needed is a body with a voluntary structure, not under government control, and which has rather more teeth? It would be able to shame those in error perhaps by compelling them to print their apologies in large type on the front page every time.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the way in which any error is to be corrected is of course a matter for the Press Complaints Commission. I understand that, from time to time, it does insist on a particular size and location of display of an apology or correction.

House of Lords: Composition
2.59 p.m.
Lord Selsdonasked Her Majesty's Government:
How many Members of the House, on 26th November 2003, were elected Peers and how many were appointed Peers.
The Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs and Lord Chancellor (Lord Falconer of Thoroton): My Lords, there were 684 Members of the House of Lords on 26th November 2003, of which 539 were sitting as Life Peers under the terms of the Life Peerages Act 1958, 27 were sitting as either serving or former Lords of Appeal in Ordinary under the terms of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act 1876, and 26 Bishops and Archbishops of the Church of England were sitting as a consequence of taking up their diocesan sees. There were also 92 hereditary Peers excepted from the provision to exclude hereditary Peers under the terms of the House of Lords Act 1999.
Lord Selsdon: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for the opaque transparency of his response. In this season of good will, could I ask him whether he would be kind enough to recommend to his honourable and right honourable friends that the correct title for the hereditary Peers to whom he has just referred is "elected hereditary Peers", unless the word "elected" sticks in his throat?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I do not think that it would be the right way to describe those Peers. For example, as we know, the last election that happily resulted in the arrival of my noble friend Lord Grantchester was an "election" held in which there was an electorate of three and something like three times as many candidates. Of course, technically, hereditary Peers are elected, but I do not think that people beyond the confines of this Chamber would necessarily think that they have been "elected" in the more conventional sense.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, with respect, the noble and learned Lord cannot get away with that. Does he recall that it was an election suggested by the Labour Party, which formed the Government at the time? It had the approval of Members of the House of Commons; it had the approval of Members of your Lordships' House; and it had the approval of Parliament. It is not possible to say that they were not elected. The system may be wrong, but that is the Government's fault.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, as the noble Earl heard, the question to which I responded was whether I would recommend to my right honourable and honourable friends that henceforward they would be called "elected" Members of the House. The answer is no, I will not recommend that to my right honourable and honourable friends because I do not believe that people beyond this Chamber would regard that as the kind of election they perhaps had in mind for the House of Lords.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, having listened to the noble and learned Lord on the "Today" programme this morning, why does he not accept that the way forward to a proper democratic reform of your

549
Lordships' House involving real elections is not for the Government to seek a non-existent consensus but to show some leadership?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, before we move beyond the House of Lords reform Bill, which will be proposed this Session, we should seek to find consensus. Accompanying the announcement of a statutory appointments commission and the removal of the hereditaries, we made it clear that the door was open. We hope that we shall be able to move people through it.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, it is good news that the noble and learned Lord is in favour of consultation and consensus, but why is he in favour of it only after the passage of the proposed Bill rather than before?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, because it has taken so long to reach consensus, the idea that the hereditaries should remain and that any Prime Minister of the day should still be able to determine the size of the House and the size of the respective political parties is, I believe, no longer sustainable.
Lord Elton: My Lords, even at this late stage, does not the noble and learned Lord consider that there would be merit in considering the arrangements of both Houses at the same time?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, that may well be right for further stages of reform but, in terms of the hereditary Peers, the statutory appointments commission and the idea of the Prime Minister being able to determine the size of the House and the size of the political parties, I do not believe that anyone suggests that that is a sensible or appropriate way to deal with the matter.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, does not the noble and learned Lord believe that the 15 Peers who were elected by the entire House deserve the title of "elected hereditary Peer"?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, again, I do not believe that they deserve that title. They are deserving in many respects but, as to whether they should be called "elected", one should look at how the world outside the Chamber views this issue. The question of "elected" Members of this House means "elected by a wider public".
Lord Marsh: My Lords, does not the noble and learned Lord agree that this exchange demonstrates beyond any argument the enthusiasm and desire from all quarters of the House to get on with these reforms?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, that is not necessarily the impression one gets from this exchange. However, I am more than happy to agree with the noble Lord. We should try to move on and make progress on the two reforms to which we are referring.
Lord Hughes of Woodside: My Lords, would not an examination of the voting lists from the last time we
550
had choices of the kind of House we would have reveal that the hereditary Peers were all over the shop, just like everyone else?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I do not know the precise figures but this House voted three to one or four to one in favour of an appointed House. This may well not be the stage two that the Labour Party wishes, but it certainly appears to be the stage two that a vast majority of this House want.
Lord Elton: My Lords, does the noble and learned Lord realise that his answer to my first supplementary question was highly unsatisfactory to those of us who were elected—whether we are called "elected" or not— because we understood that we were elected in order to be here for the final settlement? The noble and learned Lord's answer suggested that what is to be done next is merely to eliminate those of us who were elected in order to get on with the job without us being there to put in our piece.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, as was made clear at the time the assurances were given, they were intended to be for a short period. The transitional period was intended to last—
Noble Lords: No!
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, that was specifically said at the time the assurances were given in Hansard. The precise reason that the hereditaries were staying was for that short period. As regards the assurances given in relation to stage two and its definition, as I said earlier, the stage two that very many people on the other side of the House wanted was a fully appointed House.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, does not the noble and learned Lord remember—if he was here— that there was no reference to a short period? I was here. There was no reference to a transitional period as a cut-off on the basis of the deal that was made. Does not the noble and learned Lord know that?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, both of those points were referred to by my noble and learned friend the then Lord Chancellor in the course of the debate on the 1999 Bill.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, when the noble and learned Lord refers to a "short period", is it in comparison to the life of the nation or only to the life of one Parliament?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, a "short period" in relation to the particular assurances that were given is a short period not in relation to the life of the nation but a few years at most.
Lord Selsdon: My Lords, I hate to correct the noble and learned Lord but in the September edition—as in every edition since 1999—of the publication Who does

551
what in The Lords reference is made to 90 Peers as "elected". I commend the noble and learned Lord to read that publication.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I am grateful. I shall certainly read it. I am not sure that it is necessarily regarded as an authoritative document.

Business of the House: Debate, 9th December
The Lord President of the Council (Baroness Amos):
My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the time limit on the debate on the Motion in the name of the Baroness Greenfield set down for Tuesday 9th December shall be increased from two and a half hours to three hours.— (Baroness Amos.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

European Union

  Statutory Instruments
  The Chairman of Committees (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, I beg to move the two Motions standing in my name on the Order Paper en bloc.
  European Union
  Moved, That a Select Committee be appointed to consider European Union documents and other matters relating to the European Union;
  That the expression "European Union documents" shall include the following documents:

  (i) Any proposal under the Community treaties for legislation by the Council or the Council acting jointly with the European Parliament;

  (ii) Any document which is published for submission to the European Council, the Council or the European Central Bank;

  (iii) Any proposal for a common strategy, a joint action or a common position under Title V (provisions on a common foreign and security policy) of the Treaty on European Union which is prepared for submission to the Council or to the European Council;

  (iv) Any proposal for a common position, framework decision, decision or a convention under Title VI (provisions on police and judicial co-operation in criminal matters) of the Treaty on European Union which is prepared for submission to the Council;

  (v) Any document (not falling within (ii), (iii) or (iv) above) which is published by one Union institution for or with a view to submission to another Union institution and which does not relate exclusively to consideration of any proposal for legislation;

  552

  (vi) Any other document relating to European Union matters deposited in the House by a Minister of the Crown.

  That, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the following Lords be named of the committee:

  B. Billingham,

  L. Bowness,

  L. Brennan,

  L. Dubs,

  L. Geddes,

  L. Grenfell (Chairman),

  L. Hannay of Chiswick,

  B. Harris of Richmond,

  B. Maddock,

  L. Marlesford,

  L. Neill of Bladen,

  B. Park of Monmouth,

  L. Radice,

  L. Renton of Mount Harry,

  L. Scott of Foscote,

  L. Shutt of Greetland,

  L. Williamson of Horton,

  L. Woolmer of Leeds;

  That the committee have power to appoint sub-committees and to refer to such sub-committees any of the matters within the terms of reference of the committee; that the committee have power to appoint the chairmen of sub-committees, but that such sub-committees have power to appoint their own chairman for the purpose of particular inquiries; that two be the quorum of such sub-committees;
  That the committee have power to co-opt any Lord for the purpose of serving on a sub-committee;
  That the committee have power to appoint specialist advisers;
  That the committee and any sub-committee have power to adjourn from place to place;
  That the committee have leave to report from time to time;
  That the reports of the Select Committee from time to time shall be printed, notwithstanding any adjournment of the House;
  That the minutes of evidence taken before the European Union Committee or any sub-committee in the last Session of Parliament be referred to the committee;
  That the minutes of evidence taken before the committee from time to time shall, if the committee think fit, be printed.
  Statutory Instruments
  Moved, pursuant to Standing Order 74 and the resolution of the House of 16th December 1997, That, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the following Lords be appointed to join with a Committee of the Commons as the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments:

  L. Brougham and Vaux,

  B. Gale,

  L. Greenway,

  L. Lea of Crondall,

  553

  L. Mancroft,

  E. Russell,

  L. Skelmersdale.—(The Chairman of Committees.)

  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  Business of the House: Summer Recess 2004
  3.7 p.m.
  Baroness Amosrose to move to resolve. That it is the opinion of this House that, subject to the requirements of business, the House should rise for the Summer Recess not later than Thursday 22nd July 2004, should sit during two weeks in September 2004, and should sit again no sooner than Monday 1lth October 2004.
  The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the Group on Working Practices, chaired last year by my predecessor, noted that the other place was to start sitting in September and recommended that this House should do the same. The Procedure Committee said that it supported the group's aim of a more balanced parliamentary year and recommended that the House should decide. Accordingly, the late Lord Williams of Mostyn moved a Motion similar to this one on 25th November last year. That Motion was explicitly limited to 2003. I now invite the House to agree to experiment with this new sitting pattern for a further year.
  At the end of this Session the House will have to decide which aspects of the working practices package, if any, to keep, vary or abandon, including this one. Following that decision, there should be no further need for an annual Motion.
  The other place will sit next September and I invite the House to do the same. The same arguments apply as for the previous Session. The September sitting pattern is rational in its own right. It is more balanced over the year; it is more family friendly; it is less open to criticism of excessive summer holidays; and it reduces the risk of emergency recall. I cannot imagine that we would have got through this summer without a recall if we had not been due to sit in September.
  In a bicameral Parliament the two Houses should march broadly in step. If the Motion is not agreed to it will be impossible to do anything on a bicameral basis between 22nd July and 11th October—no ping-pong; no Royal Assent; no approval of affirmative instruments; no creating or convening of a Joint Committee—unless one House or the other is recalled specifically.
  Let me be clear. If the Motion is agreed to then, as my noble friend the Chief Whip told the House on 30th October, subject to progress of business, it is expected that the House will rise on 22nd July and resume on 7th September; rise on 16th September for the party conferences and resume on 11th October. If it is disagreed to then, subject to progress of business, it is expected that the House will rise on 28th July and resume on 4th October. It is a straight swap; seven
  554
  sitting days for seven sitting days. It will mean a six-week break between July and September and a three-week conference break before the House resumes in October.
  This is a House matter and I invite the House to decide. I beg to move.
  Moved to resolve, That it is the opinion of this House that, subject to the requirements of business, the House should rise for the Summer Recess not later than Thursday 22nd July 2004, should sit during two weeks in September 2004, and should sit again no sooner than Monday 11th October 2004.—(Baroness Amos.)
  Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, so far as we are concerned, this is a free vote, and I hope that that is so on all sides of the House. The noble Baroness the Leader of the House has just given us further assurance that, whether the Motion is won or lost, it will make no difference to the total number of sitting days. I accept that that is determined by the time that we take to consider the business before us. I am grateful to the noble Baroness the Leader of the House for giving the whole House the chance to vote on the issue.
  I shall vote against the Motion, as I prefer the traditional pattern of sittings. So does my wife—that is an influential matter, at least for me. I wish to make clear that the proposal is not the same as the one that we had a year ago following the report on working practices by Lord Williams of Mostyn. He suggested, and noble Lords agreed, that in the previous Session we should rise in mid-July and sit for two weeks in early September. This Motion is different. Assuming the exigencies of business do not interfere, we would rise three-quarters of the way through July, as the noble Baroness made clear, and definitely not sit during the Conservative Party conference at the end of the recess.
  The main argument advanced previously, and again today, is that it is desirable for this House to sit at the same time as another place. I see no logic or merit in that argument. Conventionally, the Houses have not sat on the same days, and our annual pattern of business varies from that of another place. Furthermore, I understand that sitting in September tends to increase the running costs of this House. We pride ourselves—at least, sometimes—on making a relatively modest call on public funds for the expense of running this House. I do not know how much the increase will be, or whether the noble Baroness the Leader of the House can tell us how much more it would cost to accept the Motion, but I have been unable to come across a figure yet.
  I accept the argument that sometimes Parliament has been recalled during the long recess because of war or another large matter. However, although we sat earlier this year for two weeks in September while the crisis in Iraq was pressing, we had a Statement and some Questions but the Government did not find time for us to debate Iraq because of the weight, and the late introduction, of government Bills. We did not debate Iraq or any such matter in September. I question whether it would have been necessary to recall

  555
  Parliament in those circumstances. Today's decision is simply whether to sit in September 2004. I would prefer not to, and I will vote against the Motion.
  Lord Roper: My Lords, we welcome the opportunity for the House to consider the matter. It is a fulfilment of the pledge given by the previous Leader of the House, Lord Williams of Mostyn. The noble Baroness the Leader of the House suggested that it was to the advantage of a bicameral House to meet at identical times and gave three reasons why that was convenient. There is not much ping-pong in September, and we do not often set up new Joint Committees at that time of year. Although I accept the point about Royal Assent, the other two points do not seem fundamental.
  It can be argued—although it is not too strong a point either way—that if the Houses sit at slightly different times, there are more days in the year in which one House is in session to hold the Government to account and to ask Questions on issues of topical interest. There are arguments running both ways on the efficacy of Parliament.
  On this matter there is a free vote in all parts of the House. I suspect that most noble Lords will take into account their personal interests, although it is important that we consider the other parliamentary issues raised.
  Lord Carter: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Roper, has just answered my point. The arguments for not sitting in September seem largely to be based on Peers' personal convenience—the ability to take one's holiday after the school holidays, perhaps to pursue outside occupations, or the convenience of the House authorities in their work programme. I can think of no political or constitutional argument against sitting in September.
  The argument for sitting when the House of Commons sits relates to the public perception of this House. We claim, quite properly, to be a serious second Chamber one of whose tasks is to hold the executive to account—we did that extremely well in the previous Session, with 89 defeats—but we then have a nine or 10–week break. That would be particularly unfortunate if an issue arose that, although not sufficiently important to require the recall of Parliament, was debated in the Commons when the Lords was not sitting. We should think very hard, particularly given the importance of the House of Lords in the coming Session—we all know the number of Bills in which we will take particular interest— about the public perception of this House if, when the Commons is sitting, we choose to take a nine or 10-week break. On balance, I cannot help feeling that it would not be of benefit to this House's reputation if we decided not to sit in September when the House of Commons did. If the House of Commons changed its mind, the argument would change.
  I wish to make two tangential points. I was the chairman of the Joint Committee on the draft Mental Incapacity Bill, which was given an extremely tight
  556
  timetable. The fact that the House was sitting in September meant that we had four very important evidence sessions, which enabled us to meet our timetable. My next point is even more tangential. The House sits for two weeks in September and then breaks for three weeks for the party conferences. Perhaps the day will come when the parties will see the sense of having a four-day conference over a long weekend— Friday, Saturday, Sunday and Monday. The two Houses could continue to sit every day except Friday and Monday on three successive weekends, and the summer break would be much easier to arrange.
  Lord Boston of Faversham: My Lords, I regret that I cannot support the Motion moved by the noble Baroness the Leader of the House. I am regretful because I have great admiration and affection for her, so I hope that she will forgive me.
  I shall not detain the House for long, as we have been over this course during our debate on a similar Motion last year. As touched on by the opposition Chief Whip, we have considered it desirable to sit at the same time as another place; however, it was demonstrated amply last year that that has not traditionally been the case, and it certainly has not affected the workings of Parliament.
  The terms of last year's Motion included the proposal that,
  "the Summer Recess should begin not later than the middle of July".
  This year we rose on 18th July, which is stretching the interpretation of "the middle" a tiny bit, at least. As the opposition Chief Whip said, no such words have appeared in today's Motion. It proposes that the House rise,
  "not later than Thursday 22nd July 2004".
  The prospect of rising in mid-July, which was held out to us when this proposal was first mooted let alone moved last year, has slipped, which was always one of my fears. There is always the temptation for a government to fill all available space with their business, despite the desirability of having less rather than more legislation. All governments do it and one can hardly blame them because, after all, it is a fact of life. However, we do not have to live with it without taking the trouble to do something about it.
  Then there was that other matter—which I introduced into our debate just over a year ago—the double disruption of the use of the House caused by interrupting the vast and essential maintenance and building work that we undertake during the Summer Recess. The floorboards come up and the rewiring starts the day after we rise for the long recess. Then, with September sittings, it all has to put back and, after 10 days or thereabouts, it all has to be taken up again and put back in time for our re-assembly in early October. Our own domestic departments in this place are not able to get a clear run, as 1 know from my experience from working with them as your Lordships' Chairman of Committees for several years. The contractors that we employ have to stop and then start

  557
  up again, which must incur extra costs, although, as the opposition Chief Whip indicated, we have not been given any idea of what those costs amount to.
  When I raised this matter last year, I understand that one or two Members either misunderstood or misinterpreted what I said. I was to blame if there was any misunderstanding, because that meant that I had not explained myself sufficiently clearly. However, I fear that I cannot accept responsibility for any misinterpretation. If somebody misdirects himself or herself, that is a matter for him or her—if they will forgive my saying so, very delicately and gently, I hasten to add.
  I gather that one or two Members thought that I was worried about inconvenience to contractors and to our own departments. I was not. I was concerned about inconvenience to Parliament and to its Members. Indeed, I sought both to avoid and to anticipate any misunderstanding that might have arisen from what I said by including in my speech last year that I thought that our departments and any contractors that we employ would do what is required of them, which I still believe. I feel that it is right to place that on the record. I am concerned about the double disruption of Parliament and the inconvenience to its Members.
  There is one other short matter that I should like to mention. We are a largely voluntary House, although a small number of Members—such as office holders, Ministers and other leaders—rightly occupy paid positions. Because we are voluntary, there is a reluctance to refer to our own interests; on occasion, there is even a fear to do so. However, we occasionally have a right to consider our own personal interests. After all, the nation benefits quite considerably from the time, knowledge, expertise, experience and high qualifications that so many of your Lordships bring to this place and to the service of the House. We have our own lives to live. On behalf of any who feel reluctant to raise these personal interests, I point out that some Members and their families will be adversely affected by this proposal.
  I hope that your Lordships will not accept the Motion and that we will return to the previous pattern of sittings. It would be unrealistic and unreasonable to expect the noble Baroness the Leader of the House to withdraw her Motion. However, if it is passed, I have one remaining hope—that she will not seek to move a similar Motion again.
  Lord Jopling: My Lords, I hope that I can be brief.
  Over a great many years, I have been extremely uncomfortable with the arrangements whereby we had a long break from July until October. I remember, years ago, having some responsibility for managing another place. I was extremely conscious of and sympathetic to the thoughts of a good many Members, especially Scottish Members and those with families, who found it extremely difficult when the other place—and therefore, very often, this place—sat through until the end of July. It disrupted the families of a great many Members.
  I am also uncomfortable about another matter, which I spoke about when we last debated this subject. I believe that July to October is too long a period for Parliament
  558
  to be in recess. I know that my noble friend Lord Cope will not thank me for saying that—as he did not the last time that I said it—but it is why I spoke last time in favour of coming back for two weeks in September. Therefore, I can again accept that part of the Motion. However, I cannot accept the Government—having told us about a year ago that the House would rise in the middle of July—stealing another week. That is off-side and will not do. It is not at all what they said they would do. For that reason, I shall vote against the Motion.
  Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I share the view of my noble friend Lord Cope on this matter. I am not in favour of a September sitting. I cannot agree with the assertions of the noble Baroness the Lord President about the merits of a September sitting. I cannot see why we should have to sit at precisely the same time as the other place, as several noble Lords have already said. There is very little, if any, ping-pong at that time of year. There is also the point made so eloquently by the noble Lord, Lord Boston, about the disruption to the works programme, which is not an inconsiderable matter. The noble Lord. Lord Carter, may think otherwise, but it makes a difference. It involves a great deal of money and a great deal of difficulty for Members of this House and of the other place. Like my noble friend, Lord Cope, I shall be voting against the Motion.
  Lord Carter: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, is he aware that, in all the Sessions that we did not sit in September and work was going on, all the contracts were let on the basis that the two Chambers had to be returned for use within two days in the case of Parliament being recalled?
  Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe: My Lords, I was a member of the previous Leader's working group. The group had a long debate on this matter, and there was a long debate on it in the House. Frankly, I have not heard any new arguments advanced today for shifting from the position previously adopted other than the fact that there has been a slight movement away from mid-July towards the three-quarter point. However, that argument does not really hold up. It would hold up if we were losing a week in the year, but that is not so. An additional argument is that it inconveniences and creates problems for Members. I shall be quite open and admit that Lady Brooke shares the views expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Cope. We should stand by the decision that the House originally made. The two parties opposite made strong arguments in favour of following the changes that were made in the House of Commons. Similarly, arguments were made in this Chamber in favour of going along with the House of Commons.
  The then Leader of the House, speaking on behalf of the group, said that he recognised that some of the changes would be inconvenient and burdensome. In moving the report's adoption, he pointed out that:
  "Burdens and inconvenience ought to be accepted if we are to deliver the great prize of improving the quality of legislative scrutiny and therefore of legislative output".—[Official Report. 21/5/02; col. 642.]

  559
  That is what the report was about. That still stands. We have not heard today any further compelling argument for moving from the position that we adopted 12 months ago. I support the recommendation of my noble friend the Leader of the House.
  3.30 p.m.
  Lord Ampthill: My Lords, I shall follow up on only one aspect of the remarks of my successor as Chairman of Committees; namely, the works that have to be carried out. This building is 150 years old. It was never envisaged by Barry or Pugin that 7,000 people would pass through it on a heavy day. It requires vast amounts of extremely complicated work to be done on it. The only opportunity that those carrying it out have to do it is if they are given a clear run through August and September. That situation prevailed until last year and there was no interruption during those two months. As the former Chief Whip mentioned, the contracts provided that the work could always be interrupted if there was a crisis, but that would be for a couple of days. If the interruption lasts two weeks, the workers have to drop everything and the contracts are vitiated. Nobody knows what the figure is likely to be. I asked Black Rod last Thursday and he had not yet been able to obtain it. Once one signs a contract for work in August and September and then chops in for a couple of weeks in September, the contractor has the muscle to announce that the total bill will be a great deal bigger that it would otherwise have been. That is the only point that I wish to emphasise. I do so only out of my affection for this building and my desire to see it staying upright. It has nothing to do with the interests of Peers or their holidays. One should also take into account the staff in this matter. They also have been seriously disrupted by the September sitting being sprung upon them.
  Lord Monson: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Roper, pointed out, there is never any ping-pong between the two Houses in September or early October. That does not start until the end of October or the beginning of November at the earliest, so the "ping-pong" argument is not valid. However, I shall put a question to the noble Baroness that arises from the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Jopling. Is it not the case that her proposals would mean that we shall sit for one more week between the beginning of July and the end of the Session than was the case two or three years ago? If I am right in that assumption, is the extra week designed to make up for the week's break in February, which I do not believe many people asked for, and if so, is the February break guaranteed or will it be pared down, as happened this year?
  Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness the Leader of the House for being kind enough to table the Motion and giving us the opportunity to vote on it in a free vote. It is an important matter.
  560
  I shall vote against the Motion. It seems to have been an unpopular move among Members, staff, Hansard writers and contractors, as was pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Ampthill, who said that contractors have to wrap everything up for two weeks, put it back again for two further weeks and wrap it all up again after that. That is an absurd waste of time.
  The argument that we have to come here "to hold the executive to account", as the noble Lord, Lord Carter, put it, is a specious one. We do not hold the Government to account at all. If they can get rid of the 600 year-old office of Lord Chancellor without hearing a bleat, we are not holding them to account very well. That is a specious argument. I hope that we will carry on as we carried on before, because people knew where they were. After all, staff as well as Peers are greatly inconvenienced by the September sitting, as are contractors.
  Lord Lloyd of Berwick: My Lords, I shall make a very brief point that has not been made so far. If we sit until the end of July and resume at the beginning of October, our recess will correspond with that of the Appellate Committee, so there will be a small saving there.
  Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, it has not been mentioned that many, if not most, noble Lords take part in public life in various ways in their own locality and across the nation when they are not in this House. Most voluntary organisations and businesses, having had a holiday in August, wake up in September. If we cannot go to the meetings of the organisations with which we are involved in September, that is a great pity, because we will bring less to this House than we otherwise would. The public's perception of this House was spoken about. They understand the difference between this House and another place. I shall vote against the Motion.
  Baroness Northover: My Lords, I had not planned to speak on the issue, but I feel obliged to make a contribution from another direction. If one has school-age children, as I do, one is likely to want to break earlier in the summer, preferably in mid-July rather than, as proposed, on 22nd July. Staff may well be in the same situation. If one does not have school-age children, one will probably not want to break early. I recognise that few here have young children and I realise that it is lot to ask of my fellow Peers to experience inconvenience on our behalf. However, we have to carry out much of the same work as the House of Commons. Many of us here are working Peers and we have children to consider as well. I hope that after Christmas, when our number is, as I hear, to be expanded, we will have more working Peers. I know that our age profile is different from that of the House of Commons and that is reflected in the way in which the issue is being addressed. I hope that noble Lords will consider the situation of those of us who have school-age children.
  Lord Barnett: My Lords, 1 came into the House with a fairly open mind until I heard some of the speeches. I appreciate that there will be some extra cost, but we should decide issues such as this on the basis of what is right, not on the comparatively slender basis of extra cost and inconvenience. My noble friend Lord Carter made an important point. The perception of people outside this House is not unimportant and it should not be to your Lordships. How will they perceive a break of some 11 weeks? That is a far longer break than that of any people outside your Lordships' House. We should recognise that the public will feel we do not care too much about what we should be debating throughout the year. Having heard the argument about perception, I shall vote with my noble friend.
  Lord Colwyn: My Lords, with the permission of the House and that of my noble friend Lady Fookes, whom 1 congratulate on taking over as Chairman of the Refreshment Committee, I shall make two points on behalf of that department. Noble Lords will be aware that we started a major programme of refurbishment this summer. Plans were made, owing to that work, to provide alternative refreshment facilities. In fact, they were not needed, because the contractors worked ahead of time and everything was in order when we came back in September. When we rise next July, phase 2 of the work will start, subject to financial agreement. It will involve extensive refurbishment of the kitchen areas.
  Although the contractors plan to have the work finished by September, it may not be finished by then. It is possible that, if we came back in September, we would find that refreshment facilities were very limited. It is, however, planned that things will be back to normal in October. That point ought to be borne in mind.
  In 2005, there will be no facilities at all. We will have temporary kitchens right through from July until the end of the year.
  Baroness Amos: My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken. I shall seek to address the points that have been made. I repeat what I said in my introduction: this is a House matter, which is why I brought the Motion to the House today.
  Parliament will sit in September next year, regardless of whether the House of Lords chooses to sit. The other place has already announced its dates, and it will sit. That brings me to my third point, which relates to that made by my noble friend Lord Carter. Over the past few years, we have sought to improve the perception and reputation of the House. Part of the way in which we sought to do that was to bring ourselves closer into step with the other place. I recognise that it is an issue of personal convenience for many noble Lords, but, if the other place sits for a long period during which we do not, the perception of this House will be damaged.
  562
  Several noble Lords raised the issue of cost. No figure can be given. Work contracts differ according to the time available. It is more expensive to sit in September, but, as I understand it, the difference is marginal, rather than decisive. It has been brought to my attention that, as the other place will sit in September, contractors will not, in any event, be able to do major work in the House of Lords, because of the noise. That is the advice that I have been given by the Clerk of the Parliaments and the administration of the House.
  Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, I apologise for interrupting the noble Baroness. My understanding was that we knew that sitting last September had created identifiable costs of over £200,000, as well as considerable unidentifiable costs on top of that. Is that what the noble Baroness describes as "marginal"?
  Baroness Amos: My Lords, I have been advised that no figure can be given.
  Baroness Blatch: Shameful.
  Baroness Amos: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, says that that is shameful. For several reasons, I do not consider that that is shameful for the staff who work on the accounts of the House. As I said, the work contracts for different parts of the work in the House differ according to the time available.
  We must consider what the cost would have been, if the House had been recalled in September. Also, we must consider what parts of any major contract could not be undertaken in the House of Lords, if the House of Commons sat in September, even if this House were not sitting. There are so many imponderables that, although it was possible for the authorities to say that it would be more expensive, they were unable to put a definitive figure on it. That is neither unreasonable nor, as the noble Baroness said from a sitting position, shameful.
  Lord Marlesford: My Lords, the noble Baroness says that no figure can be given. That is her judgment. However, am I correct in thinking that an estimate was made and was passed to the Government? If that is the case, can the noble Baroness at least tell us what it is?
  Baroness Amos: My Lords, I have not been given a cost. If I had been, I would have given it to the House. I am giving the House the advice that I have been given by the House authorities.
  I remind your Lordships that we have undertaken to review our working practices after two years. I recognise that, with respect to September sittings, we made a decision for one year only, but I feel that we should have a complete review of working practices after two years, including the issue of September sittings.

  563
  Is an additional week somehow being lost? Noble Lords will recall that, this year, we had only two weeks' break for the party conferences. The proposal for next year is to have a three-week break, which is why the date chosen is 22nd July, rather than one week earlier. I reiterate: we are not losing a week in the year. As I said, it is a straight swap of seven sitting days for seven sitting days.
  I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, that it is important that we consider the needs of parents and, I would also say, grandparents. However, it is a matter for the House.
  Lord Jopling: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, she must address the problem that I and others raised. Why did the Government say last year that the House would rise in the middle of July? On the basis of the current proposal that we rise on 22nd July, that implies that, next year, we should rise on 15th July. It seems to me and, I think, to others, that the Government said one thing last year and, this year, have stolen a week by seeking to rise a week later.
  Baroness Amos: My Lords, last year's decision was made on the basis of the proposals that were being made in another place. At that time, the proposal was that the other place should rise, I think, on 17th July. We rose, I think, on 18th July. This year, in trying to match the other place's dates, we have chosen 22nd July. As I said, we are not seeking to steal an additional week. Next year, there will be three weeks for party conferences, rather than two weeks.
  Baroness Blatch: My Lords, does the noble Baroness the Leader of the House accept that we have frequently risen one week later than the Commons and come back one week earlier? The noble Baroness has rested her case predominantly on the need for us to sit at the same time as the Commons, but I have no recollection—I have been here since 1987—of that arrangement causing any difficulty between the two Houses.
  Baroness Amos: My Lords, I remember debates in this House in which noble Lords asked, time and time again, for our Recesses to match the Recesses of the other place, with particular reference to dates earlier in the year and a February break.
  Noble Lords will recall that my noble friend the Chief Whip has been keen to enable Members of this House to have a more balanced parliamentary year, by seeking to parallel the Recesses of the other place.
  Baroness Blatch: My Lords—
  Baroness Amos: My Lords, we did not have a break in February this year, but, as the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, may recall, my noble friend the Chief Whip announced a break, progress of business permitting, in February next year.
  3.49 p.m.
  On Question, Whether the said Motion shall be agreed to?
  *Their Lordships divided: Contents, 122; Not-Contents, 115.

  Division No. 1

  CONTENTS

  Addington, L.

  Jones, L.

  Allenby of Megiddo, V.

  Judd, L.

  Amos, B. (Lord President)

  Lea of Crondall, L.

  Andrews, B.

  Lester of Herne Hill, L.

  Archer of Sandwell, L.

  Lipsey, L.

  Avebury, L.

  Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

  Baker of Dorking, L.

  McIntosh of Haringey, L.

  Barnett,L.

  McIntosh of Hudnall, B.

  Bassam of Brighton, L.

  MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

  Beaumont of Whitley, L.

  McNally, L.

  Billingham,B.

  Mason of Barnsley, L.

  Blackstone, B.

  Massey of Darwen, B.

  Blood, B.

  Merlyn-Rees, L.

  Borrie, L.

  Morgan, L.

  Bragg, L.

  Morris of Aberavon, L.

  Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

  Morris of Manchester, L.

  Brookman, L.

  Moser, L.

  Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

  Murray of Epping Forest, L.

  Burlison,L.

  Newby,L.

  Buscombe, B.

  Northover. B.

  Campbell-Savours, L.

  Oxford, Bp.

  Carter, L.[Teller]

  Palmer, L.

  Chandos,V.

  Paul.L.

  Chorley,L.

  Peston.L.

  Clarke of Hampstead, L.

  Pitkeathley B.

  Clement-Jones, L.

  Plant of Highfield, L.

  Clinton-Davis, L.

  Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

  Cohen of Pimlico, B.

  Prashar, B.

  Condon, L.

  Prior, L.

  Corbett of Castle Vale, L.

  Puttnam, L.

  Crawley, B.

  Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

  Crickhowell.L.

  Razzall L

  David, B.

  Redesdale, L.

  Davies of Coity, L.

  Rees-Mogg, L

  Davies of Oldham, L.

  Rendell of Babergh, B.

  Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

  Richard L

  Desai, L.

  Rogan, L.

  Dixon, L.

  Donoughue, L.

  Rooker, L.

  Dubs, L.[Teller]

  Roper, L

  Elis-Thomas, L

  Sawyer, L.

  Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

  Sheldon, L.

  Ezra, L.

  Shutt of Greetland, L.

  Falconer of Thoroton, L. (Lord Chancellor )

  Simon, V.

  Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

  Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

  Stallard, L.

  Finlay of Llandaff, B.

  Stern, B.

  Fitt, L.

  Stone of Blackheath, L.

  Flather B.

  Taylor of Blackburn, L.

  Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

  Temple-Morris, L.

  Goudie, B.

  Tenby, V.

  Gregson L

  Thomas of Walliswood, B.

  Grenfell, L.

  Tomlinson, L.

  Grocott, L.

  Turner of Camden, B.

  Harrison, L.

  Uddin, B.

  Haskel, L.

  Wallace of Saltaire, L.

  Hilton of Eggardon, B.

  Warner, L.

  Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, L.

  Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

  Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

  Weatherill, L.

  Howells of St. Davids, B.

  Whitaker, B.

  Hughes of Woodside, L.

  Whitty, L.

  Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

  Williamson of Horton, L.

  565

  NOT-CONTENTS

  Ackner, L.

  Lloyd of Berwick, L.

  Ampthill, L.

  Lyell, L. [Teller]

  Anelay of St Johns, B.

  McColl of Dulwich, L.

  Astor, V.

  Macfarlane of Bearsden, L.

  Attlee. E.

  MacGregor of Pulham Market, L.

  Bell,L.

  Biffen, L.

  Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

  Blatch, B.

  Marlesford, L.

  Bledisloe, V.

  Marsh, L.

  Boston of Faversham, L.

  Mayhew of Twysden, L.

  Bridges, L.

  Miller of Hendon, B.

  Brougham and Vaux, L.

  Molyneaux of Killead, L.

  Caithness, E.

  Monro of Langholm, L.

  Campbell of Croy, L.

  Monson, L.

  Carlile of Berriew, L.

  Mowbray and Stourton, L.

  Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

  Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

  Carnegy of Lour, B.

  Noakes,B.

  Chalfont, L.

  Northesk, E.

  Chalker of Wallasey, B.

  O'Cathain, B.

  Cobbold, L.

  Peel, E.

  Cockiield,L.

  Pendry,L.

  Colwyn L

  Peyton of Yeovil, L.

  Cope of Berkeley, L.

  Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

  Cox, B.

  Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

  Craigavon,V.

  Rawlings.B.

  Dahrendorf, L.

  Renton,L.

  Deedes, L

  Roberts of Conwy, L.

  Denham, L.

  Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

  Dixon-Smith, L.

  Roll of Ipsden, L.

  Elles, B.

  Ryder of Wensum,L.

  Elliott of Morpeth, L.

  Saatchi, L.

  Fearn, L.

  St John of Fawsley, L.

  Ferrers, E.

  Seccombe, B.

  Fookes, B.

  Selsdon, L.

  Fookes, B.

  Sharp of Guildford, B.

  Fowler, L.

  Shaw of Northstead, L.

  Freeman, L

  Shrewsbury, E.

  Gardner of Parkes, B.

  Skelmersdale, L.

  Geddes, L.

  Slim, V.

  Gilmour of Craigmillar. L.

  Soulby of Swaffham Prior, L

  Goodhart,L.

  Steel of Aikwood, L.

  Hanham, B.

  Stevens of Ludgate, L.

  Harris of High Cross, L.

  Stewartby, L.

  Hayhoe, L.

  Strange, B.

  Holme of Cheltenham, L.

  Swinfen L

  Howe of Aberavon, L.

  Thomas of Gresford, L.

  Howe of Idlicote, B.

  Trefgarne, L. [Teller]

  Howell of Guildford, L.

  Trumpington, B.

  Hunt of Wirral, L.

  Vivian, L.

  Hassey of North Bradley, L.

  Waddington, L.

  Janner of Braunstone, L.

  Wakeham, L.

  Jellicoe, E.

  Walpole, L.

  Jenkin of Roding, L.

  Walton of Detchant, L.

  Jopling, L.

  Warnock, B.

  Kimball, L.

  Wigoder, L.

  Kingsland, L.

  Williams of Crosby, B.

  Laming, L.

  Williams of Elvel, L.

  Listowel, E.

  Woolmer of Leeds, L.

  *[See col. 622]
  Resolved in the affirmative, and Motion agreed to accordingly.

  Aviation (EUC Report)
  4 p.m.
  Lord Woolmer of Leedsrose to move, That this House takes note of the report of the European Union on "Open Skies" or Open Markets? The Effect of the
  566
  European Court of Justice (ECJ) Judgments on Aviation Relations Between the European Union (EU) and the United States of America (USA) (17th Report, Session 2002-03, HL Paper 92).
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, in introducing this debate I remind your Lordships that the committee also published a supplementary report in July 2002, which I shall refer to during the course of my remarks.
  I would like, first, to thank my fellow members of sub-committee B for their support, hard work and contributions during this inquiry. I know they will join me in expressing our deep appreciation and thanks to our specialist adviser, Professor Rigas Doganis, and congratulating him on his recent appointment as a non-executive director of South African Airways. I am sure, too, that members of the committee will join me in conveying our warmest thanks to our Clerk, Patrick Wogan, who continues to be a tower of strength and an inexhaustible source of wisdom and sage advice.
  On behalf of the committee, I also want to record our thanks to all those who have given us written evidence and those who additionally have appeared before us. We were most grateful to the many people who shared their views with us during our visit to Washington, and special thanks are due to staff of the British Embassy there for their usual unfailing efficiency in arranging the visit and for their advice and hospitality.
  Finally, but not least, I thank the Government for their positive response at the end of July to our report and for their congratulations to the committee on the thoroughness of its investigation.
  Before I turn to the committee's reports. I will summarise the background to and the events that occasioned them. International air services have been heavily over-regulated, with restrictions on market forces and the pressures of competition, since the Chicago Convention of 1944. This reaffirmed nation state sovereignty over air space and led, in turn, to a vast network of intergovernmental bilateral air service agreements—ASAs—between countries. European Union member states today operate some 1,500 ASAs, with the UK alone operating 149. The main elements of air service agreements are set out on page 9 of our report of April 2003.
  International airlines were often seen as national flag carriers, and for much of the time since 1944 they have been protected by these air service agreements, state subsidies and other protectionist measures. For example, in the United States, foreign ownership of voting stock of domestic airlines is limited to 24.9 per cent. The USA prevents, by law, the right of foreign airlines to establish new airlines in that country and also, by law, gives preference to domestically owned airlines for government-related passenger and cargo travel, whether within or outside the United States— the so-called "Fly America" and "Civil Reserve Air Fleet" policies.
  Air service agreements between the United States and European Union member states have so far been based on ASAs between the USA and individual member states. In all those air service agreements there

  567
  has been a nationality clause that requires carriers obtaining their operating licences within a community state to be majority-owned and substantially controlled by that state or its nationals.
  Eleven of the present 15 member states have agreed some common conditions with the United States, generally known as "Open Skies" agreements. Under these, there is no restraint on access to the market and no capacity restrictions. Airlines of either country have the right to pick up traffic in the other country and carry it to a third country, the so-called "fifth freedom". But open skies agreements do not give rights to airlines of either country to operate domestic air services in the partner countries—that is, there are no cabotage rights.
  The consequence of the latter two conditions combined is that United States airlines can land in any of the 11 "Open Skies" partner countries in Europe, pick up passengers and fly on to another of those EU countries. However, a European Union-based airline landing in the United States cannot pick up passengers and fly to another destination within the United States. The result collectively for the European Union is an unbalanced deal, skewed heavily in favour of United States airlines.
  The United Kingdom is one of the four member states which has not signed an "Open Skies" agreement. Our agreement, known as Bermuda 2, has different restrictions for Heathrow and Gatwick, while there are no restrictions on services from other UK airports to anywhere in the United States. However, the same conditions apply to cabotage with the same unbalanced outcome. A very brief summary of "Open Skies" and Bermuda 2 and of the restrictions imposed on air services between the United States and the European Union are provided on page 11 of our report.
  Heathrow is the airport of choice for a majority of transatlantic air travellers but is facing major constraints arising from terminal and runway capacity. Bermuda 2 currently limits services to and from the US and Heathrow to two designated airlines from each country. This limit and the system of allocating slots at Heathrow pose important policy issues in UK relations with the Commission in the period ahead.
  The result of all this regulation and restriction has not been stronger airlines and robust financial performance. International airlines collectively have made net losses over the past 60 years and have collectively appeared notoriously inefficient. Many famous names have disappeared. Consumer choice of airlines, airports, routes, fares and service levels has been—and, in many cases around the world, remains—severely restricted. Competition by the provision of alternative routes across the Atlantic and heavy state subsidies in the US have kept air fares lower on this sector than on most international routes. In my view, competition needs boosting and subsidies need to be reduced.
  In contrast, while international aviation has been bedevilled by regulation and restriction, huge changes have taken place in the United States and in Europe in
  568
  internal markets for aviation services. The United States took the lead with deregulation in 1978. The European Union followed, slowly at first in 1987, but decisively in 1992. The result in both the United States and the European Union has been a transformation of competition, with the emergence of low-cost airlines, lower fares, increased choice for consumers and large increases in air travel. For the EU and the US, domestic and international air travel could hardly be more different.
  It is against this background that the European Court of Justice made its rulings on certain issues on 5th November 2002, the Commission responded in November that year and again on 26th February this year, and our committee established its inquiry into the future of European aviation relations with the United States and other states.
  The European Court of Justice ruled on two quite different issues brought to it by the Commission. First, it held that member states have the right to conclude bilateral air service agreements, except where they deal with certain matters such as air fares within the European Union, which are the preserve of the Commission—that is, where there is exclusive Community competence.
  Secondly, the Court held that nationality clauses in all bilateral air service agreements, including those of the United States, infringe Article 43 of the treaty on the right of establishment. In other words, they are discriminatory between airlines of member states.
  On 9th November the Commission called upon member states to revoke their aviation agreements with the United States and to give the Commission a mandate to negotiate all aspects of the agreements. This position was modified in a second communication published in February this year, when it sought to distinguish between the need to address the infringements that flowed from the European Court of Justice judgments and the pursuit of a wider mandate aimed at negotiating full ASAs with the United States. The aim of this wider mandate, which goes beyond the current extent of Community competence, would be the creation of a fully liberalised aviation area comprising the United States and the European Union, going further than existing "Open Skies" agreements. This is known as the transatlantic common aviation area or the open aviation area.
  Our committee examined these issues and concluded that greater liberalisation would bring significant economic benefits. With respect to the ECJ judgments in November, we recommended that member states give the Commission a limited mandate to negotiate with the United States to bring bilateral ASAs with the United States into conformity with Community law. We felt that any amendments to ASAs should be uniform across member states and take place at the same time.
  On a broader issue, we recommended that member states should give the Commission a wider mandate to negotiate agreements with the United States, in order to achieve full liberalisation between and within the two blocs. The evidence from witnesses was almost unanimous in support of that position. In our view, the

  569
  European Union, supported by member states, will carry more weight in negotiation than would individual member states by themselves.
  The two objectives of a wider mandate must be parity and comprehensiveness: parity in outcome for member states and their airlines, compared to the United States; and comprehensive in the sense that full liberalisation must be the aim, not partial liberalisation, on the basis of "Open Skies". A comprehensive agreement would address matters such as air traffic rights; fifth freedom and cabotage rights; the "Fly America" and civil reserve air fleet policies; crucially, restrictions on foreign ownership of capital in the United States and European Union airlines, and the right of establishment; the operation and compatibility of competition and anti-trust policies in the two blocs; state aids to airlines; and safety and security issues.
  We envisage a number of benefits stemming from that approach. There are too many airlines, internationally, propped up by regulatory and other forms of protectionism. Full liberalisation will open the door to airline consolidation and, where appropriate, to a widening of the airline alliance systems. Costs can be reduced by rationalisation and by open and unfettered competition. International air passengers can be offered many of the benefits that domestic and short-haul passengers now experience following deregulation in the United States and the European Union.
  We therefore further recommended that it would not be in the European Union's interest, or in this country's national interest, to negotiate anything short of a fully liberalised aviation market between the two blocs. There are many forces of resistance to full liberalisation in the United States, and the presidential election year ahead may bring caution rather than action for radical change.
  Following our report, the Transport Council agreed in June to give the Commission two mandates: to negotiate an air service agreement with the United States on behalf of the community, covering both the limited and wider mandates to which I referred; and, secondly, to negotiate on specific community issues with other third countries. We invited the Minister to give oral evidence to the committee, because the text of the two mandates was not available to the committee on grounds of confidentiality. Answers given by officials in the course of the oral evidence, and in supplementary evidence to us contained in Appendix 3 of our supplementary report, confirmed that the mandate to negotiate an open aviation agreement covers the matters that we wished to see in that agreement and that the Government's objectives were met.
  We concluded that the Council's mandates to the Commission appear to be acceptable to UK interests, provided that safeguards are introduced into the negotiations for an open aviation area to prevent phased negotiations from breaking down and leaving this country in a worse position than it enjoys under existing bilateral arrangements. In evidence, the Department of Transport told us that its,
  "expectation is that current arrangements under Bermuda … are expected to remain in place until an agreement is sorted out by the Commission".
  570
  Nevertheless, the committee remains concerned that phased negotiations might conclude with the final goal unrealised. Given the time that it will take to negotiate a fully liberalised open aviation agreement with the United States, the danger to UK interests would continue throughout the period. When pressed on the point, an official from the department said:
  "What I have been urging on European colleagues is not to rush into phases, and the dangers of that, because in some ways it is very difficult to get a balanced agreement".
  We therefore recommend that the Government consider carefully before moving to a form of "Open Skies" regime, or any other interim measure, as part of a phased negotiation with the United States.
  Since the committee reported, time and events have moved on, so I shall raise a number of points with my noble friend the Minister. It is reported in the press that a proposed revision to the bilateral air service agreement with Hong Kong is to open up the London—New York route to Cathay. Can the Minister say whether that proposal requires the agreement of the United States under Bermuda 2 and, if not, why not? Is Cathay regarded as a foreign-owned airline for purposes of the nationality clause or the intended wider EU ownership clause? Can Virgin share air traffic rights with Cathay under Bermuda 2? Will the Minister confirm that approval is required by the Commission, and can he update noble Lords on the state of any discussions in that regard? Which other countries have been approached by the UK to update an air service agreement? How is the Commission monitoring bilateral negotiations by individual member states on third parties?
  Our report drew attention to the significance of slots, especially at Heathrow, and to the consequences of any attempt to open up Heathrow air traffic rights to more airlines from Europe and the United States. The Commission intends to tackle the issue of trading in slots. When does my noble friend expect that proposal to come forward? Can the Minister inform the House what happened to the suggestion in relation to the swaps of junk slots at the Transport Council last week?
  Turning to the matter of EU negotiations, can the Minister confirm that the second round of negotiations takes place this week? What is the main purpose of that second round of negotiations? What preliminary assessment have the Government made of likely progress towards a fully liberalised agreement?
  Finally, can the Minister say how a liberalised access to Heathrow for other US and EU airlines, whether under a phased arrangement or with full liberalisation, can be made a reality without damaging existing air traffic rights, given the major constraints upon terminal and runway capacities at Heathrow?
  Those are important matters for our aviation industry and for air passengers, whether at leisure or on business. I look forward to the rest of the debate, and to the Minister's reply. I beg to move.
  Moved, That this House takes note of the report of the European Union on "Open Skies" or Open Markets? The Effect of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) Judgments on Aviation Relations Between the European

  571
  Union (EU) and the United States of America (USA) (17th Report, Session 2002-03, HL Paper 92).— (Lord Woolmer of Leeds.)
  4.16 p.m.
  Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, first, I should like to declare several interests. I am the president of BALPA—the British Air Line Pilots Association— and I was the Minister for Aviation, inter alia, from 1974 to 1979, which is rather a long time ago. I was also commissioner for transport in the European Commission from 1985 to 1989.
  I congratulate my noble friend and the members of the committee on their consideration of a highly complicated issue, on which there are serious differences of approach, especially between the European Union and the United States of America. Unfortunately, that has long been the case.
  The essential question that confronts us today is how best to resolve that contentious matter in relation to the travelling public in particular? I am glad that the Select Committee has concluded that aviation should not be excluded from the Commission's competence. That was the view that I took in the mid-1980s, when I negotiated the matter on behalf of the European Union. Fifteen years have passed since then.
  The judgment of the European Court of Justice on aviation relations between the European Union and the United States is highly complex, too, but it is also enormously significant. There is complete clarity about the basic issue; namely, the need to bring air service agreements into conformity with Community law. The Select Committee is right to emphasise the question of how that can best be achieved. The European Court of Justice has condemned certain aspects of the current air service agreements. However, it has also restated—I think, appropriately—that member states have the right to conclude bilateral agreements, as we have done.
  The Select Committee asserts that air service agreements should be negotiated differently from in the past, although it concludes, again, in my view, rightly, that complete competence regarding air service agreements will eventually—I do not believe that this will take too long—be that of the Commission in its entirety. I share the view of the Select Committee that it is essential to show respect for the judgments of the European Court of Justice in this as in other areas.
  As the Select Committee concluded, it is right that initially the Commission should take over the task of negotiating air service agreements with the United States. The Select Committee is right to stress that the issues underlined in paragraph 103 will take time to resolve. I shall not bore the House with a recital of what paragraph 103 is about as noble Lords can refer to it. The Select Committee opined that the Government should ensure that in its new mandate the Commission should work inter alia for an ability to acquire a share of United States airlines to wet lease to American clients for all-cargo operations to obtain internal United States cabotage rights, although, as the chairman asserted, that is bound to take time.
  572
  The Select Committee also expressed the opinion that subsidies which are paid to certain airlines, including those in the United States, are wrong, and that, indeed, they contribute ultimately to the decline of such airlines. I unreservedly support that conclusion. In that regard all sorts of excuses are deployed. The fact is that such subsidies, whether hidden or overt, are unacceptable, and clearly in any negotiations we should say so.
  I turn to a certain demand of the Select Committee from which I depart, although the demand in question relates to a negotiating stance rather than anything else. I have formed the view that we should be consistent throughout, and that that is not altogether mirrored in the Select Committee's recommendations. I consider, for example, that the Select Committee's views—as reflected in paragraph 108—are likely to earn a riposte from the United States that its motives are questionable. Far better, in my submission, to assert from the outset the ultimate objectives that we seek to obtain. I remain sceptical about the advice that is tendered in paragraph 108. I appreciate that that signals a departure from the negotiating stance generally deployed, but we are not exactly starting from scratch! We know, and they know, what is being considered. It is not a matter of conjecture at all. We are not dealing with amateurs on either side. It is entirely feasible that they know what our ultimate objectives are. Therefore, I contend that they should be stated.
  I wish to mention several specific points that are germane to the backcloth of negotiation. Today I received a briefing note from British Airways. It supports the mandate that has been given to the European Commission to negotiate with the United States. As I say, I applaud that view. British Airways contends that,
  "a fully liberalised agreement or Transatlantic Common Aviation Area between the EU and the US".
  is desirable. That was stated by my noble friend Lord Woolmer today. British Airways also contends that:
  "The removal of restrictions including the limits on ownership and control, cabotage, routing rights, cargo and wet leasing",
  is desirable, as I said. That is absolutely essential, and we should say so right from the beginning. British Airways states that we should accelerate,
  "the liberalisation of the global aviation industry".
  There should be no room whatever for doubt in that regard.
  Of course, what we say now will be highly relevant to our negotiations with other bilateral partners such as Japan, India, Russia and so on. Consistency is the order of the day. I applaud the view that BA has advanced; namely, that we should argue for a full liberalisation package. We should avoid the temptation of securing what it has described as an "early win". As I have said over and over again, it is vitally important that we should be entirely consistent in our arguments.
  When we talk about liberalisation it is vitally important that the EU, or at least the 10 new member states, should understand that there must be a

  573
  similarity of standards for crew members. Part and parcel of liberalisation is that we should start to ensure that the EU has a consistent position. Varying standards are not acceptable vis-á-vis our negotiating position. There must be no serious distortion of such standards.
  The issue of security applies to the point that I have just made. It is unhelpful, to say the least, for varying standards- sometimes abysmal standards—to apply. Once again, as with the issue of crewing, there is a place for regulation. The EU should have a common policy on security. Good security is vital, especially in this day and age. There is of course a great deal to be regretted about that. Nevertheless, it is essential that we should observe high-security standards so far as European Union airlines are concerned.
  My criticism of the Select Committee's report does not in any way diminish its primary concerns. I end as I began, by congratulating my noble friend and the other members of the Select Committee, who performed such excellent work.
  4.31 p.m.
  Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, before I make a small contribution, I must declare an interest as a director of British Airways. However, my reading of the report was not really done with my British Airways hat on. I welcome the report wholeheartedly. It is a great piece of work, but I am not surprised, as it is in the good tradition of that sub-committee of the European Union Committee. I have had first-hand experience of its good work, not under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Woolmer, but under that of the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, and my noble friend Lord Geddes. It has always worked at the issues in a most detailed way and produced very good reports.
  This report is really first class. For example, it includes an excellent glossary of terms. The aviation sector seems to have more jargon on an industry-specific basis than any other with which I have been associated. I love the graphic illustration about the freedoms of the air, although it made me spend about 15 minutes trying to work out who owned the aeroplanes and what they were. For noble Lords who want to know all about fifth freedoms and all the other freedoms, page 44 is excellent. I would go so far as to say that the report is probably essential reading for those beyond this House interested in the economics and operations of the aviation sector.
  In his speech, the noble Lord, Lord Woolmer, gave us a great history of the network of ASAs—air service agreements—the ownership restrictions in the US, and the "Fly America" policy. I was going to deal with all those, but I shall no longer do so, because he did much better by them than I would have done. He also made the very interesting point that 11 of the 15 current EU members subscribe to "Open Skies", which of course does not include the UK. All that is under Bermuda 2, but that is very well described in the report.
  The four major recommendations of the report are dealt with in detail. The questioning of the excellent witnesses by the members of the committee is well
  574
  worth reading. As an interested insider, to me most of the major recommendations seem absolutely right. Having said that, giving the European Commission a "limited mandate" in recommendation (a) implies that there will be strict scrutiny—even monitoring—that the negotiation is done within the agreed limits, and that no one has a rush of blood to the head and sells UK aviation down the river. That is not really an apposite metaphor for dealing with aviation, but I am sure that my gist is accepted by the House.
  Recommendation (b), the wider mandate to renegotiate the air service agreements, states,
  "that Member States should give the Commission a wider mandate to renegotiate ASAs with the United States of America initially, and subsequently with major aviation powers such as Russia and Japan in order to achieve full liberalisation in aviation".
  That is not only a first-class recommendation, but a very exciting one. If it is done correctly and properly, it means that we will have a global market in aviation. Total liberalisation is really what is needed. It is interesting that the evidence received by the committee was almost unanimous in that regard.
  Full liberalisation would have a positive impact on the future of aviation because it is good for consumers, good for strong and efficiently run airlines, and extremely good for competition. The strong UK airlines are not afraid of competition; if they were, they would have given up years ago. I am sure that they all agree that in the ideal world there would be an "open aviation area". That is the term that we should go for, as "Open Skies" has become muddled because of the restrictions that pervade in other countries dealing with so-called "Open Skies" arrangements.
  That open aviation area would preferably be throughout the world. Globalisation is so patchy— Coca-Cola can be, and is, traded throughout the world; McDonalds and Scotch whisky are found throughout the world; the products of Procter & Gamble and Unilever are traded by the dozen throughout the world. It is absolutely stupid that airlines cannot trade throughout the world.
  When we talk of an "Open Skies" policy, however, it has to be "Open Skies" for all. There can be no sheltering behind quotas, tariffs or non-tariff barriers to trade. We are all slightly sceptical about the concept of open markets. We do not need to have very long memories to recall the US steel situation—it goes back only a week—or state aid to continental European airlines, not to mention the US Government's subsidies to their airlines, totalling over 9 billion dollars since September 2001.
  The open aviation area would be quite different from the "Open Skies" model that exists in the US. In that, although the US airlines are seen to be deregulated—and they are, within their own territory—the conditions of free markets do not apply in so far as there are strong ownership and control measures in force. That is not what we think of as being a single market. Free markets are not the norm. We have to be sure that the OAA is a free market, with true liberalisation.

  575
  It is essential that we are not conned into partial liberalisation, which is little more than a cosmetic. The Commission must ensure that it avoids further opening of Europe to US airlines while restrictions on the operation of UK and other European airlines in the United States remain. If the United States gets what it wants in terms of greater access to the European markets too early, there will be no incentive to create a true single market. If the United States is able to get "Open Skies" throughout the European Union, it could well retreat behind the barricades and ensure that the stringent ownership regulations remain, keeping the ownership of US airlines in the hands of US citizens.
  To sum up, UK airlines are very much in favour of competition. With full competition, the strongest will survive, and everyone should agree that the UK airlines have shown just how they can survive, unsubsidised, in the most testing time for world aviation since the industry began. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Woolmer, briefly referred to the fact that all the profits of all the airlines in the world since the beginning of air travel—in effect since 1945, although I know that it began before then—were wiped out in the past three years. That is ridiculous. If airlines have not got the guts to survive during that, they will not have the ability to survive beyond.
  Inevitably consolidation will occur and some national flag-carrying airlines will not survive. There is a chance, however, that even they might grow up and face the cold winds of competition. British Airways, with only about 40 per cent of traffic at its hub— Heathrow—compared to Lufthansa with nearly 65 per cent and Delta at about 75 per cent at their respective hubs of Frankfurt and Atlanta, is certainly used to competition. More than that, it has battled ferociously to remain competitive in the past three years when it has been subjected to market catastrophe following market catastrophe.
  Those who are anti-consolidation should remember that deregulation within the US resulted in increased services, lower fares, robust competition and innovative enterprise. The development of no-frills airlines and low-cost airlines was a direct result of deregulation. We have deregulation within Europe—and the development of the low-cost and the no-frills airlines has followed the same pattern as the United States with marvellous results and benefits for customers. We now need deregulation between the two blocs. Then, as the report says, we should move on to Russia and Japan. Deregulation has enabled the strong UK airlines—Virgin, BMI and BA— to compete on a truly global basis. We cannot wait.
  4.41 p.m.
  Baroness Cohen of Pimlico: My Lords, I had the honour of being a member of Sub-Committee B, so ably chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Woolmer. I pay tribute to his efforts to bring clarity to what at first felt like an appallingly complicated situation. Once we had heard enough witnesses and our brains had settled down it became possible to reduce the appalling complications—
  576
  no doubt by way of gross over-simplification—to one or two clear facts. The evidence revealed that the EU countries, and doubtless others all over the world, enjoy a totally one-sided situation in relation to the US. The words "Open Skies" to describe the agreements is extremely clever. They leave the general reader or auditor with the impression that the agreements open the skies to air traffic. They open the skies above Europe to United States' traffic, but not the skies above the United States to European traffic.
  That happens when a large trading power negotiates with smaller trading powers. We could see a golden opportunity for the European Union to exercise its weight and negotiate a better balanced deal. It is the opportunity for the European Union to confound any Eurosceptic present and do a deal which would truly open the skies over the USA ultimately to the mutual benefit of two large trading powers—even if the USA does not quite see it that way at the moment. Against that background, the problem that became increasingly evident was over how the EU could enter the negotiations and bring them to a successful conclusion so that we would have a fully liberalised aviation market.
  The first question—that of entering negotiations at all—has been answered. The Transport Council agreed in Lisbon in June that the EU should have a mandate to negotiate with the USA to achieve an open aviation area. However, the remaining and far more difficult problem is how to persuade the US Government and the aviation interests that stand behind them to abandon those bilateral agreements, which they know to be highly advantageous to them, in favour of a wider agreement which they do not know to be highly advantageous—although we believe that it would be in the end.
  The European Court judged that the nationality clause—which in a bilateral agreement provides that only the airlines of the country with which the US is doing the deal may have any rights—now becomes illegal and that the clause must provide that all community airlines have the same rights. The EU made a spirited bid to force the pace, and at first called for all parties to renounce rather than to repair the bilateral agreement. Under pressure the EU resiled from that position as it became clear that that would not be practical. However, the problem remains: even if one has a mandate to negotiate, it takes two to tango. How can the USA be persuaded to go to the table to negotiate a full, open aviation area when it has perfectly good bilateral agreements which, with some modification, can be brought into line with the judgment of the European Court? I believe the answer was provided almost unanimously by the witnesses to the inquiry. All were united, wherever they came from, whichever nationality they were, on the vital importance of Heathrow to US and European airlines alike.
  A large part of US and European traffic routes through Heathrow and any carrier that does not do so would like to. If there is a bargaining chip that will bring the United States quickly to the table—against a background of great difficulty in that country, where airlines are not doing well and unions utterly oppose

  577
  anything that might involve US jobs going to Europe it is the possibility of gaining slots at Heathrow. Everyone wanted more of them.
  That led me to think about that great national asset, Heathrow Airport, and the contribution it could make to the UK aviation industry against the background of the current consideration of airport policy. That was a timely thought, as I understand that a White Paper is due soon. Rumour—or, as the current parlance has it, background briefing—leads me to believe that planning consent will not in the foreseeable future be given for a second runway at Heathrow and traffic will be directed instead to a second runway at Stansted.
  That is not the same thing, as I need hardly remind your Lordships. Airlines want to interline at Heathrow, to be able to put their passengers down and have them taken away either by themselves or someone else. And passengers, almost without exception, want to fly into Heathrow and will take some considerable persuading that Stansted is also a London airport.
  I speak against a background of no interest in the sense that I live in Cambridge and it is mildly in the interests of those who live in Cambridge that Stansted Airport becomes larger—except for the fact that access by the M11 is poor. If anything, my interests would lie in enlarging Stansted, but I believe that that would be wrong for the country. In the context of these negotiations, nothing could be more helpful to the future of the whole of our aviation industry than to have an enlarged Heathrow. More runway capacity there would persuade the country with which we do the most trade—the United States of America—to the table. It would also be helpful in dealing with other countries.
  For that reason, I found myself straying from the proper considerations of the committee and on to that point. When he responds, I ask my noble friend the Minister to offer any comment he can on the future of Heathrow Airport.
  4.47 p.m.
  Lord Bridges: My Lords, it is more than 10 years since we previously debated these difficult issues in the House. On the last occasion, the main problem was whether we should voluntarily cede the right to negotiate on civil aviation to the European Commission. My opinion at that time, which was shared by a number of noble Lords and perhaps by the Government, was that we should not do so yet.
  The tables have now been turned by the Commission's decision to refer the matter to the European Court of Justice and by the Court's decision, which basically gives the Commission what it wants. Further resistance on our part would be pointless—indeed, counterproductive—but we are left with a number of complicated issues which are the subject of the committee's excellent report. I do not propose to enter into the essential details, on which I do not dissent from the committee in the main, but I would like instead to concentrate on some of the larger transportation issues which should be kept firmly in mind. The principle theme for me is the nature and objective of our international air transport policies.
  578
  We should not forget that we have a significant natural transport environment because of our geographical position. For several centuries, the British Isles were a focal point in international trade as the junction between long-distance merchant shipping and the regional transport network in Europe. Thus, British-registered and often British-owned vessels transported cargoes across the oceans of the world and broke bulk in the Port of London, whence the cargo would be distributed to the continental ports adjacent to the main markets. After 1945, we lost that valuable business for a variety of reasons, partly because of the loss of much of our merchant fleet during the war and also, regrettably, because of our failure to modernise and mechanise our traditional port facilities.
  However, at about the same time, international civil aviation took off in a spectacular way, particularly with regard to transatlantic flights. Because of the rather limited range of aircraft at the time, it made a great deal of sense for the new airport at Heathrow to be the European hub. the decision to build Heathrow having been taken as the war ended.
  A long period of successful operation began and still continues. Consequently, it was necessary to build a network of connecting flights from Heathrow to other European destinations in particular. That was taken up by, then, BEA and also by US airlines, the latter developing the habit of stationing subsidiary fleets of aeroplanes in London—all American owned, registered and crewed—to feed the stream of traffic.
  It reached the point where the US airlines were, in effect, colonising Heathrow at the expense of our national airlines—a sort of de facto fifth freedom. We sought to correct that situation by negotiations but, then, as now, the US Administration were under heavy political pressure and were unable to modify their position. That led us to give notice of the termination of our bilateral agreement with the United States—Bermuda 1. At that point, I was the Commercial Minister at the Washington Embassy and, for much of the time, civil aviation was topic number one on my worry list. Like Professor Denza, I took part in the final all-night negotiations at Shell Mex House which led to Bermuda 2. Never was dawn more welcome.
  I am sure that the Select Committee is right to support the Government's line that we should encourage the Commission to negotiate a successor agreement with the United States on behalf of member states. We really have no alternative. We should, of course, avoid any unnecessary animosity or recrimination, which would be quite pointless—indeed, counter-productive. But I do not believe that it would be inappropriate to point out, in a friendly but measured way, that the Commission will be responsible for a national British asset which we have built up over the years with the expenditure of much effort, treasure, skill and aviation expertise. We shall be looking to the Commission to manage that asset in the interests of the wider Community member states and ourselves. That is particularly the case in relation to our own asset—the largest whose control the Commission has acquired in this field.

  579
  We need not perhaps say so but the suspicion lingers in the mind that some members of the Commission may have been more interested in acquiring control of the asset than in its careful management. Indeed, looking after the relationship between our Government and the Commission requires careful handling in our aviation affairs in UKREP. No doubt, appropriate dispositions will be made by the Government.
  The other related difficulty is quite different; namely, the growing discussion about the role of civil aviation which seems to be taking place in our country. The issue of noise has always been sensitive, as occasional interventions in this House have often illustrated. But a new dimension seems to be emerging—something which, at times, approaches hostility to the further growth of the activity of aviation as such.
  That was illustrated in a speech on the Address made in this House last week by the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont. Noble Lords may like to know that last night I mentioned to the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, that I would be referring to the remarks that he made on that occasion. He told me that he was grateful for the traditional courtesy but that he did not expect to be here himself. However, it appears that the Green Party would like to see civil aviation taxed more heavily with a view to its restraint and possibly diminution. It should be understood that, as I am sure many noble Lords are aware, the taxation of aviation fuel is prohibited under the Warsaw and Chicago Conventions. If an aviation fuel tax were to be imposed, it would require alteration of those treaties and their renegotiation would indeed be difficult. It would be a Pandora's box or perhaps a can of worms, whichever metaphor your Lordships prefer. If imposed as a national measure, it would, in any case, be ineffective for short-haul flights as British-based aircraft would simply refuel elsewhere in Europe.
  Also, the ever-ingenious Treasury has found a way round that difficulty by imposing a levy or tax on the sale of passenger tickets. Noble Lords may remember the cries of dismay which greeted that tax. Evidently, a further increase would not be very popular. Therefore, I am concerned by the appeal which the Green Party is making to public opinion. It seems not to understand the substantial advantages to be gained from having a prosperous and well run aviation sector.
  It also reminds me of a remark made by Freddie Laker at a lunch held in his honour at the International Civil Aviation Club in Washington DC in the late 1970s. Laker's commercial skills were much admired, and feared, in the United Sates. His particular target on that occasion was Trans World Airlines—TWA. I cannot remember why he was having an argument with TWA. However, TWA had already been obliged to scale down its expectations and operations for financial reasons and, in due course, that led to the closure of the airline. Laker referred jokingly to TWA as "Teeny Weeny Airlines",
  580
  which provoked a laugh. He next modified his description of TWA as "Try Walking Across". That is perhaps the answer to the Green Party.
  We, the public, living in these islands, cannot do without a successful commercial aviation sector. I hope that the Government will bear that in mind, both in relation to the role of the EC and, of course, also in the context of airport policy—a subject which we shall no doubt have to debate in the not-too-distant future. On this subject, the noble Baroness, Lady Cohen, made some very pertinent remarks.
  4.56 p.m.
  Lord Fearn: My Lords, it is now more than a year since the European Court of Justice ruled that the UK and seven other EU members had broken European Community law by including nationality in the bilateral agreements with the US. The judgment stated that that was a case of discrimination. Excluding air carriers of other member states from the benefit of national treatment in the host member states is forbidden by the Community rules on the right of establishment.
  Following that ruling, a package of measures has been passed, including a mandate for the European Commission to begin negotiations with the United States on a new "transatlantic common aviation area". That would grant to EU carriers access to all EU-US routes, no matter what their nationality. Those members would also provide opportunities for UK carriers in other Community markets and increase competition generally, allowing such additional opportunities in the UK-US aviation market. However, the UK-US market is already one of the largest and most competitive in the world, and the benefits may be more visible elsewhere in Europe.
  Consumers have benefited—there is no doubt about that—since the creation of single markets within the US and the EU, leading to substantial consumer benefits in the shape of increased services, lower fares, good competition and new enterprises. The same can be expected in an EU-US single market, leading to a growing market with overall benefits. One of the main benefits will be the removal of restrictions, including the limits on ownership and control, routing rights, cargo and wet leasing, thus accelerating the liberalisation of the global aviation industry and maximising competition.
  I want to emphasise and endorse a point made already—one reason that I rose to speak in this debate. It is vital that the European Union negotiates a full liberalisation package with the US and avoids the temptation to secure quick-fix decisions. That would risk a partial liberalisation whereby concessions from the US, such as an increase in foreign ownership rights in US companies, could be traded for the greater prize of increased access to Heathrow for American airlines. Such a result would be imbalanced and favour the US, which would then see no impetus whatever for pursuing a full liberalisation agenda. That must be watched very closely, and I am sure that the Minister has taken it to heart because four speakers have mentioned it thus far.

  581
  As a member of the committee, I say in closing that our chairman thanked everyone but we want to thank him for chairing the committee so well and for getting through what we decided was a rather difficult subject.
  5 p.m.
  Lord Shutt of Greetland: My Lords, in rising to start the wind-up of the debate I speak also as a member of Sub-Committee B. It seems to me that this report is somewhat dated. It was published on 8th April 2003, now eight months ago, and much evidence was taken before that.
  At the time I thought that this issue was. complicated and I still take that view. Waiting at a desolate spot on the east coast mainline today between 12.30 pm and 1.55 pm I thought about what further complications there would be if the air transport industry had to deal with track and tarmac—apart from tarmac at airports—and mused about who would be responsible for mid-Atlantic signalling.
  Although some of the report is dated, the early part concerned who should negotiate. Much time was spent on the question of who would have the competence to negotiate. That was decided on 5th June, shortly after we produced the report, when the European Council gave the negotiating rights to the Commission. As has been mentioned by several noble Lords, the European Union is about the whole business of trying to negotiate an issue which includes Europe but also goes beyond it.
  We are now in the early part of December. One assumes that the Commission started its work shortly after 5th June. Can the Minister tell the House, six months on, how these negotiations are progressing? Can he give the House a "state of the nation" position on the issue? I am sure that Her Majesty's Government will not have been short of advice to the negotiators.
  The reason for the need to negotiate is the nationality clause for air transport, which infringes Article 32 of the European treaty. We learnt much about the substantial freedom for air operators within the European Union, but from the European Union to the USA and elsewhere is something of a closed shop.
  All our evidence led us in the direction of greater liberalisation of air transport markets from the European Union to the United States and beyond. We heard evidence from the Brattle Group, and it is clear that that group of independent people decided that such liberalisation would benefit both the European Union and the United States. There is a perception that negotiation with the United States can be difficult because they appear to have a one-sided agreement on cabotage, which European Union air operators do not have. Also to be considered are the issues of wet leasing; ownership and control; and a subsidy regime. However, the independent Brattle Group states that this will be of benefit to the United States and the European Union.
  All six speakers so far in our reasonably short debate tonight have been broadly supportive of the report. The noble Lord, Lord Woolmer of Leeds, clearly stated the committee's position on the report and
  582
  highlighted those issues which required highlighting. As my noble friend Lord Fearn indicated, the noble Lord, Lord Woolmer, did a first-class job in chairing the committee. It is interesting that two of the people who have been involved professionally—the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, and the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain—are supportive of the report. The noble Baroness indicated that the report should be given to people who need to read up on the industry. That is one of the aspects to be considered with a group of assorted people such as the members of Sub-Committee B, who were all on different learning paths and had to get up to speed. It was essential that we understood the issues on which we were endeavouring to reach a conclusion. The pictogram was a useful aid in explaining matters.
  I took note of the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Cohen, about Heathrow, which may be where one chooses to set off from. I take a different view. I have walked up and down steps of aeroplanes at Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted. On only one occasion when I was subsequently travelling to this place were any of those airports selected by choice. It has been the case that that is where the air operators choose to operate from, not that I was desperate to use those airports. More thought needs to be given to the use of airports outside London. It is not as if Heathrow is just as one steps off the train at King's Cross. There is a little further to travel, which is not necessarily easy.
  The noble Lord, Lord Bridges, referred to the environment. Sub-Committee B was set up to consider matters of competition and commerce. At the time, although I did not necessarily agree with the points attributed to the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, I felt that there was not an opportunity for us to consider issues other than competition and commerce. There is no question that environmental issues must be taken into account—I do not think they were in Sub-Committee B—because air pollution and the whole business of global warming are very important.
  In summary, I am delighted that there has been so much support for the report. I hope that negotiations go well so that the industry can work in a liberalised way on what is referred to these days as a level playing field.
  5.8 p.m.
  Viscount Astor: My Lords, I start by congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Woolmer, and his committee on the report, which is a very good piece of work. It is enormously helpful to those of us who have not necessarily followed in such detail the extraordinarily complicated aspects of these issues, and makes them seem much simpler. That was demonstrated today by all noble Lords who have spoken in the debate largely supporting in principle many of its recommendations.
  The past two years have been difficult for the airline industry. In America, airlines have lost more money in the past two years than they made in the previous 25 years. In Europe, airlines have lost equal amounts of money—some perhaps more, and, indeed, some

  583
  have been made bankrupt. Massive state subsidies have gone into airlines, sometimes obviously or at times rather less obviously. We have a greater development of a two-tier market—as it were—in the airline industry, comprising the main carriers and what one might call the "cut price" carriers.
  So the airline industry has gone through an enormously challenging and difficult period. It is remarkable that so many of the good ones have emerged looking so well. But it has been a difficult time and I am sure that in some areas that difficulty continues.
  The noble Lord, Lord Woolmer, asked the Minister a number of detailed questions. I want to concentrate on three areas of principle that I hope the noble Lord will consider. The report concluded that,
  "it makes more sense for Member States to concede a mandate to the Commission to deal with the amendments to ASAs to take account of the ECJ judgments".
  It argued that the most persuasive argument in favour of a mandate was,
  "that changes can be brought about uniformly and at the same time".
  The main question to ask regarding that is: what about bilateral agreements? Do the Government see a continuing need to negotiate bilateral agreements or do they favour handing the negotiation to the EU? That seems to be the most crucial question facing the Government.
  There are different views of course. The Commission—I thought somewhat extraordinarily— demanded that member states denounce some existing agreements with the United States as a prelude to any negotiation. That would put the industry in a certain state of turmoil and none of us would know exactly what we were doing. The noble Lord, Lord Bridges, pointed out that these agreements have been put together over many years. I think that my noble friend Lady O'Cathain would agree with that.
  Interestingly, the director of the Office of International Aviation at the US Department of Transportation said that such a move would be,
  "an enormous mistake at the very beginning of the process … It would slow progress. We hope this will not be the case, and we strongly recommend against it".
  Do the Government agree with that sentiment? Where do they stand on the matter?
  When this reaction came out the Guardian, for example, reported that Britain had,
  "flatly rejected a demand from the European Commission to scrap its bilateral air transport agreement … A spokeswoman from the Department of Transport said: 'To ask us to tear up long-standing deals with the United States would result in a bad deal for passengers.'"
  Do the Government stand by that? Is it bilateral, is it EU, or is it a combination? How do the Government see the issue going forward? Obviously, if the deal is bilateral it has to fall within the various EU rules. But that will be very complicated and will run the risk that other member states might rush to make bilateral deals that favour them that would not necessarily favour us.
  584
  So how will the Government deal with that aspect? How do they think they will take the issue forward? What principles will guide their negotiation in the future? I think we must know.
  Secondly, the report also said that it had looked at the wider issue of a second mandate for the Commission for renegotiation with other countries. It noted those countries as, "Russia, Japan and others". It concluded in favour of arguments for a Commission mandate. Do the Government agree with that? Is this something that could happen at the same time, or does it follow on previous agreements? How do the Government consider the matter?
  Going back to the EU, a case can be made that France rather jumped the gun on us when it managed to conclude agreement with the US some months ago, while it was still able to do so before the court judgment. That indeed may have helped them to the detriment of our case. I do not know whether the Government have a view on what happened.
  There will be more consolidation, alliances, code-sharing and booking agreements, and so on, in the airline industry. That will all be part of the EU negotiations. Do the Government agree that code-sharing is a matter for the industry, subject to any various rules there might be, or do they have a role in dealing with it?
  Perhaps the noble Lord will address the point outlined by the noble Baroness, Lady Cohen, about Heathrow. The report said that,
  "the ultimate benefits that would flow from a fully liberalised Trans-Atlantic Common Aviation Area could outweigh the potential disadvantages of widening access to Heathrow".
  It would be interesting to hear the Government's view on that issue.
  We are all in favour of greater liberalisation of the air transport market. We believe that our non-state funded, independent airline companies can compete. That will be good for Britain and for this country. It must be right that that could be done through a transatlantic common aviation area agreement rather than with the US/EU "Open Skies" agreement. It seems to me that that would not remove the distortions that currently favour US airlines.
  The benefits of a more liberalised market will not be realised until state subsidies of airlines are ruled out. How will the Government do that? What is their view on handing negotiations to Europe for our airlines, which are private companies and funded by the shareholders, while the EU will be negotiating on behalf of state-funded airlines? Is it possible to reach a final point in negotiations when such state funding exists?
  We recognise the contribution that aviation makes to the economy and employment of this country. However, we also want to see a more level playing field between the different modes of transport, such as rail and road, particularly within Europe, and greater scope for regional airports with access to routes without the need to pass through Heathrow—to alleviate some of that problem.

  585
  There must be a strategy to balance the interests of the environment and the growth of aviation. I take note of the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Shutt, that the environmental aspects were not really covered in the committee's remit. Perhaps the committee might look at that in the future. This is an important issue. I look forward to the Minister's reply.
  5.18 p.m.
  Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I begin by congratulating my noble friend Lord Woolmer and his committee on the thoroughness, wisdom and good sense of the two reports they have produced. I do not say that because they did not take enormous, exceptional or serious issue with the Government's position; I say it because of how they managed to distil the key issues of a very complex situation and to frame their recommendations so precisely and pertinently to the advantage of all others.
  The debate and the work of the committee that prompted it are very timely. We are at a crossroads in the development of civil aviation worldwide. The events in Europe of the past 12 months, including the opening of negotiations at Community level with the United States, could indeed be a watershed. They offer us an opportunity to move away from the outdated regulatory structure, which currently hampers the development and restructuring of the global air transport sector.
  I was grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, for putting the debate into some historical context, which I think is necessary and shall seek to reinforce. I might in passing say that his contribution on the issue with regard to taxation of aviation fuel was pertinent. It may look as though that was a footnote to the debate, but we know that there is great public interest in the issue. As the noble Lord said, the issue has been raised recently at Question Time, and, indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Shutt, indicated his interest in this aspect.
  The noble Lord, Lord Bridges, identified just what an extremely complex international situation we are in with regard to air transport. No easy flick of the switch or arbitrary decision by a British government on taxation or meeting of costs by airlines can be readily made without, first, potentially doing enormous damage to our industry and our airlines. Secondly, such a proposal is part of an international provision and we must approach it in the international context. That is why, as the report so readily identifies with regard to negotiations with the United States, we cannot produce flip solutions. We need to employ the kind of careful consideration that the committee has given to the issues.
  Historically, international civil aviation has been governed by a regulatory regime devised towards the end of the Second World War, which reflected the preoccupations of the time. The Chicago Convention, the basis of the ground rules for more than 50 years, tends to view civil aviation as an arm of state policy. We all recognise that that still obtains in certain respects, but that times need rapidly to change—and are doing so. Under the old system, governments
  586
  negotiated traffic rights on behalf of "their" airlines. An airline may offer a service only if permitted to by the two countries involved. That has led to a complex web of bilateral agreements between sovereign states providing—often in fine detail—which airlines may fly where, how often, and under what conditions.
  The noble Viscount, Lord Astor, was right to focus on the question of bilaterals, because it is part of the general, complex position. The European Court of Justice confirmed that member states may continue to negotiate bilaterally, subject to conditions. The Commission received a mandate to negotiate with the US; it would need a mandate to negotiate with any other country. We would agree to a mandate only if there were added value through Community negotiations. That is the Government's principled position, on which I think that the noble Viscount sought to probe me.
  Practically, the Commission could not handle all aviation negotiations. We have more than 150 bilaterals and the Commission is not going to take on the vast range of those issues. There will therefore continue to be much bilateral negotiation for many years. I therefore reassure the noble Viscount that the Government are fully cognisant of the significance of bilaterals while, at the same time, meeting the main thrust of the report—and, indeed, of all who have spoken in the debate—that the Commission has a role to play in advancing negotiations with the United States. That role was strongly advocated by my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis. But he will recognise that his emphatic contribution as regards that role builds on a broad position taken in the report, which envisages the development of a significant role.
  Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend for giving way. For a long time, the Commission was denied any role in aviation. That position advanced in the 1980s, but not satisfactorily. Does my noble friend agree that on the essential issues, the Commission has rather more thrust than individual nations?
  Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, under the chairmanship of my noble friend, that is the issue to which the committee's report directs its attention. As I shall seek to explain, we respect the committee's report. The Government's position is to seek ways in which the Commission can effectively advance the cause on behalf of all European countries in relation to the United States. But we have areas of distinct reservation. When I come to answer my noble friend's particular questions in a few moments, I hope to provide reassurance about just how seriously we are addressing the areas in which it is not a question of giving a blank cheque to the Commission. We have a proper reserve position that we must safeguard in our national interest.
  As the House will recognise, since the Chicago Convention has been breaking down, great changes have occurred in the aviation industry. US deregulation occurred in the 1970s, sweeping away, for US carriers at least, restrictions on routing, frequencies and pricing. The US aviation scene is now radically different. Famous

  587
  names such as Pan Am have gone, but others have arisen to take their place, including a new breed of no-frills carriers, about which we now know a good deal in Europe. Few commentators would dispute that American consumers have benefited substantially from deregulation in lower fares and greater choice.
  In the mid-1980s, the European Community began to move in that direction. With 12 different countries involved, the process was inevitably slower than in the united nation state of the United States and a series of phases towards such liberalisation was necessary. But by 1992, the so-called "third package" of liberalisation had brought about a revolution in European air transport.
  Any airline that could meet the standards laid down— I reassure the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, that there are European safety standards that must be met for airlines to take advantage of the position—could be a Community carrier entitled to operate freely within the Community. Constraints on capacity and pricing disappeared, subject to the operation of EU competition law. Over the intervening period, common rules to ensure standards of safety to which the noble Baroness rightly drew attention—security, environmental protection and consumer protection—have been agreed Europe-wide.
  The creation of the European single market was considered by many at the time as a leap in the dark, but it has been more than justified by events. To take just one aspect, it is inconceivable that the no-frills sector could have flourished in Europe without the commercial freedoms ushered in by the third package. In the UK alone, the no-frills sector has expanded from carrying fewer than 8 million passengers a year in 1998 to 35 million four years later and a projected 47 million in the current year. That is extraordinary growth.
  We have debates and Questions in the House about the consequences of that extension of airline capacity and the pressures that it brings on our people in all sorts of ways. But let us make no bones about the impact. Where less expensive flights have been made available, our people have voted with their feet by their purchases. Although the Government's aviation policy is not to "predict and provide", it would be ludicrous if we did not make provision with regard to what is clearly a significantly expanding demand—although I hasten to add to my noble friend Lady Cohen that she will not take me too far into the issue of additional runways now.
  As I promised the House, we are now a matter of weeks—dare I say days; I will say days—from the long-awaited White Paper on airports in the south-east. It is certainly worth more than my tenuous link to the department for me to start to leak any information about the White Paper at this stage. I am sure that
  588
  Members of the House have not participated in this debate in the hope that I would engage in one of my more injudicious moves. I shall resist that temptation.
  Viscount Astor: My Lords, may I congratulate the Minister on being one of the few leak-proof Ministers in his Government?
  Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I hope that that is on the record and that it will stand me in good stead for at least another 24 hours.
  The measure of the success of these liberalising reforms is that the 15 countries of the EU, with 10 more about to join, a further three to be included in the European Economic Agreement plus Switzerland with its own agreement with the EU, will comprise 30 countries in a common European aviation area. Therefore the two major markets in world aviation, Europe and the United States, are now liberalised.
  The talks currently in progress between the EU and the US could result in these two markets being joined together to form a single, huge open aviation area, within which airlines from either side of the Atlantic could freely offer services to consumers. This would be a great prize.
  Why have the EU/US talks opened this year? As the report clearly identified, the European Commission has long wanted to negotiate with the US on behalf of the member states. During the 1990s, the US succeeded in signing so-called "Open Skies" bilateral deals with several EU member states. I say "so-called", because those agreements did not allow EU airlines access to traffic behind gateways in the United States. The most salient point to have come from the report, and one that has been voiced by all speakers in the debate, is that of the danger of achieving an agreement which does not reflect like with like. That is why the Government are grateful that the report points out why we do need to negotiate with considerable care. Very significant interests are at stake.
  European airlines are disadvantaged when compared with their US competitors, which could pick up or set down traffic elsewhere in Europe. The Commission argued that the US was picking off EU member states one by one so that, in the end, US carriers would be able to operate across the EU while Community carriers would be restricted to their national corridors. There was also a substantial imbalance between the small number of US carriers and the much greater number of EU carriers operating across the Atlantic, with adverse implications for the efficiency of those EU carriers.
  For several years, member states approached the Commission's request for a mandate cautiously because they had achieved a long series of bilateral positions that needed to be safeguarded. The UK moved into the field early and quickly established its position. We believed that we would be better able to secure benefits for UK consumers and commercial opportunities for UK airlines if we controlled the scope and direction of negotiations with the United States. Some other member states opposed a mandate for different reasons.

  589
  However, in June 1996, transport Ministers authorised the Commission to hold exploratory talks with the US, limited to regulatory matters, the so-called "soft rights" mandate. The Commission held two rounds of talks with the US, but it soon became clear that the US saw no point in further discussion in the absence of authority for the Commission to discuss "hard rights", such as traffic rights, capacity and fares. That is why the Commission turned to the courts to seek a capacity for a mandate.
  The European Court of Justice rejected the Commission's most fundamental claim by ruling that member states are indeed entitled to continue negotiating bilateral air service agreements with third countries. That repeats the reassurance I gave earlier to the noble Viscount, Lord Astor. But it laid down certain conditions. The Court held that there are certain issues on which member states should not negotiate because they are subject to Community law. Most significantly, it ruled that bilateral agreements are illegal if they give advantages to national carriers compared with other Community carriers established in the home country. Since traditional Chicago-type agreements nearly all have clauses which treat home-owned carriers preferentially, there are now a large number of bilateral agreements which need to be revised, I hasten to add, with care.
  The European Commission initially took an uncompromising view of the Court's ruling, arguing that the eight member states should activate provisions for denouncing their bilaterals with the US. It requested all member states to refrain from taking on new commitments with third countries. But member states did not accept the Commission's interpretation of the ruling and maintained solidarity by insisting that the question of a mandate be determined as part of a package addressing a number of other issues raised by the Court judgment, affecting all bilaterals rather than only those with the United States.
  Months of hard negotiation have resulted in the position outlined in the report. The Commission received a mandate to negotiate a comprehensive agreement with the US on a transatlantic open aviation area. The Commission also received a limited, so-called "horizontal" mandate to negotiate with any third country on how to bring member states' bilaterals with that third country into compliance with Community law. Lastly, the Council agreed the outlines of a regulation establishing a framework within which member states may continue to negotiate bilaterally, subject to a reasonable degree of oversight at Community level.
  The UK played an active part in hammering out this composite deal. In our view, it illustrates the principle of subsidiarity which should be applied. The Commission may negotiate on behalf of member states where it can add most value, but member states are free to work on their own account on issues best dealt with at national state level. The Government believe that this deal provides a suitable institutional framework and balance of responsibilities for member states and the Commission to co-operate in liberalising air transport services between Europe and the rest of the world.
  590
  The US mandate envisages an ambitious, comprehensive and fully liberalised agreement between the EU and the US, capable of being extended to include other like-minded countries. This would be a new form of aviation agreement, creating open access for licensed carriers throughout an open aviation area, under an agreed regulatory framework. As such, it would denote a radical departure from the traditional form of bilateral agreements based on a mercantilist exchange of traffic rights, which was defined earlier in the debate by the noble Lord, Lord Bridges.
  The backbone of such an agreement would be a relaxation of airline ownership and control rules. EU interests should be able to own and control airlines based in the US, and vice versa. This would help the industry to restructure itself by means of acquisitions and mergers, as happens in other sectors. It would allow the free flow of capital and management expertise throughout the open aviation area.
  However, like the committee—and we are grateful that this was emphasised—the Government have been conscious of the risk that the Commission might be tempted to seek to score a quick result at the expense of genuine liberalisation, opting for a US-style "Open Skies" deal without holding out for the more fundamental changes which would equalise the relationship between the two areas in the way I outlined earlier. Such an agreement would not promote fundamental change. On the contrary, it could act as a drag on liberalisation for many years. The Commission's mandate does envisage the possibility of the staged negotiation of an open aviation area, but it requires that any agreement should include from the outset certain key features, including market access, ownership and control.
  To ensure that these benefits are achieved, member states have insisted that, if it were proposed that some elements of an agreement should be implemented before others in any staged approach, there should be secure mechanisms to ensure progression to subsequent stages. I am pleased to say that so far there have been no worrying signs in the negotiations on this score. The Commission has stuck effectively and strictly to its mandate. The noble Lord, Lord Shutt, invited me to introduce a "state of the nation" address about the negotiations at this point. I can scarcely do so given the constraints of time and their complex nature. However, I shall do my best to give an outline of them, thus also responding to the request put by my noble friend Lord Woolmer.
  EU/US negotiations commenced on 1st October and the second round is taking place this week. The opening talks were essentially exploratory and various streams of technical work were identified. We have no reason to believe that the Commission is not as keen as the UK to achieve full liberalisation of the transatlantic aviation market. We shall, if necessary, use the UK's membership of the Special Committee, along with all other means at our disposal, to ensure that the Commission continues to work to this end.

  591
  My noble friend also asked about the position of other countries. Looking ahead, it is too early to say when the Commission might receive mandates to negotiate with other countries. Our criteria for assessing any requests will remain whether there is added value in negotiating at Community level, and how effective the Commission has been with the US. It could be that like-minded countries such as Australia, New Zealand and Singapore, or countries which border the EU in wider Europe or north Africa, would be the most promising candidates.
  My noble friend Lord Woolmer addressed to me a series of quite specific questions, a number of which I hope he will feel that I have answered during the main thrust of my response. However, I shall turn briefly to his queries. He asked whether agreements were needed under Bermuda 2 as regards Hong Kong. The answer to that is no; they are allowed under the US/Hong Kong bilateral negotiations. Do we regard Cathay as foreign-owned? Yes, we do. Can Virgin share rights with Cathay? No. it cannot do so. Is Commission approval required? Yes, at the insistence of Hong Kong. It is too early to say what is the Commission's view, but that is the position that has been adopted by Hong Kong.
  My noble friend's second question concerned whether we were engaging in a great number of bilaterals. We are involved in 14 at present, nine of which are Community designation agreed. My noble friend asked how the Commission was monitoring those negotiations. As I have indicated, it has a mandate to monitor them with care. Which countries has the Commission approached to commence negotiations on its horizontal mandate? We have a limited report to make on that now. I made a brief reference to that in my earlier comments.
  As to the complex and difficult question of slots—I am conscious that I have already spoken for longer than I should—the Commission's proposal on this was rejected at the Council. The possibility of slot trading by means of joint exchange was safeguarded. So we are protecting our position in that crucial area.
  Will the Commission stick to full liberalisation as a goal? That is the most fundamental question of all and it is one to which we are committed as a broad principle. The noble Lord asked me to emphasise particularly our broad principles. How can liberalised access to Heathrow for other US and EU airlines be made a reality without damaging existing air traffic rights? There are real difficulties in regard to this issue. We have clear and important interests to safeguard. That is why secondary slot trading is so important.
  I have spoken at great length in response to this very intensive, detailed and effective report. I congratulate the committee on its work under the effective chairmanship of my noble friend.
  5.41 p.m.
  Lord Woolmer of Leeds: My Lords, I hope your Lordships' agree that this has been a wide-ranging and useful debate. On behalf of my committee, I thank noble Lords for their kind and generous comments
  592
  about the report. We shall continue to keep a close eye on what I suspect will be long negotiations. We shall not lose sight of them. We shall keep a close eye on the operations of the Commission and the way in which it takes forward our ultimate aim of comprehensive liberalisation.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  Fighting Infection (Science and Technology Committee Report)
  5.42 p.m.
  Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Priorrose to move, That this House takes note of the report of the Science and Technology Committee on Fighting Infection (4th Report, Session 2002–03, HL Paper 138).
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, it is a pleasure and a privilege to present this report on the topic of fighting infection. All Select Committees deal with important and timely matters, and there can be few more topical and important than the present situation with respect to infectious disease. It is incongruous that, despite the many advances in modern medicine and pharmacy, infectious disease is still a major threat to the health and welfare of the British public.
  In 1969 the Surgeon-General of the United States, William Steward, testified before Congress that,
  "It is time to close the book on infectious diseases and to declare the war against pestilence over".
  This optimism is now widely accepted as not only mistaken but also damaging to the research effort into the control and prevention of infectious disease.
  We know that 60 per cent of all ill health is due to infectious disease. The magic bullets of antibiotics have lost their magic; exotic diseases threaten our shores in the forms of HIV, SARS, malaria, Ebola infection and west Nile fever, to mention only a few. The opening paragraph of the Department of Health publication Getting ahead of the curve acknowledges that the post-war optimism that the conquest of infectious diseases was near has proved dramatically unfounded. The document lays out the Government's infectious disease strategy for England. The Science and Technology Committee has put flesh on the outline plans in that document. The establishment of the Health Protection Agency as a co-ordinating body bringing together many facets of healthcare promises to be a very important development. I shall return to that later.
  At the outset I wish to thank most warmly the noble Lords on the sub-committee, which included five medically qualified persons, one member who had nursing qualifications, one who was a veterinarian and two others who were scientists, as well as others. Collectively they proved a powerful team of inquiry. Our scientific advisers were Professor Julius Weinberg of City University and Professor George Griffin of St George's Hospital Medical School, both of whom provided valuable input to the committee's deliberations. I pay special acknowledgement to our Clerk, Miss Rebecca Neal, who performed outstandingly in the inquiry.

  593
  I also wish to thank the large number of organisations and individuals who gave up significant time to submit evidence in writing and orally. Several institutions and organisations were most helpful in arranging visits, both in this country and overseas. The American institutions in Atlanta, Washington DC and New York, which are listed in the report, were not only welcoming but extraordinarily helpful. They, too, are faced with much the same health problems as we have in the United Kingdom. Similarly, visits to the World Health Organisation, the Institute of Migration and the UNAIDS programme in Geneva provided important information and input to our report.
  The report has received a generally positive welcome from all quarters. We appreciate the comments made about it, in particular, the comment from the Health Protection Agency that it is,
  "A welcome, valuable and timely report that re-emphasises the threat of infection".
  We have made 24 recommendations in our report. I am pleased to observe that, on the whole, the Government response is timely and comprehensive. New structures, such as the new and emerging Infectious Disease Panel, have been or are to be set up to assess the threat from infections, many of which have been identified in our report and many of which are zoonoses or animal-derived. A new inspector of microbiology will promote high quality clinical and public health microbiology. There is the provision of £12 million to tackle hospital associated infection, particularly the alarming growth of MRSA— methicillin resistant staphylococcus aureus—which has come to national media attention. The Science and Technology Sub-Committee on Resistance to Antibiotics warned against this situation in 2001.
  With our first recommendation the Government concur that there is still room to improve management and infrastructure and to identify and plug gaps. Mention is made of economies of scale by the integration of expertise and the building of synergies between disciplines through the Health Protection Agency. But it is not clear whether there will be increased resources for this. We hope that additional resources will be made available. It is important that the Health Protection Agency is not compromised in what the Select Committee believed to be an important starting point in its existence.
  In our inquiry it was well recognised that each component part of the health service section performed satisfactorily. But one of our early recommendations is that effective communication and collaboration between all organisations involved in infectious disease services should occur, and that an outline of roles and responsibilities should be published to that effect. It is not clear from the Government's reply, however, when or whether they intend to map out those responsibilities. We hope that they will do so.
  The committee sees an important role for the Health Protection Agency, which will be set up under the Health Protection Agency Act. That role includes commissioning research, obtaining and analysing data and providing laboratory services. A particular
  594
  recommendation is that the Health Protection Agency be provided with resources to take on specific and primary responsibility for integrating surveillance relating to human, animal and food-borne infections, in view of the importance of food-borne infections as a cause of ill health. Much ill health is due to that.
  The Government's response identifies the various bodies covering the area, including Communicable Diseases Control, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra), the Food Standards Agency and the Zoonoses Group. We welcome the promise of close links between the agencies, but we are concerned that, historically, informal links with memoranda of understanding with a large number of committees and groups can lead to problems of inadequate communication. We seek assurance that they will work this time and that the lines of responsibility for effective, integrated surveillance are more clearly drawn than is indicated in the reply.
  My colleagues in the inquiry will deal with other areas of the report and the Government's response to it. I wish to comment further on research and development, especially on vaccines. Vaccination is a major and effective approach for the control and prevention of infectious disease. Yet the committee has been concerned that the UK's capabilities for vaccine production have declined over recent years. The Government agree that there is a significant deficit in vaccine capacity. They comment that multiple projects are under way to increase that capacity, to identify the gaps and develop action to bridge them.
  The sub-committee is strongly of a mind that vaccine development should be facilitated in the UK and that the Government should maintain clear evidence-based guidelines of vaccine requirements. The sub-committee wishes to see a secure supply of vaccines in the event of a major global epidemic. We point out that overseas suppliers, on which we rely for many of our vaccines, would be under pressure to give priority to their own country's needs. The Centre for Applied Microbiology and Research—previously known as CAMR and now HPA Porton—could well serve that purpose. It is hoped that the Government will consider favourably an application from CAMR for that purpose. The HPA comments that it would be imprudent not to have the HPA Porton capability. We share that opinion and the view that it should be properly funded.
  Since the publication of our report various vaccine production groups have represented that they have provided, or can provide, important vaccine development—for example, for the prevention of pneumococcal bacterial meningitis and pneumonia of children. It is said that the development at Speke can handle a pandemic of influenza, although I understand that the production of a tuberculosis vaccine at that site is to be discontinued.
  At the National Institutes of Health in America, we were told of the small business initiative for small companies willing to take the financial risks inherent in the development of a vaccine. If the vaccine was patented, the company was obliged to make every

  595
  effort to bring it to market. In the United Kingdom that is approached by a tax credit system to help small, innovative biotech companies in the development of novel vaccines and others. It remains to be seen whether that will be more effective than the NIH scheme; however, there is no doubt that small biotech companies should be encouraged to take up vaccine development.
  The inquiry anticipates a clear, outstanding role for the Health Protection Agency to set standards and clarify lines of accountability. We have made a series of recommendations for action by the HPA, including one to develop collaborative relationships with organisations concerned with tackling infection, including the devolved administrations, environmental health departments and the Food Standards Agency. While they agree with that recommendation, the Government consider it ambitious to expect a proposal on the issue to be published by April 2004. Our reply is, if not by that date, when? We expect it to be fairly soon.
  Similarly, we are aware of the importance of international collaboration and the availability of personnel for secondment. We trust that, not only the HPA, but the Department of Health in general, can be involved in international infectious disease control. The HPA points out that resilience needs to be built into its staffing to respond to such demands, and we agree. The HPA's corporate plan, which has just been published, proposes a bold and ambitious programme. Clearly, there is much to be done in drawing together the expertise of a wide range of health, scientific and related staff so that it can respond swiftly and in a co-ordinated manner to new and existing threats from infectious disease. We wish it well. But to do well it must be given the resources to develop into the kind of structure that we need, and of which we will be proud.
  Moved, That this House takes note of the report of the Science and Technology Committee on Fighting Infection (4th Report, Session 2002-03, HL Paper 138).—(Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior.)
  5.58 p.m.
  Lord Haskel: My Lords, I am delighted to speak in this debate, for two reasons. The first is to express my congratulations and thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Soulsby, who was chair of our sub-committee, and my gratitude to my colleagues both inside and outside your Lordships' House, with whom it was a pleasure to work on this report. I add my thanks to Rebecca Neal, our Clerk, who looked after us with tact and efficiency.
  The second reason that I am pleased to speak is that I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Soulsby, that the Government can be congratulated on listening to our report and responding to it in a generally positive way. That shows that they are taking seriously the fight against infection. Their response contained several promises to deal with matters raised in our report. Indeed, one of the promises was implemented last Friday with the announcement that health trusts will appoint directors of infection control. The directors
  596
  will apply the strict rules of hygiene to help establish the culture of prevention about which we spoke in our report.
  The need for these simple rules of hygiene was clearly demonstrated when we visited Birmingham City Hospital. We were shown how taking steps to ensure that wards were cleaner, equipment was looked after for cleanliness, gloves were worn and hands were washed helped to stop the spread of hospital-acquired infections. We were told that about 100,000 people a year pick up infections in hospitals in Britain. Simple procedures helped to prevent the spread of yet more sophisticated infectious agents. We were also told that simple procedures were sometimes left undone because of the pressures of work and time. Making somebody responsible for ensuring that those procedures are carried out can only be helpful, and I hope that that person will also have authority. For my part, since that visit to Birmingham, I wash my hands a lot more frequently.
  The other thing that impressed me about our visit was our meeting with an environmental health officer. We met him in a group together with a number of other people involved in infection control, such as senior doctors and administrators. However, it was obvious that he was bottom of the pecking order, despite being right in the front line of the fight against infection. My noble friend on the Front Bench does not need me to remind him that the message from every general since Alexander the Great is that the effectiveness of the best battle plan depends crucially on the training, equipment, morale, skills and the numbers of frontline troops. We were concerned about virtually all of those aspects regarding environmental health officers. The Health Protection Agency, in its response, also shares our concerns, speaking about "staffing becoming desperate". I agree.
  From the Government's response, they obviously think that entry to the profession should be of degree standard. Why? It will enable environmental health officers to bring more analytical skills to the job, be better trained in science and will raise the status of their work. They will have parity of esteem with other professions that have degree entry and it would deal with training needs. However, what about recruitment? Will the increased status mean more pay? All new entrants will do a degree course from 2004 and bursaries will be available, but what will happen to recruitment between now and when the students of 2004 graduate? Perhaps the Minister will consider some of the more successful schemes in industry in which employers are compensated for giving staff time off for training. Perhaps that would help to fill the gap.
  This problem is a difficult one. Although environmental health officers are employed by local authorities, their work impacts on the Department of Health, the environment, law enforcement, the Home Office and the Food Standards Agency. Perhaps the lines of responsibility should be clearer. The Government are offering placements in all those various departments and agencies, but we need to recruit people in the first place. That is where the Government will have to do better.

  597
  The noble Lord, Lord Soulsby, reminded us of the committee's visit to the United States. One experience that impressed me was our visit to the TB control centre at Harlem Hospital in New York. There was an item in a paper recently about the relatively high incidence of TB among immigrants in Britain, both legal and illegal. The item implied that the matter was thought to be too sensitive to deal with openly, and hinted that the rise in the incidence of TB was due to immigration.
  It is a sensitive and controversial issue, but I was impressed with the robust and open way in which the health commissioner in New York dealt with it. He impressed us all with his vision and vigour, and we were all impressed by his comparative youth—he seemed to be younger than my own children. The health commissioner let it be known through official and unofficial channels that free testing and treatment for TB were available to all and that they were entirely confidential. The names and addresses of immigrants—legal and illegal—would not be disclosed to the police, the Internal Revenue Service or the immigration authorities, before, during or after treatment. All that was said quite openly, because otherwise people would not come forward for treatment.
  I learned that the treatment is difficult and unpleasant and takes the best part of the year, and that continuity is essential. Patients had to come to the hospital so that staff could watch them take their tablets. Those who did not or could not come to hospital had their tablets taken to them by couriers, who watched them take their medicine. The couriers obviously did that at great personal risk, because there could be no police protection. We met a courier and some of the nurses involved in that work. It appeared that what motivated them was that they, too, had been TB sufferers and the cure had changed their lives. They were anxious that others should also benefit. The health commissioner told us that the exercise had had a major influence on reducing the incidence of TB in the city. We all came away pretty impressed.
  What happens if the newspaper report is correct and there is a high incidence of TB among immigrants in Britain? Obviously, illegal immigrants cannot go to the NHS and they are a danger to the rest of the population. Do we ensure that patients take their medicine by watching them, as they do in New York? This is an important part of fighting infection and we should be rather more open about it. Indeed, we referred to the whole matter of openness in our report. We recommend that the Health Protection Agency creates a post of infectious disease specialist to act as spokesperson to communicate with the public and create increasing awareness of infectious diseases. I agree with the Health Protection Agency that this problem cannot be restricted to one person—that is not practical. However, the Government's response says that the Health Protection Agency will develop its own communications strategy to raise the understanding of health protection by the public.
  Raising understanding usually means trying to influence or control the media so that the desired message gets across. However, we have learnt that,
  598
  although it may get the correct message across, it erodes trust in the message. We do not want that to happen in the fight against infectious diseases, because it could have disastrous results. We have all learnt in recent years that winning the argument in matters of public health is not enough. We have to win hearts and minds as well, and we cannot do that just by raising understanding.
  The Health Protection Agency will have to make hard decisions about fighting infection—medical and social decisions. Indeed, that will be put to the test next week when a play will be broadcast on television about the MMR vaccine. I understand that the play is based on real events, but that the truth will not be allowed to get in the way of a good and powerful drama. The screening of the programme will be an opportunity for the Health Protection Agency to show its strength and commitment to winning hearts and minds and fighting infection. The Government should get on with establishing the Health Protection Agency as a completely independent body like the Food Standards Agency. It can then get on with the difficult business of informing the public about the risks of infection and winning the trust of the public that the information is independent and the best available.
  Another reason for getting on with the Health Protection Agency Bill, is that it should enable the agency to be more commercial and less bureaucratic in its relationship with the biotechnology industry. The noble Lord, Lord Soulsby, touched on that issue. The Health Protection Agency's paper in response to our report deals very satisfactorily with its relations with other public bodies, but it ignores its relationship with business.
  The biotechnology industry is less confident and less proactive than it was two or three years ago and the tone of the Government's response seems to reflect that time instead of now. Firms seem to be anxious about where a new class of antibiotic will come from as germs become more resistant to the old ones, as the noble Lord, Lord Soulsby, reminded us. The Health Protection Agency will have to be more proactive in persuading industry to work with it. Indeed, it should become an instrument of innovation, as is likely to be described in the report of the DTI later this month. I hope that the Minister will look at that report. It is relevant, because it deals, I think, with the role of public purchasing and innovation.
  In a way, this is my swansong as, by rotation, I have now left your Lordships' Science and Technology Committee. Even though the membership may change, it is important for the committee to return to its recommendations from time to time to see whether they have been implemented—or not, as the case may be—not only in matters of fighting infection and the associated topic of antibiotic-resistant bacteria, but also on the many other matters that your Lordships' committee has studied. Returning to those issues will ensure that they are taken seriously. Keeping witnesses informed of progress so that they will remain interested is also important, because they will then see that their time and effort have not been wasted. That will ensure that their vital evidence continues to flow.

  599
  I know that the noble Lord, Lord Oxburgh, is committed to the issue, so I am sure that the committee is in good hands under his chairmanship.
  6.15 p.m.
  Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: My Lords, I add my thanks to those already expressed by my noble friend Lord Haskel for having been able to serve on the committee, which I joined shortly after joining the Select Committee on Science and Technology. The noble Lord, Lord Soulsby, guided the committee through some complex waters and Rebecca Neal's support, always offered with good humour, was welcomed by all members.
  The report is just the beginning. I reiterate the assertion of my noble friend Lord Haskel that the topic will need to be revisited in five or 10 years and kept under constant review, because the infections and the problems that they pose will probably become greater.
  I was fortunate to be able to visit the headquarters of the World Health Organisation in Geneva as part of the committee's inquiry. I became starkly aware there of the importance of the links between the clinical and epidemiological services here in the UK and those operating at a world-wide level. I hope that the Government will ensure that those international links survive the reorganisation in services, because levels of expertise are fast-tracked through them.
  A lot has been said about antibiotic resistance. To underline my plea to revisit the issue possibly in 10 years, I shall highlight some of the data on methicillin resistance. In 1992, about 3 per cent of staphylococcus aureus infections were resistant, but ten years later, that proportion had risen to 43 per cent. That is an alarming increase in antibiotic resistance. As has been emphasised in the report, training at all levels for those who work in health is crucial. I shall return to training in a moment.
  The Chief Medical Officer, Sir Liam Donaldson, is to be commended for the amount of work that he has done in looking at problems of hospital-acquired infections that were highlighted in recent reports and for the initiative following the Select Committee's report. The two groups of hospital-acquired infections are hard to distinguish; namely, those that have occurred simply because patients have been in a particular environment and would otherwise have been fine, and those where the person has been so ill and susceptible in hospital that he would either have become infected with his own organisms or be at a very high risk of cross-infection. The difficulty is that a lot of those infections result in death and we do not have any good national data on the number of deaths through hospital-acquired infections. In fact, to ascertain that data is incredibly difficult. A large, complex, case-controlled study that looks at all the risk factors may be required to separate those cases where infections are genuinely hospital-acquired from those where the infection is a contributory factor and therefore associated with the death.
  600
  The report, Winning Ways, shows that some participating hospitals have been improving their reporting procedure, but that many are unfortunately unchanged and show worsening data. Clinicians on their own are not very good at differentiating bacteraemia— that is, blood-borne infection—from other local infections. Clinical microbiologists have a crucial role to play in making such differential diagnoses.
  That point was highlighted by a general practitioner, Dr Arthur, who, following the death of his wife from MRSA, had launched a campaign that coincided with, but was unknown to, our inquiry on hygiene in hospitals. From looking at anecdotal reports of coroners, he suggested that current estimates of deaths from hospital-acquired infections may be only a quarter of the true figure, although his study also included anecdotes from people who were going to report a death. He has suggested that a tick-box be required on a death certificate, but it may be that such measures will vastly oversimplify the complex data that need to be collected.
  However, the report emphasised the need to collect data and to do so in ways that are compatible with all parts of the service. The Government have responded to that with their initiative on the electronic capture of data. I emphasise that it is important that data entry is simple for the end user or the data collection that the Government are rightly striving to undertake will be incomplete.
  Cleanliness in hospital environments has been emphasised. In the Government's response to the report, the importance of that, particularly in relation to respiratory syncitial virus, was highlighted. That virus can last up to six hours on hard surfaces and causes severe infections in children and babies. Often, those children need to be ventilated for a time.
  I have already alluded to the publicity generated by MRSA. That may survive for variable amounts of time and seems to be killed off by sunlight. Another infection has not featured in the headlines: clostridium difficile, which causes devastating diarrhoea and debilitates patients. Unfortunately, that can persist indefinitely on surfaces and needs to be washed away.
  The importance of hand-washing has been emphasised by everyone and the Government have responded strongly to the need to improve it. The size of the job to be done should not be underestimated. Alarming data from the USA suggest that half of healthcare professionals do not adequately wash their hands after visiting the toilet. I have not found any such data from our own hospitals, but perhaps that is an issue that needs to be investigated.
  Patient-to-patient transfer of infection has highlighted the need for hand-washing, but the increased use of electronic equipment such as syringe drivers, infusion pumps and electronic temperature and blood pressure devices, which go from one bed to another, must be monitored as a source of transferred infection, particularly when spores such as clostridium difficile can last indefinitely in the crevices, creases and screw tops of such equipment. So, one of the highest priorities must be hygienic hospitals.

  601
  The report addressed the issue of training at undergraduate level and made a plea for the incorporation of adequate training in infections into curricula. Sadly, curricula throughout the UK have a long way to go. In my medical school, we are fortunate to have academic microbiologists who have taken a lead in ensuring that microbiology remains on the curriculum, but I know of medical schools in which it has faded from the curriculum. I believe that that has also happened in the teaching of other healthcare disciplines. The Government's action to influence universities will have to be forceful, if we are to make sure that the criteria for infection re-enter the curriculum.
  Yesterday, I asked one of our students whether she felt that she had been adequately educated in hand washing. She was able to recount to me the practical session using a UV light to show who was not washing their hands adequately. She said that, on clinical placement, she saw staff moving from one patient to another on the wards without adequately washing their hands. As a student who had just had her hand washing training, she did not feel able to stop staff and tell them that they ought to wash their hands in between. She had noticed that, on many wards, there were no adequate sinks between beds to encourage hand washing. She commended Llandough Hospital, in which alcohol hand-cleaning devices were available everywhere. She noted that positive move, but it is sad that she did not notice it in every hospital in which she had been on placement.
  There is remarkably little training in infection issues on most postgraduate courses. At the moment, infection control does not form part of ordinary clinical appraisal. Every clinician in the service at every level needs feedback on rates of infection on their ward and among their clinical team, so that there is ownership at every level in the individual team. The initiative launched in the past week in England will, I hope, ensure that that discipline comes through the service. In Wales, the strategy has been slightly different. They have gone for a bottom-up approach, feeding data back. I hope that, with one system or another, we will see some improvement.
  Training the next generation of microbiologists poses huge challenges to the Government. There are only 39 whole-time equivalent consultants in infectious diseases and tropical medicine in England. Half of those are academics. New posts require substantive funding, if they are to continue. Serious consideration may need to be given to the creation of academic posts with long-term funding, to ensure that there is an attractive career path for the next generation of clinical microbiologists. The research and development that we will need will depend on the academics, as well as on the clinicians.
  There has been a shortfall in the number of funded specialist registrar training posts. Unfortunately, the devolution settlement between England and Wales has meant that funding for two and a half posts has been lost from Wales. There are consultant posts in clinical
  602
  microbiology that have been vacant not just for months but for years. Adequate training of the next generation of consultants is crucial.
  I have a concern that, when the funding for microbiology laboratories in trusts is no longer ring-fenced but is handed over to PCTs, there may be a tendency to provide funding that will merely maintain laboratories rather than encourage them to flourish. I hope that that concern is misplaced, but I urge the Government to watch the development of laboratories carefully. The Health Protection Agency Bill is before us, and the Health Protection Agency must work in harmony with the National Health Service in Wales to deliver public health outputs at local delivery and at a high level.
  The need for research was highlighted in the report and recognised in the Government's response. The Government plan to enhance funding for research into communicable diseases. That was stated in their response. However, there is a need for people with academic training and with sufficient remit to get the high calibre research that is needed. The quality of the proposals competing for funding for research is relatively poor. Some of the projects seem relatively simple, so they do not get funding in open competition.
  The issues relating to consent in the Human Tissue Bill may also make some areas of research more difficult. For instance, in work using collections of sera, it would be difficult to obtain specific consent for the sera to be used as part of a research programme.
  Looking forward, we need to consider other forms of infection control, and there is a huge gap in knowledge. The design of effective interventions to reduce the prevalence of hospital-acquired infections and to limit the development of antibiotic resistance seems like an obvious area of research, but it is not undertaken to an adequate degree because there is inadequate funding for such research. Areas such as the way in which microbes communicate with each other and quorum sensing may become important, but the development, through the pharmaceutical industry of yet more antibiotics will probably lead simply to increasing complacency that antibiotics will ultimately do the job and that new ones will be found and will breed out further resistance.
  The last area of education that I shall address is public education. The need for a public education campaign is huge. There is public complacency and a misguided belief that antibiotics can cure infections, hence the tremendous shock when patients die of infections. Infections always have been and will remain life-threatening.
  A study of primary school children in Leeds revealed poor hand washing. Children who had episodes of diarrhoea and infection had worse hand-washing practices than children with lower instances of gastro-intestinal infection. Perhaps the public education campaign should be at that level. Could people such as soap opera stars be used to influence public behaviour in hygiene? Some good public education materials are being developed, particularly in e-learning, but we must ask whether they will reach the public.

  603
  Our report highlighted a huge job for the Government to do. In their response, the Government have taken all the areas seriously, giving a commitment to work on them. I ask the Government to consider keeping the matter under scrutiny in the long term. Unless it remains under long-term scrutiny, it may drop from public consciousness, and we will have a whole set of new infections.
  6.28 p.m.
  Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, it is a pleasure to thank the noble Lord, Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, for his continued hard work in sharing this latest inquiry into fighting infection.
  The noble Lord also chaired a sub-committee on resistance to antibiotics and other antimicrobial agents. The report came out on 17th March 1998. I had the honour of serving on that committee. That report stated, at page 42, that MRSA posed one of the biggest challenges to infection control. Dr Mayon-White called for a national MRSA strategy and pointed out that MRSA was,
  "a marker for cross-infection generally".
  Therefore, a strategy to control MRSA would bear down on other infections as well.
  The time has come to be more forceful. I like the cover of this report. I congratulate the person who suggested it and designed it. But Box 14 on page 38 should be much stronger. It states:
  "Handwashing is a key intervention to reduce spread of infection and yet it is known that many health care workers do not wash their hands when moving between patients. Research could inform those who organise services how better to design wards and run services so as to minimise the barriers to handwashing".
  Surely, with around 5,000 lives being lost every year from MRSA, the word "could" ought to be replaced with "should" or "must".
  The rise in highly resistant MRSA and other serious infections is put down to poor hygiene, more advanced surgery techniques and the over-prescribing of antibiotics. At long last the Government have got the message: the complacency that has existed in many healthcare establishments cannot continue. Would it not be wise to screen staff as well as patients for MRSA when they come into hospital? The committee were concerned to find that, given the significant demands placed on NHS trusts to fulfil their clinical roles, there were as yet no plans to provide any material incentive for NHS laboratories to rise to the public health challenge.
  The committee noted that the recent House of Commons Health Select Committee report on sexual health expressed concern about the impact of recent changes in management of laboratories conducting surveillance of sexually transmitted infections. The rise in HIV and other sexually transmitted infections is very worrying. The British Medical Association has called for an end to waiting times for sexual health treatment. It stated:
  "We have now reached crisis point in genitor-urinary medicine with many clinics having waiting times of anything up to eight weeks. We need to return to a position where they can see patients within 48 hours".
  604
  I hope that we can hear some hopeful words from the Minister so that GUM clinics will be able to cope with the increasing demands.
  The report puts great importance on the need for good surveillance. It is worrying to note that the sub-committee found that information is not shared between all those responsible for surveillance. On page 20 of the report, the committee recommends that, given that there is little vaccine production capability in the United Kingdom, by April 2004 the Government should develop and publish a strategy to ensure secure access to supplies of vaccine in the face of national outbreaks of infectious disease.
  There have been some tragic cases of children dying of Fujian flu lately. Are vaccines to be made available to protect children and other vulnerable groups against that dangerous strain of flu? The report recommends that the Government should fund enhanced surveillance of the impact of vaccine programmes on the incidence of disease, particularly when new vaccines are introduced. It also recommends that the Health Protection Agency be provided with resources to take on specific and primary responsibility for integrating surveillance related to human, animal and food-borne infection at national, regional and local levels in order to bridge the gaps that currently exist between those areas of specialty.
  The report states that GPs receive inadequate training about best practice in identifying and treating infections. One problem area seems to be when and when not to use antibiotics. In some cases, antibiotics are vital to life. Near where I live in north Yorkshire, a man 41 years old, married with two young children, lived on a farm and undertook relief milking. Some months ago he died of leptospirosis, or Weils disease. The organism leptospira icterohaemorrhagiae is harboured and excreted by rats and enters the body through a bite or skin abrasion and infected water. I am told that in New Zealand at-risk farmers and people working with water would be vaccinated. Should that happen here?
  SARS alerted many people to the fact that one never knows what infection will come next. With many drug-resistant infections emerging, that is a serious matter. I am glad that the Government are responding. I look forward to the Minister's reply. Only last week, at lunch, a guest told me that his sister-in-law had been infected by MRSA in a private hospital in Yorkshire. Worse still, the next person to use the room also caught MRSA.
  Infections have no boundaries. I hope that the Health Protection Agency will also cover private hospitals and nursing homes and medical and nursing staff as well as patients who use and work in both private and National Health Service hospitals. I hope that there will be no discrimination. Fighting infection must mean that everyone works together for a safer society.
  6.37 p.m.
  Baroness Emerton: My Lords, I, too, welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate. I am grateful for the privilege of serving as a member of the committee led so ably by the noble Lord, Lord Soulsby. As well as my noble friend Lady Finlay and the noble Lord, Lord Haskins, I too pay tribute to Rebecca Neal who was the Clerk who facilitated not only the work of the committee in an efficient manner, but also gave me personal support in my introduction to the work of the sub-committee of the Select Committee.
  I, too, welcome the Government's response to the committee's report. I shall focus on the Government's announcement last week of the appointment of a director of infection control to all NHS trusts. I was particularly taken with the words of the Secretary of State, the right honourable John Reid, when he commented that,
  "old fashioned hygienic methods were needed. There really is no magic solution. It is about hard work and old fashioned methods".
  Having trained as a nurse 50 years ago, I truly can claim to have been brought up in old-fashioned methods of cleanliness and aseptic techniques. The ward and theatre sister was the person who controlled the environment and was responsible for cleanliness. When dressings had to be applied, damp dusting was carried out two hours before any wound was exposed.
  I admit that there have been many advances in the past 50 years with regard to sterilisation and wound management. However, as has already been said today, I am very aware that the discipline of basic procedures—for example, hand washing—has slipped in many instances. Recently, I witnessed a surgeon removing sutures, not having washed his hands either before or after the procedure.
  As a chairman of an NHS trust, I was very aware of the convoluted lines of management control to rectify dirty lavatories, bathrooms and patient areas.
  I realise that the contracts with commercial firms contain quality standards, but someone from management is not always available to deal with a problem. One has first to go to an NHS manager who then contacts the commercial firm, and by then, time has passed. I therefore endorse the Secretary of State's statement—there is a lot to be done which requires hard work.
  Will the director of infection control be an executive member of the board or a non-executive member in an advisory capacity? The lines of communication and organisation of management control within the health service are very complex. We know that they have to cross lines of organisational management to get things done.
  I wonder whether the director of infection control might meet the same problem that I met when I requested that toilets in the hospitals were inspected on an hourly basis, as they are in motorway services, supermarkets and public areas. My request had to be considered first by the chief executive of the trust and the facilities manager. A discussion then took place with the commercial contractor. The costs and staffing implications had to be assessed, which resulted in a
  606
  three-month delay before any action could be taken. The results of this investigation showed that the cost was outside the budget, so there was a further delay in implementing the regular checking of toilets and bathrooms.
  I believe this is where decisive action needs to be taken. The director of infection control will need to have the accountability and authority to take executive action. This therefore needs to be clearly spelt out in the new director's job description. The same goes for food hygiene, catering and the wearing of uniforms.
  We all accept the old adage, "prevention is better than cure", but, as has already been said, we need to reduce the number of hospital-acquired infections. This is urgent, given the need not only for reduction in suffering and mortality but also to reduce costs and increase efficiency. It is estimated that the stay of a patient contracting a hospital-related infection is extended by 11 days and often more in the case of MRSA.
  I welcome the Government's commitment to enhancing the education programmes. Health professionals and all staff working in the environment of healthcare need to have basic training— indeed, health professionals need to have more in-depth training.
  I have concerns that the primary care trusts need to be involved in considering the ways in which control of infection will be effective. They, too, may need a director of infection control.
  I believe that as well as hard work and old-fashioned methods, there needs to be an additional word— "discipline". It is not a popular word in this day and age, but historically, from Florence Nightingale onwards, it has been proved that a disciplined approach to the control of infection is effective.
  I also agree with my noble friend Lady Finlay that the Government should be encouraged to have a regular review of the control of infection.
  6.44 p.m.
  Lord Oxburgh: My Lords, the Science and Technology Committee tries hard to choose subjects for study that are timely and relevant. Rarely in its history can it have hit the mark so squarely as it did this time—hardly had it begun to take evidence than the SARS outbreak began its march across the world.
  I, too, wish to acknowledge the contribution of the Academy of Medical Sciences which, some months earlier, drew the committee's attention to this area as one in urgent need of review. I also wish to acknowledge the excellent work of our two special advisers and our hardworking Clerk.
  Having settled on this topic, the committee also had the wisdom to invite the noble Lord, Lord Soulsby, to chair the inquiry. This he did with consummate skill and patience, and I think your Lordships will agree that the report which was produced under his guidance is a worthy successor to that of the earlier inquiry he chaired on antibiotic resistance, which has had considerable influence on both sides of the Atlantic.

  607
  As has been pointed out by others, infectious disease accounts for a great deal of illness in the UK and world wide. Around 13 million people die from infections each year, and about half of those are children under the age of five. Unfortunately, as other noble Lords have pointed out, in this country we have come to regard infections as something we do not need to bother about. In the last century, the combination of good hygiene, clean water, good sanitation and, in the latter half of the century, antibiotics, virtually eliminated most of the serious infections from the developed world. For this reason, when it comes to training nurses and doctors, infection has a rather low priority in the curriculum.
  Our report made the point that the situation was changing rapidly and urgent action was needed if we were to avoid serious outbreaks. I, too, pay tribute to the way in which the Government have responded to the challenge of infections, even though the solutions they have chosen may in some ways differ from those that we favoured. The most important thing is that the problem has been recognised and action has been taken.
  The subject is enormously broad. For that reason, I will speak on just three aspects of infection and its management—the role played by animals or organisms in the emergence and transmission of infection, the need for effective means of surveillance, and education.
  The problems we face are partly new and partly old problems better understood. It has been known for many years that while some micro-organisms that cause human disease pass directly from person to person, there are many others for which the transmission pathways are more complex and involve other micro-organisms, insects or higher animals. The role of mosquitoes in the spread of malaria and that of rodents and fleas in the spread of plague are relatively well documented. However, a host of other pathogens are spread by complex vector paths that are very poorly known.
  One such pathogen that may be coming our way is the West Nile virus. It may be of particular interest to the House because it appears to be one from which elderly men are especially at risk. The virus has been spreading from north Africa for some years and is now affecting both coasts of the United States. It can affect horses and some birds, such as crows, although the final vector, as far as human beings are concerned, seems to be the mosquito. Intriguingly, and with the wisdom of hindsight, the first indication of the arrival of the virus on the eastern seaboard of the US was the unexplained discovery of dead crows in the fields.
  I have given just a few examples, but the picture I wish to paint is of an immensely large and complicated web of life in which, numerically at least, human beings and higher animals are a rather insignificant part. Within that web there is an enormous range of relationships—different food chains, different relationships that may be competitive, symbiotic or parasitic. None of the elements of the web are static;
  608
  they are continuously evolving in response to the pressures of their immediate environments, albeit at different rates. We become particularly aware of that when a newly evolving species happens to be a pathogen in human beings or animals, such as when a new strain of flu emerges from south-east Asia.
  Noble Lords may reasonably ask what is new, given that this situation has always been with us and we have learned to live with it. The answer is that this complex web of interdependent organisms, which we still understand only dimly, is being affected by at least three important factors: first, the very rapid global movement of people and goods, particularly foods; secondly, the rapid—at any rate by historical standards—displacement of the world's climatic belts, for whatever reasons; and, finally, the rapid increase in the world's population and a consequent increase of both urbanisation and deforestation.
  Modern communications allow us to travel readily to almost any part of the world or to eat crops that were harvested only a few days earlier in another continent. That allows other passengers to travel as well, particularly insects, bacteria and other micro-organisms. They arrive into an environment in which many will not survive; but others will, and a few may flourish and possibly wreak havoc on the local ecosystem. When that part of the ecosystem happens to be ourselves, we recognise the arrival of a new infectious disease. What happened with the introduction of rabbits into Australia can happen with microbes as well. TB is on the increase in parts of this country and the United States.
  Organisms are not necessarily dependent on hitching a free ride on people or goods; shifts in the world's climatic belts mean that the distributions of fauna and flora migrate with them. The human population therefore has to become used to living with a range of new pathogens that arrive as the climate changes.
  Finally, the doubling of the world's population over the last 50 years has been concentrated in the less developed regions. It has proved difficult for people to continue to make a living on the land and they have migrated to the cities, which often did not have the sanitation or other facilities appropriate to receive them. When those people brought with them their pigs and their birds, it was an ideal environment in which microbes that caused no great harm in animals could jump the species barrier and develop into a virulent human pathogen. Indeed, as the CJD/BSE/scrapie story unfolds, it may turn out that species jumps can occur in much less extreme circumstances.
  The conclusion is that, with infectious disease, we are rapidly entering new and largely uncharted waters. We are almost certain to see new and unwelcome additions to the range of pathogens to which we are exposed. Some will simply be new to us, while others will be new to the world. Our greatest danger will be the complacency that has come upon the general population in the western world, through the combined effects of antibiotics, clean water and sanitation. As the report showed, there is a new and growing danger.

  609
  What is to be done? It is clear that, although the medical profession and drug companies have an important role, probably the most important task, as various noble Lords have pointed out, lies with us in our everyday lives— in our personal hygiene, in the proper maintenance of our water and sanitation facilities, and in the way that food is managed in our shops and restaurants. We have seen the decline of traditional, labour-intensive, but effective means of infection control, such as scrubbing and cleaning, using soap and bleach. Soap and detergent are particularly effective against many bacteria because they can break down the jelly-like outer protective coating of the bacterium. That is a matter of education in school and elsewhere, and the message must be got through that although we may have got away with it in the past, this is a new situation and is potentially dangerous.
  Finally, on surveillance, it goes without saying that if the arrival or outbreak of a new infection is recognised early, there is a reasonable chance of managing and containing it. GPs must be able to report suspected new outbreaks with no more inconvenience than a mouse click on the consulting room computer. The information must be properly managed centrally and, if appropriate, matched with patterns that emerge from calls to NHS Direct. GPs must know rapidly that a new infection is about and, if necessary, be reminded of the symptoms. That must be a priority within the new IT system that is being planned for the NHS. If appropriate the information must be passed on to neighbouring countries—and in that connection we must continue to play a full part in the World Health Organisation. Surveillance must involve not only the medical profession, but the veterinary profession, biologists and microbiologists as well.
  If we are not to return to the misery of earlier centuries, these challenges demand the concerted and co-ordinated efforts of the Department of Health, the HPA, Defra, DfES and the DTI. Is the Minister satisfied that the processes of co-ordination and collaboration between the disparate groups that are in place or planned for the immediate future are sufficient and robust? If they are not, the future is bleak.
  6.56 p.m.
  Lord Addington: My Lords, I must make one small apology. I was not a Member of the committee; thus, when I read through these documents, I first had the feeling that the matter was comparatively straightforward. After more reading, I decided that it might not be so straightforward. As I went through the Government's responses, I had the fortunate feeling that the Government have something in place that responds to many of the concerns that were raised— primarily the point about co-ordination, which is dealt with, at least in part, by the Health Protection Agency, or HPA. As I was reading, I kept trying to remember exactly what HPA was, and came up with an amazing variety of combinations.
  610
  I hope that the Health Protection Agency is something that does what it says on the tin. because something that co-ordinates the services available would meet many of the concerns raised in the report. The primary problem is that they do not guarantee, do not claim to guarantee or cannot guarantee that there is enough spare capacity to handle the unexpected. The Government may say that they have something there. However, in terms of public capacity and testing and analysis in public laboratories, what capacity do they regard as enough to handle any new outbreak? Exactly what do the Government have there? I may have missed it in their response, but if they could answer that question, we might come back to the subject later with an idea of the Government's thinking on spare capacity. I refer to spare capacity for situations that are not run-of-the-mill or normal. In the light of that information, we might then have a chance to see what we can go on to do.
  Of the many other considerations that were raised in the report, the one that really struck me was that most of what we are talking about is very old science. Taking into account the idea that most of the diseases that we deal with in future will be known, we are talking about diseases that will strike at the most vulnerable, as has traditionally happened.
  An unfortunate fact is that our public health seems to be declining in terms of nutrition, vitamins and the protein balance. Illnesses such as rickets have re-emerged in our society. As many noble Lords have said, new immigrants are entering the country who may bring in new infections. The health standards in their countries of origin tend to be lower than ours. I refer to certain other underprivileged groups, for example, those in prison. Educational failure, health failure and offending records tend to go together. What is the Government's thinking regarding those vulnerable groups?
  Will the new structure address those vulnerable groups, and what will it do to improve their treatment? The noble Lord, Lord Haskel, referred to TB cases being treated in the Harlem Hospital in New York. We need programmes that offer treatment to immigrants, whether illegal or not. We should do immigrants a good turn in that respect for the simple reason that it would avoid TB being spread in our society and infecting more people. By saving those people we would save ourselves. Will such an approach be encouraged in our society? Asylum seekers and new immigrants have had a very bad press. A series of nasty, snide digs have been levelled at them as people who bring infection with them. Unless we introduce a scheme along the lines of that mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, we shall encourage a series of social ills as well as physical ones. Do the Government have any plans to introduce such a scheme involving joined-up government thinking between the Health Protection Agency, immigration services and the Prison Service? If such a scheme is not introduced, those vulnerable groups will miss out on treatment.
  As regards children's health, I encourage the Government to consider not just infection itself but to ask themselves why infections are taking hold. The

  611
  Government should further examine the ways in which family benefits are most effective in encouraging families to eat nutritious food and thus ensure that the fertile ground for infection is cut away. The Government should consider whether education on nutrition should be given with benefits. Of late we have heard a great deal in this House about obesity. People may be eating the wrong things. Will the Government address the issue of healthy eating as well as just giving out benefits? The spiral of economic deprivation leads to bad nutrition. If we can interrupt that spiral, I hope that we shall make some progress.
  Unless the Government are prepared to return to very old-fashioned values, for example, regarding the regular scrubbing of hospitals—as I believe was pointed out by the noble Baroness, Lady Emerton— much trouble will arise. Unless they also address the fact that we just do not know what will happen next in this context and build in enough spare capacity to deal with the worst case scenario that we can imagine, we shall experience further problems. That will happen irrespective of how well we deal with the infections of which we are aware. SARS was the most recent of a variety of infections. I draw the Minister's attention to a passage in the report referring to the common cold. Everyone I know has a cold at the moment, myself included. I attribute that to the presence of a small toddler in my house. Such infections are easily spread and we are always playing catch-up in trying to tackle them. I hope that the Government have some idea of how they are prepared to tackle such infections.
  7.5 p.m.
  Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, the House will be grateful to my noble friend Lord Soulsby and his committee for their exhaustive work on this subject. I should like to add my congratulations to the Clerk, Rebecca Neal, who had the unenviable task of summarising 395 pages of evidence into the 36 pages of the report itself—a major piece of precis that anyone should be proud of.
  Public health, which is what we are basically talking about here, has been defined as,
  "the science and art of promoting health, preventing disease, and prolonging life through"—
  and I emphasise this—
  "the organized efforts of society".
  Society, though, can do a certain amount for itself. I shall discuss that in a minute. Preventing disease brings me straight into a major criticism of the report. "Arrangements for formal collaboration", says the executive summary,
  "are poor, and lines of accountability are unclear. Collaboration is difficult: many organizations and health professionals are involved in fighting infection".
  You can say that again! Centrally we have the Department of Health. Under this we have the Public Health Laboratory Service, soon to be devolved to the Health Protection Agency. Then there are the nine departmental regions; under them are the strategic health authorities; and under them the primary care
  612
  trusts. Five bodies are backed up by pathology departments, microbiology and PHLS labs. At the sharp end are the hospital physicians and the general practitioners. All need training; a point well made by the noble Baroness, Lady Masham. I reserve judgment on whether the HPA will be able to cut this particular Gordian knot.
  Consider a wedding. The guests are likely to come from all parts of the country. They drink and, more importantly, they eat. It takes only a tiny bit of mayonnaise or undercooked meat for a salmonella outbreak to occur. All unbeknown to the guests, they carry it around and some will inevitably spread it to their families and neighbours. It may be quite quick and easy to establish the epicentre of the outbreak, but how is the information to be transmitted around the country? Is it, as has happened in the past, to go up through this long bureaucratic chain of command, resulting in a '"Dear Doctor" letter from the CMO, and taking weeks if not months to get the information to where it is really needed—the hospital departments and GP surgeries? Would it not be far better for the local laboratories to report immediately to their PCTs, and the PCTs to talk to each other? In these days of the much vaunted e-government, it should be very easy to compose an e-mail and copy it to all PCTs. This is dealt with in Sir William Stewart's evidence on page 316 of Volume 2. As the noble Lord, Lord Oxburgh, said, speed is of the essence.
  Salmonella is a comparatively local problem, but what about an international one such as SARS? In preparing for this debate, I was told that this disease was originally to be called simply, Acute Respiratory Syndrome. The tautological word "severe" was added to avoid the acronym, ARS! That is far worse than the inelegantly named CHAI—the Turkish word for tea— that I referred to not long ago. After that little aside, let us look at SARS. According to the WHO, during the outbreak in the Far East, a total of 8,098 people became sick, of whom 774 died. The terrifying thing about SARS is the speed at which it gets around, inevitably, I am afraid, with the world shrinking faster and faster due to cheap travel and bad air circulation and scrubbing of air in aeroplanes.
  The first case was reported on 16th November last year as an unknown acute respiratory syndrome in Guangdong Province, South China. A small paragraph on 14th February 2003 in the Weekly Epidemiological Record reported 305 cases and five deaths from an unknown acute respiratory syndrome. The Chinese Ministry of Health informed the WHO the same day. In passing, as the news had already broken, the Chinese lost no face in that. However, looked at from this distance, the speed of more general notification was slow. We now know that a medical doctor from the province checked into the ninth floor of the Metropole Hotel in Hong Kong with atypical pneumonia. He infected at least 12 other guests and visitors to that floor.
  So far, the outbreak is confined to China, but on 7th March—not very long afterwards—new reports come in from not only Hong Kong, but Vietnam. Approximately 20 hospital staff become sick with similar symptoms. Three days later, the problem in Hong Kong

  613
  has escalated. Within hours of reporting being ill, 18 healthcare workers are diagnosed. On 14th March, a flight attendant reports with SARS in Singapore. Contact tracing, a vital weapon in public health, will subsequently link her illness to more than 100 SARS cases in Singapore. To cut a long story short, the following day 15th March—SARS is reported in Canada. On 15th May, it is reported in the UK. On 22nd May, a second outbreak occurs in Toronto. By 6th June, there were 82 cases in that second outbreak.
  From then, we know that through proper quarantine regulations the epidemic was controlled. However, it is not only how quickly, but how dramatically SARS affected the far east, Canada and several other countries that is so worrying, as many of those are not developing nations with inadequate healthcare provisions or vaccination programmes, but developed countries with a healthcare infrastructure and economy remarkably similar to our own.
  Closer to home, in spite of the recent scare stories, hyped naturally by the media, I remain proud of my part in the introduction of the MMR vaccine. It was introduced primarily because, although we had a working vaccination programme for the individual diseases, we were not targeting the right people. Men, who were not vaccinated against it as babies, were carriers of rubella, with all its dreadful effects on pregnant women and their babies. The average number of birth defects as a result of rubella infection has fallen from 250 a year before 1970 to an average of four— yes, four—between 1991 and 1995. If that is not success, I do not know what is.
  The only issue in the case of the MMR vaccine is the media attention surrounding possible side effects. I will go to my grave believing that the fact that autism and Crohn's disease present themselves at around the time that the MMR vaccination is given is coincidental and not causal. After all, do not babies learn to run around the age of two?
  Only 84 per cent of babies received the MMR vaccine in 2001–02, 8 per cent lower than the peak coverage achieved in 1995–96. Over 90 per cent is required for proper control, so even with single vaccines, the courses of which are often not completed, we face an upsurge in not only rubella but measles and mumps as well. I agree with my noble friend Lord Soulsby about the rundown of vaccine production in this country, but that is not exactly the point that I have just made. Why do we vaccinate human beings but Defra sets its face against the same thing in animals, something we have learned over the BSE crisis? Perhaps the Minister will be able to answer.
  Friday's report, Winning Ways, by the Chief Medical Officer was well reported in the papers that I read, concentrating as it does on diseases in hospitals. However, it is only a partial response to the committee's report. Hospitals are well known to be dangerous places health-wise. I once came round from an elective operation complaining to the surgeon of a sore throat. "Nothing to worry about", he said, "it's probably the anaesthetic". A little later the anaesthetist came round. "Oh dear", he said, "your
  614
  throat's very red", and gave me some soothing medicine. Soon after I started to sweat. The following day a rash appeared, getting progressively worse.
  It was not until the day after that that a friend came to visit me. It so happened that he had just retired as the head of the local public health service laboratory. He looked at me and said, "If it weren't impossible, I'd say you had scarlet fever". A physician was summoned, my temperature of 105 degrees was taken, and the condition was—surprise, surprise— confirmed. I was pumped full of antibiotics and recovered. That occasion was not the hospital's fault; I had been in contact with an undiagnosed scarlatina case, and the operation had exacerbated the problem.
  That just goes to show how things happen. Is it any wonder that flu, legionnaires' disease or MRSA spread like wildfire in a hospital, where not only is the temperature warm, but the patients' resistance is inevitably at a low ebb? The very fact, too. that methicillin resistant staphylococcus aureus, to give it its full name, has a toehold in a hospital makes it inevitable that it will spread. Indeed, the latest figures show that the number of people recorded as dying of it is rising, as the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, said.
  I spoke earlier of the organised efforts of society, but society could do a certain amount for itself. The noble Lord, Lord Haskel, spoke about this. How often have we been in a public toilet in a restaurant and seen people not washing their hands? How often have we seen unfinished courses of antibiotics returned to the pharmacist, or worse, thrown in the bin? I am no pharmacologist, but is it surprising that diseases become resistant to antibiotics when that happens? The CMO's report makes the point highlighted by the noble Lord, Lord Addington, about nurses and doctors washing their hands after touching patients. A new pair of surgical gloves each time on originally clean hands might be a bit more practical, but who am I to argue?
  Interestingly, a recent article about Ebola from the Congo makes the same point. Health officials there are apparently trying to stop the habit of friends and relatives touching the bodies of dead people. Not sterilising and reusing catheters and drips but throwing them away is another suggestion in the report. That is a matter for negotiation, I suspect, because there is cost involved, although I have no idea how much it is. However, it is something that the National Health Service will have to sort out. Surely it is wise advice.
  I question the role of what will surely come to be known as the super de-bugger, an upgrading of an existing management post referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Emerton. In days of yore when we had proper matrons, that would have been one of her roles. Surely it should be again, and cleaners should come under her.
  On a slightly different subject, I remember Her Royal Highness Princess Anne making the keynote speech at an early AIDS conference, and describing HIV/AIDS as an evil monstrosity perpetrated by

  615
  mankind upon itself, or words to that effect. That is true not only of HIV/AIDS, but of all sexually transmitted diseases and many others besides.
  Most of us were brought up with the slogan, "You've got to eat a peck of dirt before you die". I did a little research. The noble Lord, Lord Warner, loves to rush to the dictionary, and I did exactly the same thing. There are two gallons in a peck, and I reckon that that is a heck of a lot of antibodies. I doubt that a child born today will eat more than half a pint. No wonder minor sicknesses abound; it is my view that the health police are often doing more harm than good.
  Finally, I was struck by Professor Weinberg's comment on page 378 of volume two that the role of surveillance was to provide early warnings of an increase—he might have added the word incidence—of infection. All well and good, but unless the warning is passed on quickly, we will be putting Pelion on Ossa. The written evidence of the Infection Control Nurses Association makes the similar point that the collection of data is not standardised, and may even be false. It takes time to check the accuracy. So it may, but I doubt whether it is that damaging or that long.
  That returns me to my central point, for which I shall quote the PHLS written evidence on page 134 of volume two. The most telling definition of "surveillance" is that,
  "surveillance is the delivery of information for action".
  On this matter, we cannot have action without the wide spread of information, arriving quickly at the point of delivery of that action.
  There is so much in the report that I have inevitably only scratched the surface, despite speaking too long. I trust that the Department of Health will build on Sir Liam's report and continue taking action on this section of public health, which is so vital to every man, woman and child. The committee's report should help them to do that, and I trust that the department will accept it lock, stock and barrel as a valuable aid in the war on infection.
  7.20 p.m.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Warner): My Lords, I am grateful to the committee for the work it has done on this important issue and the chance that this debate provides to discuss the committee's work and the Government's response. I also pay tribute to the work of the noble Lord, Lord Soulsby, and of my noble friend Lord Haskel who will now leave the Science and Technology Committee.
  The Government's response focused on the strategy described by the Chief Medical Officer in his report Getting Ahead of the Curve, which was published in January 2002. I shall use this debate also to outline the further work the Government will be doing as a result of the document Winning Ways published last Friday on action to reduce healthcare associated infections. Despite the temptation offered by the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, I shall not venture into the areas of MMR or BSE.
  616
  The CMO's strategy observes that,
  "this country is internationally respected for its work on infectious disease surveillance",
  and that we have,
  "traditionally had a much stronger public health system than many other countries";
  but that at the same time,
  "the present system falls short of what is necessary fully to protect the public health".
  That is the position from where we start. For the first time ever the Department of Health now has in place a strategy for tackling infectious disease. The strategy brings together a great deal of information about infections and sets out a number of actions, which in total provide a systematic approach to preventing and controlling infectious disease. Some noble Lords have drawn attention to the importance of co-ordination, with which I agree. We have tried to bring the threads together in what was a rather disparate area in that strategy.
  Recent events have made us all much more aware of the risks from infections as well as chemical and radiological threats. Those aspects were explained persuasively by the noble Lord, Lord Oxburgh, who drew our attention to the role of animals and birds as carriers and some of the problems arising from easier international transport, which has increased the risk from imported infections carried by people or foodstuffs. We are also seeing a greater number of patients with immuno-deficiencies that make them more susceptible to infection. We now have the spectre of deliberate release of pathogenic organisms. All those factors plus the emergence of SARS earlier this year—mentioned by the noble Lords, Lord Skelmersdale and Lord Oxburgh—have led us to look afresh at how we can best protect the health of our population from infectious diseases. Such issues and others have been well recognised by the committee's wide-ranging report.
  First, I shall describe some of the progress that the department has made since Getting Ahead of the Curve was published before responding to some of the specific recommendations in Fighting Infection.
  The new and emerging infections panel mentioned in Sir Liam's report has been set up. The function of the panel is to identify key areas for action and to advise on priorities. The panel reports to the Chief Medical Officer and held its first meeting in November 2003. It is expected to meet every six months. The CMO has also announced two new actions to help NHS staff combat infections. One was new funding of nearly £12 million to help NHS hospital pharmacists monitor and control more carefully the use of antibiotics. The other was the extension of mandatory national surveillance of healthcare associated infections which include blood stream infections and serious adverse incidents associated with infections, such as ward closures due to gastro-enteritis.
  I shall say more later about the new action plan on healthcare associated infections. Alongside, we have action plans for tuberculosis and hepatitis C which will be published soon. The action plan for TB will have clear objectives, but the issues surrounding them are

  617
  complex. That is why we are taking time to ensure that they are thoroughly thought-through. I remind my noble friend Lord Haskel that we have TB testing capacity at Heathrow and Dover, for example, for people coming into this country. An action plan will be published early next year to support implementation of the department's Hepatitis C Strategy for England following consultation last year.
  We have implemented the proposal in Getting Ahead of the Curve to transfer to NHS trusts those laboratories in the Public Health Laboratory Service that carried out routine clinical diagnostic microbiology activity, and are transferring to the Health Protection Agency those that carry out specialist and reference microbiology. The transfer of laboratories to the NHS took place on or by 31st March 2003.
  The Health Protection Agency now has, or commissions, a public health laboratory in every region. Steps have been taken to ensure that all the laboratories transferred to NHS trusts are appropriately resourced and motivated to continue to meet their public health responsibilities. We intend that standard national operating procedures will be put in place throughout the NHS microbiological pathology service so as to improve quality and ensure consistency of reporting arrangements.
  The department's programme for modernising pathology services includes a requirement for all NHS pathology laboratories to be enrolled for accreditation by an appropriate accrediting body. The HPA is in the process of agreeing service level agreements with relevant NHS trusts which will define their health protection outputs, including reporting infectious diseases and submitting samples and isolates for further analysis. I hope that that gives the noble Lord, Lord Addington, some reassurance on the action we are taking on capacity.
  A new inspector of microbiology post has been created to champion and promote the delivery of high quality clinical and public health microbiology services. We expect to have the inspector in place next month. He will initially be located within the Department of Health and the post will transfer to the Commission for Healthcare Audit and Inspection in late 2005 or early 2006.
  I am well aware of the doubts that have been expressed by noble Lords and others about the rationalisation of microbiology laboratories and what has been perceived as a break-up of an effective public health network. But my information is that the laboratory transitions have all been carried out smoothly and the public health business has not been disrupted, as some feared.
  As the Fighting Infection report described, the role of vaccines is key to protecting our population from infections. A programme of research to inform key policy decisions relevant to the future use of vaccines in the UK is currently being undertaken. This programme covers a number of topics, including evaluating new and potential vaccines for use in the UK childhood programme and in adults. Undertaking this programme of research will allow the introduction
  618
  of vaccines at the earliest opportunity and in the most cost-effective manner. I will come shortly to the committee's recommendations concerning a strategic vaccine facility.
  A number of noble Lords mentioned the Biosciences Innovation and Growth Team report. In response to that report, I have established a high-level working group, the Research for Patents' Benefit Working Party, chaired by the department's director of research and development, Sir John Pattison. This will look at how we can take practical steps to implement some of the ideas and issues recommended in that report. It will report to me and to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State within about six months.
  The Chief Medical Officer's strategy also describes our progress in developing clear and comprehensive contingency plans to reduce the impact of any future terrorist attack. This is a vital part of our ability to fight infections. However, as these measures will be dealt with in the Government's response to a different Select Committee in another place, I do not propose to go into such detail here.
  I turn now to the subject of the new Health Protection Agency. The Chief Medical Officer's strategy proposed the creation of that agency. It was established as a special health authority on 1st April 2003, and in this Chamber we shall shortly be debating the Bill to make the agency a non-departmental public body. The Health Protection Agency integrates into one organisation expertise which was previously dispersed throughout a number of different bodies. I shall not go into that detail. It also works in partnership with the National Radiological Protection Board, whose functions will be transferred to it under the new legislation. Therefore, there has been a considerable move to integrate and co-ordinate much expertise dispersed around a number of organisations.
  We believe that the Health Protection Agency is the first of its kind in the world. Its creation is an essential, ground-breaking, development for the protection of health in this country. For the first time, we have an integrated, coherent organisation which spans the major areas of health protection and brings together local, regional and national responses to emerging threats. In response to the concern raised by the noble Lord, Lord Addington, who asked whether we were planning for the unexpected, the emergency division of the HPA carries out regular exercises to test our ability to respond to a number of scenarios and it continually models projections for different diseases.
  The HPA published its first corporate plan setting out 12 strategic goals, the first of which is to prevent and reduce the impact and consequences of infectious diseases. The department will be working closely with the agency to develop its plans and targets for future years. The HPA is providing its own response to the committee's report.
  I now turn to the Government's response to the recommendations made by the Select Committee. We have considered the recommendations very carefully and I hope that that shows in our published response. We welcome the great majority of the committee's

  619
  recommendations and will be working with the HPA and with other stakeholders in the NHS and local and central government to put them into effect. In some areas, of course, we do not see exactly eye to eye with the committee. Where that is the case, we have made it clear in our response.
  We noted the committee's recommendation for a central strategic vaccine facility. We have not been convinced by the evidence that we have seen so far, and we have yet to see a clear and persuasive business case that describes exactly what such a centre would provide. The development and production of a vaccine is not a rapid response to an emerging infection, and we need to be very clear about the purpose before we commit the substantial funding which it would require.
  We are also not sure about the committee's recommendation that we should produce a definitive publication of all the roles and responsibilities of those involved in responding to infections. We believe that the staff across the country who are involved in this area know very well what they have to do and that they would not necessarily be helped by the publication of such a description. The establishment of the HPA makes the position far clearer, as I believe many noble Lords recognise.
  My noble friend Lord Haskel raised the issue of the recruitment of environmental health officers. We are working with the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health, and I am sure that colleagues in the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister will study very carefully my noble friend's concerns.
  Finally, I turn to the issue of reducing healthcare-associated infection and the report, Winning Ways: Working together to reduce Healthcare Associated Infection in England, launched last Friday by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State and the Chief Medical Officer. The noble Baronesses, Lady Finlay and Lady Masham, spoke eloquently on those issues, as did other noble Lords. The report represents an important action plan for tackling such infections. It recognises that the problem of infection in hospitals and other healthcare settings is a challenge to health services around the world. The level of healthcare-associated infection among patients in the US, Australasia and most European countries, including the UK, is estimated to be between 4 and 10 per cent. Most countries are adopting similar strategies to control healthcare-associated infection.
  Despite the efforts that we have made thus far, we have not made the progress that we would like to see in this country. That is why the Chief Medical Officer is proposing seven action areas where change is required. Those are: active surveillance and investigation; reducing the infection risk from the use of catheters, tubes, cannulae, instruments and other devices; reducing reservoirs of infection; high standards of hygiene in clinical practice, which many noble Lords mentioned; the prudent use of antibiotics; management and organisation; and research and development. I saw the CMO talking about this subject on television last week. He expressed it very graphically, when he said that it is a case of "no more Mr Nice Guy". The approach that we
  620
  are adopting will involve a return to some of the good hygiene practices in hospitals that many noble Lords have mentioned.
  The new report recognises the need for infection control to be everyone's business and it will ensure that senior management change the culture by the designation of a director of infection prevention and control. Perhaps I may assure the noble Baroness, Lady Emerton, that he will report directly to the chief executive and the trust board. That is set out in Winning Ways. The new Inspector of Microbiology and the National Patient Safety Agency will, for example, work jointly to ensure the use of "root cause analysis" and the methodology of hazard analysis and control point. This is a risk-analysis technique used successfully in the food industry to reduce food poisoning.
  The Chief Medical Officer will publish on his website for the public a listing of rates of healthcare-associated infection in each area of the country. A new audit of deaths from healthcare-associated infection will be established and a proportion of the deaths that occur will be investigated in order to identify avoidable factors and lessons to be learnt. A programme of high-quality research and development involving £3 million will be established to underpin effective action and ensure that breakthroughs in the understanding of healthcare-associated infection are translated rapidly into benefits for patients.
  I turn briefly to a number of points in this area raised by noble Lords. The noble Baroness, Lady Masham, raised the issue of vaccination against the Fujian strain of flu. Of course, when flu vaccines are ordered, new strains cannot always be anticipated. The vaccines being used this year, for example, provide some protection against this new strain. They are available to those aged over 65 and to high-priority groups, including children who suffer, for example, from asthma and other chronic conditions.
  Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, what about the other children who seem to be at risk?
  Lord Warner: My Lords, I believe that the Chief Medical Officer has tried to give reassurance on that point. However, I shall obtain more details and write to the noble Baroness.
  A number of noble Lords raised the issue of whether there will be sufficient microbiologists. I do not want to go over the details of that but I commend to noble Lords page 19 of the Government's response, which sets out the work being done to increase both the number of specialist registrars and the number of posts in and around the area of microbiology.
  The noble Baroness, Lady Masham, also raised the important issue of sexually transmitted diseases. We are aware of the lengthy waiting times and staff shortages in genitor-urinary clinics. In addition to the extra £5 million to improve genitor-urinary medicine that we announced in response to the Health Select Committee's report on sexual health, we recently

  621
  announced a further £15 million to improve genitor-urinary medicine's premises. We are working with strategic health authorities to ensure that those funds are targeted on those most at need. The Government have made it clear that they have a strategy in this area which includes a very powerful public education programme. However, we are not complacent about this matter and recognise that it is a very important area of public concern.
  Perhaps I may also mention that general cleanliness, although not the answer to MRSA, has featured in performance ratings for NHS trusts over the past few years. From those one can see that there has been a very substantial improvement in general cleanliness in hospitals, which reflects the attention being given to this area by NHS trusts.
  In conclusion, I thank noble Lords for their contributions on this important issue, in particular the noble Lord, Lord Soulsby, for the work he has done in chairing the committee and producing such a good report. A good deal of change is being made on this important and difficult topic of fighting infection. We hope and believe that the new structures and approaches will work towards improving public health and will co-ordinate matters in a better way, which is of concern to a number of noble Lords.
  I assure noble Lords that this area is one which the Government will keep under very close review because of the dangers it presents to public health. We shall have an opportunity to return to some of these issues when we debate the detail of the Health Protection Agency Bill in the new year. Much of what we have
  622
  discussed tonight is about getting human beings to change their behaviour. That is not always the easiest thing to do.
  7.42 p.m.
  Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior: My Lords. I thank all noble Lords for their important contributions to the debate, and in particular for addressing the major issues so effectively. There has been an air of strong support for the report, Fighting Infection, and it is important that there should be.
  We take note of the Minister's response. We are encouraged by it and look forward to seeing the various actions put in place, in particular the development of the HPA. I think that we are slightly more optimistic than my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale about the HPA and its ability to cut what he describes as the Gordian knot on the many issues concerned with health care and the control of infectious diseases. However, as the Minister indicated, I believe we shall return to the many issues dealt with in the report at a later date. No doubt some of those will arise when the Bill comes to this House. In the mean time, I thank all noble Lords for their participation and strong support.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.
  The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Fookes): My Lords, I have to announce that in the Division on the Motion on the Summer Recess 2004, the numbers voting "Not-Content" should have been 114, not 115 as previously announced.
  House adjourned at seventeen minutes before eight o'clock.

  Cross-Border Implementation Bodies: Provision of Cars for Chief Executives
  Cross-Border Implementation Bodies: Provision of Cars for Chief Executives
  EU Draft Constitutional Treaty: Data Protection Rules
  EU Draft Constitutional Treaty: Data Protection Rules
  Heroin Prescribing
  Heroin Prescribing
  Internet Fraud
  Internet Fraud
  Salisbury District Local Plan
  Salisbury District Local Plan
  Planning Law and National Planning Policy: 20th Century Listed Buildings
  Planning Law and National Planning Policy: 20th Century Listed Buildings
  Gulf War 1990–91: Vaccines
  Gulf War 1990–91: Vaccines
  Cambridge University: Primate Research Centre
  Cambridge University: Primate Research Centre
  Renewable Energy: Tidal Power
  Renewable Energy: Tidal Power
  UK Energy Reserves: EU Competence
  UK Energy Reserves: EU Competence
  Accountancy and Audit: Regulation
  Accountancy and Audit: Regulation
  Debt Consolidation Products
  Debt Consolidation Products
  Jamaica: Small Arms and Ammunition Export Licenses
  Jamaica: Small Arms and Ammunition Export Licenses
  Haemophiliacs with Hepatitis C: Financial Assistance Scheme
  Haemophiliacs with Hepatitis C: Financial Assistance Scheme
  Pharmaceutical Price Regulation Scheme: Seventh Report to Parliament
  Pharmaceutical Price Regulation Scheme: Seventh Report to Parliament
  Export of Works of Art
  Export of Works of Art
  Disability: UK Support for Proposed UN Convention
  Disability: UK Support for Proposed UN Convention
  Autism
  Autism
  Illegal Food Imports
  Illegal Food Imports
  Wales: Smoking in Public Places
  Wales: Smoking in Public Places