Sitting of 11 December 2003

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

    Small Businesses
    Mr. Mark Prisk: What representations she has received from small businesses about the effect of changes in the taxation of husband and wife enterprises. [143317]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Nigel Griffiths): There have been no changes in the taxation of husband and wife enterprises.
    Mr. Prisk: I think that the Minister is misinformed because the tax changes that small businesses have told me about mean that no one in a family firm now knows what their tax liability is, for this year or for the past six years. I refer, if the Minister is uncertain, to section 660A. This is creating uncertainty for hundreds of thousands of family firms. Will the Minister therefore agree to meet a delegation of small businesses to hear them express their concerns?
    Nigel Griffiths: The hon. Gentleman refers to section 660A, but he is being a bit economical in his description. It is section 660A of the 1988 measure to counter tax avoidance. The treatment of businesses under that has been consistent. I understand that the maximum that a husband and wife can attempt to avoid is about £8,000. However, at the moment the Inland Revenue is dealing with fewer than 100 inquiries on this subject. As I meet small business representatives regularly, if they raise the matter with me they can be sure of a robust response.
    David Taylor: The business sector clearly welcomes the generally benign and encouraging regimes that the Chancellor has introduced since 1997 and there have been great incentives to small businesses to incorporate, but does the Minister agree with the Federation of Small Businesses that an imbalance has grown up between incorporated businesses and the self-employed and partnerships, including husband and wife partnerships, to the extent that the future of some of those self
    1176
    employed and partnership businesses is imperilled? Should not taxation exist to produce revenue, not to shape the form in which business takes place?
    Nigel Griffiths: I greatly respect the Federation of Small Businesses and the campaign that it launched with its members some time ago, but I think that small businesses also appreciate that there are advantages to not being incorporated, as well as to incorporation. Whereas incorporation now allows them to benefit from, I think. the lowest starting rate of corporation tax in the advanced industrial economies and a level of corporation tax among the lowest anywhere, unincorporation does confer advantages on small firms and many choose to retain that status, which is why 100,000 viable small firms have started up in the last six years and continue to trade and prosper.
    Mr. Jonathan Djanogly: If a company pays dividends to its shareholders, why should it matter that they happen to be married? Is not this interpretation an attack on family businesses in this country?
    Nigel Griffiths: The hon. Gentleman should address that question to Lord Lawson who, as Chancellor in 1988, was responsible for this piece of legislation. As I have said, I am informed that there have been fewer than 100 inquiries to the Inland Revenue on this subject. Such conduct may involve, in many cases, trying to ensure that a sleeping partner —a non-active—director can benefit from tax avoidance, which is why Nigel Lawson closed that loophole.

    Manufacturing Industry
    Mr. John MacDougall: What measures she is taking to increase productivity in the UK's manufacturing industry sector; and if she will make a statement. [143318]
    The Minister for Industry and the Regions (Jacqui Smith): We are taking action in all the areas identified in the Government's manufacturing strategy—the first for 30 years—to help the UK's manufacturing sector increase productivity in very difficult global conditions. For example., the manufacturing advisory service has been a real success as a major source of advice and support, adding nearly £30 million total value added benefit to firms helped by that service.
    Mr. MacDougall: I am grateful for my right hon. Friend's response. Does she agree that manufacturing industry is still vital to the UK economy, especially to constituencies such as my own, Central Fife; that productivity is a key factor; that we are going to close the productivity gap with Europe and the United States; and that we will declare that intent?
    Jacqui Smith: I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend. Producing, as it does, a sixth of national output, employing more than 300,000 people—many of whom are dependent on manufacturing industry—and being a driver of productivity improvements and innovation in

    1177
    our economy gives manufacturing an absolutely crucial role. My hon. Friend in his constituency, and I in my west midlands constituency, understand that manufacturing has been a key part of our industrial heritage, and that it is also a key part of our successful economic future.
    Mr. Stephen O'Brien: Given that according to the Office for National Statistics, UK manufacturing growth has halved under Labour, does the right hon. Lady agree with her senior Government colleague, the Leader of the House, who acknowledged at the CBI conference on 17 November that the gold-plating of European regulations by this Labour Government is one of the major difficulties British firms face, thus depressing productivity and competitiveness? Will she give the House the percentage of all regulations that affect UK manufacturers that now emanate from the European Union?
    Jacqui Smith: I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his new job, but I point him towards the ONS information that manufacturing output in this country grew by 1 per cent. between September and October. Nevertheless, he raises an important issue about European regulation and, because of our wish to ensure that we give the very best and most flexible regime to our manufacturers, we are working extremely hard in Europe, pushing forward the better regulation action plan.
    My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, along with representatives of the future presidencies of the EU, is setting in place action to ensure that what we do in Europe drives competitiveness throughout Europe and in the UK, that we improve the way in which European regulations are assessed for their impact on competitiveness and that we drive that forward to the benefit of our manufacturing industry in this country. But if this question is a Trojan horse for the hon. Gentleman's dislike of Europe, I simply remind him that two thirds of our exports go to Europe. We are in the right position—at the centre of Europe, arguing for reforms that will benefit our manufacturing industry.
    Mr. O'Brien: The right hon. Lady gave no defence of her Cabinet colleague and no direct answer to the question, so perhaps I can help her, not least as I have been a manufacturer in many European countries, by saying that her accusation is not well founded. About 40 per cent. of regulations that are driving down UK businesses' productivity are derived from the EU. Under six and a half years of Labour government, as many major EU directives have been implemented in the UK as in the whole of the preceding quarter of a century of our EU membership. In an effort to reverse the relative decline in the UK's manufacturing productivity, will she now direct her Department, with its hugely expanded staff, to use its burgeoning £8 billion budget to promote British business, and not to carry on being the stifling regulator-in-chief against British business?
    Jacqui Smith: I will excuse the hon. Gentleman, as this is his first time at the Dispatch Box in his new role, for not having listened to my response to his first question, in which I outlined the considerable action that is being
    1178
    taken by this country and the Department of Trade and Industry to ensure that we are at the forefront of better regulation across Europe. We will make a difference. We will ensure that the benefits that we derive from being in Europe, which many Opposition Members clearly do not recognise, come to our manufacturers and that we drive forward competitiveness using the active approach that we are taking with our partners across Europe.
    Chris Ruane: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the key ways to improve productivity in the manufacturing sector is to develop techniums—incubation and research centres—such as the Optic project on the St. Asaph business park in my constituency, which is about to open and which will be a world leader in the development of optoelectronic products? What measures can she take to expand techniums in the UK?
    Jacqui Smith: My hon. Friend makes a very important point. Of course those innovative and fast-growing UK businesses are very much part of the future, particularly those that take advantage of the research produced by the Government's increased expenditure on the science budget. He is right: we need to set up that sort of incubation unit and ways in which we can translate scientific research into effective business products and processes. I commend the development of those incubation centres, as I do when I see them across the country during my regional visits.
    Malcolm Bruce: Does the Minister accept that the key to productivity is investment and that it has been falling? Is she aware, for example, of figures from the ONS today that show a collapse in inward investment in this country and a disinvestment from America and, in fact, that 63 per cent. of all investment in this country in 2002 came from Germany? In those circumstances, does she acknowledge that we are not getting the benefit of the special relationship and that we are in danger of undermining the benefit of the relationship with the EU? Will she comment on how the proposed £9.1 billion write-down of bad debt by the Export Credits Guarantee Department helps? Does that not give the impression that that money is being used for either international politics or backhanded subsidies, and not for increasing investment, which is the underlying key to productivity?
    Jacqui Smith: I do not recognise the context of the hon. Gentleman's question. I hope that he is not talking down the success of our manufacturing industry at a time when, as we hear today, the CBI sees confidence in our manufacturing industry improving. I agree, however, that investment is one of the key pillars of our manufacturing success. That is why the type of macroeconomic stability that we have delivered in this country, and some of the specific provisions outlined by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor yesterday, will help to build on the success that our manufacturers already have in investing in the sort of innovative products and skills that will enable them to be successful

    Loans
    Mrs. Betty Williams: What action she has taken to protect vulnerable people from unscrupulous selling of loans. [143319]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe): On Monday 8 December, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry published the White Paper "Fair, Clear and Competitive: The Consumer Credit Market in the 21st Century", which tackles the problem of loan sharks.
    Mrs. Williams: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer on a matter that causes great misery, particularly during the time leading up to Christmas and the new year, for people of all ages and their families. May I ask him to be more specific and tell the House what the Government are doing to protect people from illegal and extortionate door-to-door loan sharks, who prey on the most vulnerable group of people in our society?
    Mr. Sutcliffe: I acknowledge the expertise that my hon. Friend has in this area—I believe that she was involved with citizens advice bureaux before coming into the House. Clearly, attacks by loan sharks on vulnerable people are important to this Government, which is why we have introduced a pilot scheme in Glasgow and Birmingham, whereby the police, local authority trading standards and a variety of other organisations come together to look at ways of tackling loan sharks, because people are always frightened to come forward. We hope that that will determine best practice, and that the scheme will be rolled out to the rest of the country.
    Mrs. Cheryl Gillan: I am interested in what the Minister had to say. Does he agree that the unscrupulous selling of loans and various other "unbeatable" financial offers are now coming from all directions to our citizens? I get five letters a week at my London flat addressed to me or my husband, and we also now receive such offers by e-mail and from call centres abroad. Can he reassure me that even if he does not have the instant answer to this problem, he is planning and thinking about how we can stop this constant bombardment of our innocent citizens by people abroad who are no more than fraudsters?
    Mr. Sutcliffe: I accept what the hon. Lady says. It is right that part of the White Paper focuses on responsible lending—making sure that lenders lend responsibly—and that a number of scams are operating from Canada and outside the European Union. We have signed a memorandum of understanding with the Canadian Government, the Australian Government and others to try to locate the perpetrators of those scams, and we are working together to try to resolve these issues.
    Mr. Barry Gardiner: Does my hon. Friend share the concern of many consumer organisations that door-to-door collection of loans should be separated from the selling of loans? Part of the problem is that the relationship built up by people who
    1180
    go to collect debts each week can lead quickly to an exploitative one in which they sell the next round of debt. Will he: do something to separate that?
    Mr. Sutcliffe: I acknowledge the expertise of my hon. Friend in this field. He is right that we are working closely with the industry and consumer groups to examine the detail of how to separate the problem. What is key is that consumers understand fully what they are letting themselves in for in terms of loans. That is why we are looking for transparency in making sure that a summary box in adverts tells people exactly what they are borrowing, how much they are paying back, and how long it will take them to pay it back.
    Dr. Vincent Cable: Does the Minister accept that the unsolicited, aggressive promotion of debt comes not simply from scams in Canada but from our leading banks and credit card companies? Can he explain the logic by which, this morning, the Government are outlawing unsolicited spam on e-mail but are unwilling to act against unsolicited credit promotion by our leading financial institutions?
    Mr. Sutcliffe: The hon. Gentleman is not correct that we are not prepared to act. He will read with interest, as I shall, the Treasury Committee's report on how lending operates in the UK, which I understand will be out next week. I am confident that UK consumers will be better off because of the White Paper and, I hope, the Treasury Committee's findings.
    Miss Anne Begg: It is not only loan sharks who sell loans unscrupulously. I have a constituent who borrowed £4,000 to buy a car. The APR was 28.5 per cent. and by the time that my constituent included add-ons such as insurance and breakdown cover, he found that he was paying back about £8,000. What are the Government going to do about that?
    Mr. Sutcliffe: Again, I acknowledge my hon. Friend's work on the matter in her constituency, and she is quite right. We are examining ways of calculating APR because there are two ways of doing that at the moment and we want to make the process simpler. We are also examining the problem for people who get small loans because, as she said, administrative and other charges can make the APR look outrageous. We do not want to put those who provide such loans out of the marketplace because they offer a useful service, but we want to ensure that people are protected and that they understand what they let themselves in for.

    US Steel Tariffs
    Dr. Ashok Kumar: What action she has taken to protect British steel workers from the effects of US steel tariffs. [143320]
    The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Ms Patricia Hewitt): As the House knows, we have strongly opposed the unlawful tariffs that the United States imposed on our steel exports. We worked extremely closely with our European partners in the successful

    1181
    challenge under the World Trade Organisation. I am delighted that President Bush has now announced the full removal of those tariffs.
    Dr. Kumar: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply and praise her hard work on behalf of the steel industry. Everyone welcomed her when she visited Teesside steel works, and she has lobbied President Bush hard on the illegal steel tariffs that he introduced—I am delighted that we have got such an outcome. Does she realise that the steel maker Corus recently admitted that its sales were down by 10 per cent. in America in the past six months, which will obviously have a knock-on effect on its profits? Is my right hon. Friend in a position to say whether the Government are willing to give any help or support to overcome the difficulties that the steel industry has faced?
    Ms Hewitt: I thank my hon. Friend for what he said. We have been working closely with Corus and the Iron and Steel Trades Confederation—the trade union—and its members to help Corus and the wider steel industry. I am glad that we were able to get about 70 per cent. of UK steel exports exempted from the tariffs when they were in force. None the less, the tariffs have hit Corus hard. We all hope that with the growth that is taking place in the United States, steel exports will begin to pick up. I know that my hon. Friend welcomes, as I do, the success that the new management of Corus is beginning to have in putting a new financing package in place, working in much closer partnership with employees and their trade unions, and creating a positive relationship with the Dutch branch of the business to ensure that Corus and its work force will have a strong future.
    Mr. James Arbuthnot: Does the Secretary of State agree that it is welcome that the United States has recognised that steel tariffs have done real damage to its manufacturing industry, as tariffs usually do? What steps is she personally taking to ensure that with its proposed licensing system, the United States will not introduce steel tariffs by the back door?
    Ms Hewitt: I welcome the right hon. Gentleman to his new place on the Front Bench, although I cannot help but observe that it appears to take two Conservative men to do the job of one Labour woman. We have looked closely at the small print of not only consumer credit agreements, but the announcement by the United States on steel tariffs. I do not believe that it intends to introduce new tariffs or import barriers through the back door, but we are examining closely what it means by "monitoring imports" because we want to ensure that what we have succeeded in defeating through our partnership with Europe and work in the WTO will not re-emerge. I will continue to work extremely closely with our steel industry on the issue, but at this point we have no evidence whatsoever to suggest that Washington might do what the right hon. Gentleman fears.
    Mr. Martin O'Neill: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on her efforts in securing that outcome. It is a victory not only for common sense but for the WTO, as a rules-based trading organisation, in enforcing those rules to fulfil its responsibilities. Does
    1182
    she accept, however, that there is a sense of frustration about the fact that the appeals procedure takes so long, and that the rather cynical stroke that President Bush pulled in this instance got him the short-term political advantage that he wanted in those vital states that produce steel? If we could have dealt with the matter more quickly in the WTO, that political advantage, which had nothing to do with economics or industrial policy, would have been denied him.
    Ms Hewitt: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and as part of strengthening the WTO as we move forward in the development round it would be helpful if we could resolve disputes much more quickly. I return to the point made by the right hon. Member for North-East Hampshire (Mr. Arbuthnot) that the United States manufacturing sector, including its car-building industry, has become increasingly concerned about the impact of those steel tariffs on wider industry in the US. It was able to deploy that argument to good effect, as were we, and that reinforces the case that we consistently make for free and fair trade. Such trade has benefited us enormously in the European Union, and it needs now, within the WTO, to benefit the whole world.
    Mr. Mark Field: I appreciate the Secretary of State's hard work, and she is absolutely right to point out that the promotion of free and fair trade should be the cornerstone of Britain's policy. She will recognise, however, that this country, either as an individual nation or as part of the EU, still has tariffs in place, and they are a hindrance to ensuring that we are able to counter global poverty, particularly in developing countries. I should be interested to hear what she has to say about the efforts that she will be making to try to promote free and fair trade and to cut tariffs that affect the third world.
    Ms Hewitt: I welcome the hon. Gentleman's support for the cause of free and fair trade. One of the most damaging aspects of the EU has been the impact of the common agricultural policy. It is through our commitment to EU membership, the alliances that we have built with other members—in striking contrast, let me say, to the isolation of the UK Government under the hon. Gentleman's party—and our positive approach that we were able to get such a good outcome on CAP reform in June. That will help us as we move forward with the Doha round, so that more developing countries can sell products to us, to their benefit and to the benefit of our consumers.

    Doha Development Agenda
    5. Kali Mountford: What action she has taken to make progress with the Doha development agenda. [143323]
    The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Ms Patricia Hewitt): I have been working closely with colleagues across Government, in the rest of the European Union and in the rest of the World Trade

    1183
    Organisation to get renewed momentum behind the Doha development round following the setback in Cancun. All countries stand to gain from a successful Doha round, but the poorest countries stand to gain the most.
    Kali Mountford: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Following on from the last question and my right hon. Friend's answer, is it not the case that sophisticated, developed western nations have a great deal to gain from good trading relationships that allow poorer nations to develop new wealth? To that end, Europe, being a sophisticated economy, has perhaps the most to gain. Will my right hon. Friend join me in urging Pascal Lamy to reconsider whether to hold talks following Doha, and show the flexibility and leadership that is needed to get the talks back on track?
    Ms Hewitt: I strongly agree with my hon. Friend. Indeed, at the recent informal Council of European Trade Ministers, I strongly made the point that the EU needs to show real leadership if we are to get the Doha talks back on track. For various reasons, the other key members and groupings in the WTO are not in a position to do that. We need to do that in the EU, and I am glad to say that among both existing member states and accession states there was strong support for that position.
    Mr. Andrew Mitchell: Does the Secretary of State accept that many of us believe that the Government deserve credit for their work in promoting free trade, which enriches nations? However, was not an opportunity missed at the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting to help to revitalise the Doha development agenda? Will she look again at the Conservative proposal for an advocacy fund, which would help developing countries to secure access to quality legal and economic advice on those important issues?
    Ms Hewitt: I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his new post on the Front Bench. No opportunity was missed at the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting. Indeed, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister reported to the House a few days ago, the Commonwealth Heads of Government agreed in strong language on the need to reinject momentum into the Doha round. Given the range of countries and economies that the Commonwealth represents, that was hugely important. I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman, however, about the advocacy fund. The Government have invested very substantially indeed in building the capacity of developing countries to argue their position within the WTO. Indeed, we saw some of the fruits of that investment at the Cancun conference. An advocacy fund would undermine the process of capacity building, which developing countries have made it clear they want.

    Sellafield
    Mr. David Chaytor: If she will make a statement on the discovery of contaminated discharge pipes from Sellafield on beaches in Ulster. [143324]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Nigel Griffiths): I am informed that the report is not accurate, and no such items have been found in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Chaytor: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his reply. Regardless of the accuracy of the report, is it not the case that politicians in Northern Ireland, both Irish Governments and the Governments of Iceland, Denmark and Norway continue to complain about the impact of radioactive emissions in the Irish sea and the North sea? Is there any possible argument for continuing with the reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel, and should we not separate the issue of reprocessing from the wider debate about the role of nuclear power in our future energy supply?
    Nigel Griffiths: There certainly is such a case. Our generation has an obligation to ensure the safe disposal of contaminated nuclear material produced by a previous generation. However, my hon. Friend makes a serious point, and as a member of the Environmental Audit Committee he takes a keen and informed interest in the matter. I have no wish to do anything that would spoil good relationships with our neighbours, but reports such as this, which are not founded on a shred of fact about anything reaching the beaches of Northern Ireland, can only fuel distrust between us as they are complete fiction. We take such reports seriously—it is important that perceptions of the treatment of any materials, whether contaminated or not, at Sellafield or elsewhere, are taken with the utmost seriousness and dealt with accordingly. I believe that we are doing so, but we must be ever vigilant.
    Mr. Michael Weir: Notwithstanding the Minister's answer, he will know that emissions from Sellafield are a long-standing worry in Scotland, Ireland and the north of Wales. He will also know that the nuclear industry has recently spent a great deal of money on slick advertising campaigns and lobbying on a future energy mix with the aim of assuring us that it is all safe. Will he tell the nuclear industry that that effort and money would be better spent cleaning up the mess at Sellafield?
    Nigel Griffiths: I visited Sellafield a short time ago, and I can tell the House that there is an impressive amount of work on the site and that responsibilities are taken seriously. Doubtless, BNFL will read the hon. Gentleman's comments in Hansard.

    Small Businesses (Banking Services)
    Mr. David Chidgey: What recent assessment she has made of banking facilities for small businesses. [143325]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Nigel Griffiths): The Government have accepted in full the findings and recommendations of the Competition Commission, following its investigation into the supply of banking services to small and medium-sized enterprises.
    Mr. Chidgey: Have not the Government abandoned their promise to establish an independent payments regulator in the banking industry? It is now more than three years since the Cruickshank report revealed that the banks were making excessive profits out of small business. When will the Government keep their word and crack down on the length of time that it takes banks to clear cheques and electronic payments while they line their pockets at the expense of our small businesses?
    Nigel Griffiths: That is a serious matter and the Government have indeed cracked down following the identification of 10 practices that were restrictive or against proper competition. We have ensured that SMEs are entitled to interest on their current accounts or free money transfers, and that money transfers are made more speedily. We now ensure that SMEs have clear advance information on all possible charges, and from 31 December we will make it much easier for SMEs to switch between banks.
    Mr. George Stevenson: My hon. Friend will no doubt accept that banking facilities for small and medium-sized enterprises are important, but are one element of the wider package of support that we give small businesses. Is he satisfied with the package of support that the Department is giving to small businesses, particularly such projects as the Mustard programme in areas like north Staffordshire, where the start-up of small businesses is way below the national average? Will my hon. Friend look into the situation to see what improvements can be made?
    Nigel Griffiths: As my hon. Friend knows, I have personally examined and investigated with my officials the provision of support for small businesses in his area, and I found that that contract was awarded quite legitimately. On the lack of start-ups in any part of the country, including his constituency, by comparison with the national average, the Small Business Service is determined to ensure that more people do start businesses. Yes, I am satisfied that steps have been taken by the Small Business Service and others—the regional development agencies—to ensure that we have an enterprise culture where people are able to start and grow their businesses, and where there are more businesses growing for the prosperity of communities in every part of the country.
    Chris Grayling: Does the Minister accept that more and more smaller businesses are being forced to look to banks and other professional bodies for support in dealing with the routine management of their payroll, entirely as a result of the Government's ill-judged imposition of regulation and changes to the tax credit system that make it impossible for a small business man or woman to manage the
    1186
    payroll themselves? Is that not madness, and does it not impose unwanted and unnecessary extra cost upon them?
    Nigel Griffiths: No.
    Mr. Dennis Skinner: If the banks are cheating small businesses, as suggested by that Liberal, the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey), and others, is there not an easier way of putting a stop to that in a decent world—that is, to call upon all Members of Parliament on the Tory Benches who are directors of banks and other companies to stop the cheating?
    Nigel Griffiths: My hon. Friend has mellowed in his time in the House. I was anticipating another more drastic remedy, which I did not think the banks would approve of, but as he did not mention public ownership, I warmly endorse his comments. I know that all Members, on behalf of their constituents, will raise with the heads of the banks any grievance they have about the treatment of small business or constituents, and I am sure those matters will be attended to.

    Ofgem/Oftel
    Mr. Edward Leigh: What steps (a) Ofgem and (b) Oftel are taking in response to the 50th report of the Committee of Public Accounts in Session 2001–02 on pipes and wires (i) to simplify the information requirements they place on companies and (ii) to change the period over which price reviews are conducted. [143326]
    The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Ms Patricia Hewitt): Both regulators have taken steps to minimise the information requests that they make, consistent with the need to regulate effectively. Both regulators need to allow time for the conducting of price reviews, so that they can get the necessary information and allow for adequate public consultation and for the possibility of appeal.
    Mr. Leigh: Is the Secretary of State satisfied that Ofgem pays sufficient regard to companies' investment needs when it sets price controls in order to maintain electricity supplies at all times?
    Ms Hewitt: Yes, I am. Indeed, as the hon. Gentleman will be aware, investment in the electricity network has gone up significantly since privatisation, contrary to the allegations that were made on last night's BBC programme. Ensuring that price controls allow for adequate investment is a matter that my hon. Friend the Minister for Energy, E-Commerce and Postal Services and I regularly discuss with Ofgem.

    Trading Bodies (Self-regulation)
    Mr. Mark Hoban: If she will make a statement on steps she has taken to encourage trade bodies to regulate their members. [143328]
    The Minister for Industry and the Regions (Jacqui Smith): We have given the Office of Fair Trading new powers in the Enterprise Act 2002 to approve for trade bodies and others codes of practice that aim to safeguard and promote the interests of consumers.
    Mr. Hoban: A business in my constituency is more stringently regulated by a trade body than by the statutory regulators, and suffers from two lots of inspection and monitoring. Is it possible to cut the cost of regulation by allowing the trade body to take the lead, thus reducing the burden on small businesses?
    Jacqui Smith: The hon. Gentleman raises an interesting point. It is difficult for me to respond today without the details of the particular trade body and regulations. What is important, however, is that through the changes in the Enterprise Act 2002 we are attempting to ensure that trade bodies regulate their members in a way that businesses and consumers can feel confident about. That is the reason for the new two-stage approach to determining the codes introduced in the 2002 Act.
    I agree that we need to deregulate—that is why the raft of regulations introduced during the years of Tory Government are being seriously reconsidered. For example, in the regulatory reform action plan that was published yesterday alongside the Chancellor's pre-Budget report, the Department of Trade and Industry alone identified 60 areas for regulatory reform, many of which will bring considerable benefits to small business.
    Lawrie Quinn: As my right hon. Friend will know from cases in her own constituency work load, constituents who are not satisfied with a particular service often, in their frustration, have recourse to the local trading standards organisation. Will my right hon. Friend give a message to the Office of Fair Trading to the effect that it should take note of the problems that trading standards officers regularly have to deal with, ensure that cowboy operators and people who hide behind trade organisations do not get away with it, and help our constituents to get the service that they want and pay for?
    Jacqui Smith: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We need to ensure that consumers have confidence in the whole regulatory framework by improving the process of codes underlying regulation by the Office of Fair Trading and ensuring that trading standards organisations discuss with the OFT, as they frequently do, how to secure certainty not only for businesses, but, importantly, for consumers about the regulatory process that protects their interests.

    Foreign Languages
    Mr. Nick Gibb: What assessment she has made of the economic effects of second language capability among employees. [143329]
    Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe): Although the DTI has not commissioned any specific research on the issue
    1188
    we continue to monitor the situation—for example, by making a point of asking established inward investors about the issues that concern them.
    Mr. Gibb: I am grateful to the Minister for that answer. He may recall that although nowadays most pupils study for a GCSE in a foreign language, only 30 per cent. did so before it was made compulsory in 1991. Given the CBI's concern about a shortage of employees with a second language, does he accept that the Government's decision to end compulsory language study after the age of 14 will have a seriously damaging effect on Britain's economic prospects?
    Mr. Sutcliffe: I always listen to what the hon. Gentleman says, because he has taken principled positions on many issues in this House. We are considering the study of second languages in earlier years and working with the Department for Education and Skills. Although such training is not compulsory at key stage 4, we are saying that if people want it, they are entitled to it. The hon. Gentleman will have noted the announcement of the Chancellor's new deal for skills in yesterday's pre-Budget report: that creates opportunities for languages in re-skilling the work force.

    Retail Workers (Christmas Day)
    Mr. Ken Purchase: What action she is taking to ensure that retail workers in large stores are not forced to work on Christmas day. [143330]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe): The Government are considering legislation and it is hoped that it can be introduced as soon as parliamentary time permits.
    Mr. Purchase: But does the Under-Secretary understand that the pressures to which workers are subject are often not perceived because they are different from a direct threat? There is an implied threat, especially to junior managers and supervisory staff, that their promotion chances may be diminished unless they continue to supervise and manage at Christmas. When we defended workers from having to work every Sunday, we would say, "Aren't workers entitled to one day a week?" We have now retreated so far on workers' rights that we ask, "Aren't they entitled to one day a year?"
    Mr. Sutcliffe: If my hon. Friend considers the employment rights measures that the Government have introduced since 1997—it would take too long to go through every one—he will recognise the benefits to working people of a Labour Government. For example, there is an entitlement to four weeks paid holiday a year.
    Mr. Purchase: What about Sundays and Christmas day?
    Mr. Sutcliffe: My hon. Friend chides me from a sedentary position and wants me to do all sorts of things. I shall ensure that we work with the industry and

    1189
    trade unions to make sure that a measure is passed as quickly as possible to give people the opportunity to have Christmas day off.

    Electricity Supply
    Mr. Russell Brown: If she will make a statement on the prospects for reliable electricity supplies this winter. [143331]
    The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Ms Patricia Hewitt): We are working closely with Ofgem and the industry to ensure reliable electricity supplies. Indeed, security of supply was one of the four key goals of energy policy that we specified in the energy White Paper, which was published earlier this year.
    Generation plant margin for this winter is now projected at just over 20 per cent. That is enough to meet predicted demand in all but the most exceptional circumstances, thereby reflecting that energy markets are working effectively.
    Mr. Brown: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. The issue is important and we all appreciate that weather conditions and engineering or technical difficulties can cause reductions in power and blackouts. However, when looking to the future, I am deeply concerned because although I support renewables, I am worried that the gap or the targets that we have set cannot meet baseload power supply. I encourage my right hon. Friend to think further and more deeply about nuclear energy and the direction of future development.
    Ms Hewitt: My hon. Friend makes an important point about the need to ensure long-term investment in a range of electricity generation sources, including renewables. We clearly spelt out the position on nuclear energy in the White Paper: we will keep the nuclear option open. However, at this stage, the emphasis needs to be on renewables and energy efficiency, which undoubtedly represent the cheaper and the better way of fulfilling all our energy policy goals.
    Bob Spink: To keep the nuclear option open, the Government must accept that they need to recommit to the nuclear industry's longer-term future. Will they do that?
    Ms Hewitt: I have just spelt out our policy conclusions. Electricity generation from the nuclear power sector will continue to play an important role in our country for a long time. However, I hope that the hon. Gentleman accepts that, for the reasons that we set out in the White Paper, had we decided to encourage building a new generation of nuclear power stations, we might as well have given up on energy efficiency and on renewables, for which we need a step change in investment and effort. I am glad to say that our Government will deliver that.
    Mr. Roy Beggs: I welcome the commitment to secure electricity supplies in the years ahead. However, there is a feeling that the Government are paying only lip service to renewables, especially when small and medium-sized companies that try to
    1190
    develop hydro electric projects wait for years for a planning decision. Is there joined-up government and will it address the serious problem, which now affects jobs in my constituency?
    Ms Hewitt: The hon. Gentleman raises an extremely important point. It is precisely because of the need to get planning decisions made much faster on renewable energy projects, and on a range of other investment projects, that my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister has introduced a new planning Bill to ensure that, even as we balance environmental and economic considerations, we do so without the absurd delays that currently plague the planning system. Let me also remind the hon. Gentleman that the renewables obligation that we have put in place will deliver support for renewables investment worth some £1 billion a year by 2010. We have also recently extended the life of that renewables obligation and the amount of money that will be generated by it, to the great welcome of the renewables industry.

  The Minister for Women was asked—
  MINISTER FOR WOMEN

    Public Appointments
    Sue Doughty: What steps she is taking to encourage more women to apply for public appointments. [143336]
    The Deputy Minister for Women and Equality (Jacqui Smith): We have set a target for every Government Department to increase the numbers of women sitting on the boards of their public bodies. The aim is that by 2005 women should hold 45 to 50 per cent. of all appointments in most Departments. We have also commissioned research to look at the barriers that women face, following a national outreach campaign that we ran in 2002.
    Sue Doughty: I thank the Minister for her reply, but I am rather concerned about this issue. In 2002–03, there were 1,357 female appointments, representing 39 per cent. of the appointments made. That is the same percentage as in the preceding year. Only 3 per cent. of major appointments attracting more than £50,000 a year go to women. Most women take on very low-level appointments. Can the Minister offer me any more optimism than the Government's record gives me?
    Jacqui Smith: The hon. Lady rightly pushes us to take action, but it is precisely because we have identified this problem and are keen to make progress that we have set out the action that I outlined in my previous answer. Only 20 per cent. of jobs come up for replacement each year, so progress will not perhaps be as quick as the hon. Lady and I would like. For the first time, however, there is a significant programme of action, information, training and monitoring within government to ensure that we make progress on getting more women on to national public bodies, not just because that is right but

    1191
    because it will mean that those bodies are better governed and more representative of the people that they serve.
    Julie Morgan: Is my hon. Friend aware of the recommendation of the Wales Women's National Coalition that there should be shadowing, pre-application training, mentoring, and provision for the payment of expenses relating to child care and the care of the elderly? Does she agree that we need to tackle this issue from every angle, and does she agree with any of those recommendations?
    Jacqui Smith: The recommendations that my hon. Friend has outlined involve extremely sensible and practical ways in which we can ensure not only that women get appointed on to public bodies but that they are in a position to be able to put themselves forward for appointment and take up the positions. The proposals are similar to those put forward by the Select Committee on Public Administration report on public appointments, to which the Government will shortly publish their response. Recommendations such as those involving apprenticeships and shadowing and mentoring schemes are very welcome and will ensure that we increase the representation of women on our public bodies.
    Mrs. Cheryl Gillan: The 300 Group has an excellent website that lets women know about the latest public appointments that are coming up, and the dates by which they should apply for them. I was sad to read on that website, however, that the public appointments target set by each of the Departments falls far short of the 50 per cent. target that the Government set in 1999. This includes Departments such as Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Ministry of Defence, whose targets are only 20 per cent. and 15 per cent. respectively. Will the Minister reassure me that she will look at those targets, that they will be revised, and that this is not a case of the Government saying one thing and the Departments doing another?
    Jacqui Smith: I hope I can reassure the hon. Lady that it certainly is not. We expect transparency from Departments, and each one has produced an action plan, which can be found in the Library, supporting the targets that I have outlined.
    It is not only the 300 Group that has a website; the Government have one, and in March launched a public appointments site making information about current opportunities available to all. I understand that it is currently registering some 9,000 visits a day. That is another element of our practical action to provide access to both information and opportunities.

    National Minimum Wage
    20. Hugh Bayley: What contribution the national minimum wage has made to reducing the gap between male and female earnings for low-paid workers. [143337]
    The Minister for Women and Equality (Ms Patricia Hewitt): Around 70 per cent. of those who will benefit from the latest uprating of the national minimum wage are women. There is no doubt that the national minimum wage has contributed significantly to the closing of the pay gap for part-time workers, the vast majority of whom are of course women.
    Hugh Bayley: Given the important role played by the minimum wage in closing that pay gap, especially for lower-paid and part-time female workers, would the Minister consider instructing the Low Pay Commission to consider specifically the impact of its recommendations on future minimum wage rates and on the gap between men's and women's pay?
    Ms Hewitt: My hon. Friend makes an interesting and important point. The Low Pay Commission is well aware of the extent of the problem of the gender pay gap. When advising on upratings, it pays particular attention to the balance that must be struck between helping the low paid by increasing the minimum wage and ensuring that employment levels are maintained. I will, however, reflect further on what my hon. Friend has said, and discuss it with Adair Turner, chair of the commission.
    Mrs. Caroline Spelman: When women take leave to care for their children, the issue of pay on re-entry to the workplace becomes a real problem. According to figures from the British household panel survey, a woman rejoining the work force after taking time off to serve as a full-time carer is paid, on average, 16 per cent. less than her previous wage. Does the Minister agree that such discrimination against female returners must be tackled if we are to see a significant reduction in the pay gap?
    Ms Hewitt: The hon. Lady is absolutely right. The longer women stay out of employment to care for children or elderly relatives, the worse will be the difficulties that they are likely to encounter on their return. We need to think carefully about what we do to strengthen their rights. The extended maternity leave package that we introduced in April—maternity leave of up to 12 months is now possible—ensured that more women would benefit from the right to return to the same job, or a job at the same level. I look forward to receiving help and support from the Conservatives, rather than their usual whingeing about red tape when we discuss proper standards for people at work.
    Sandra Gidley: The national minimum wage has been welcomed and has improved the lot of many women, but 4.7 million women—43 per cent. of female employees—still earn less than £5 an hour. Many work in the care industry, in jobs that are traditionally low-paid. What is the Minister doing to bring about fairer pay levels in industries in which women employees predominate?
    Ms Hewitt: My memory may be faulty, but I do not recall our having the enthusiastic support of Liberal Democrats when it came to legislating for the national minimum wage. Nevertheless, I welcome the hon.

    1193
    Lady's belated conversion.
    On low-paid occupations, the hon. Lady is quite right: 60 per cent. of women work in just 10 occupations, and those are typically much lower paid and account for the bulk of the pay gap. Of course, we are not only ensuring fairer pay for women in public service occupations through our investment in public services;
    1194
    through our skills strategy, we are also making it much easier for women to get better skills, and therefore to get better and higher paid jobs. The hon. Lady should not forget the very important role of the child tax credit and the working tax credit in helping to ensure that, even for people in low-paid jobs, work pays and enables people to support themselves and their families

Business of the House
12.30 pm
Mr. Speaker: I must inform the House that I am of a mind to protect the business of the Select Committees, which is due for debate. The business statement will therefore be shorter, and I ask Back Benchers—and, of course, Front Benchers —to be very brief in their questions.
Mr. Oliver Heald: Will the Leader of the House please give us the business for next week?
The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Peter Hain): The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 15 DECEMBER —Proceedings on the Consolidated Fund Bill followed by Second Reading of the Child Trust Funds Bill.
TUESDAY 16 DECEMBER —Remaining stages of the European Parliamentary and Local Elections (Pilots) Bill.
WEDNESDAY 17 DECEMBER —Second Reading of the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants Etc) Bill.
THURSDAY 18 DECEMBER —Motion on the Christmas recess Adjournment.
The provisional business for the week after the Christmas recess will be:
MONDAY 5 JANUARY —Second Reading of the Traffic Management Bill.
TUESDAY 6 JANUARY —Second Reading of the National Insurance Contributions and Statutory Payments Bill.
WEDNESDAY 7 JANUARY —Opposition Day [1st allotted day]. There will be a debate on an Opposition motion, subject to be announced.
THURSDAY 8 JANUARY —Second reading of the Horserace Betting and Olympic Lottery Bill.
Mr. Heald: First, Mr. Speaker, you will recall ruling earlier this week that there should have been a statement on the Government's policy on hospital-acquired infection. Is there to be such a statement? Secondly, can the Leader of the House tell us any more about arrangements for publication of the Hutton inquiry report, following my questions to him last week? Thirdly, on the subject of two-day debates, may we please have two: one on the defence White Paper, and another on Second Reading of the higher education funding Bill?
Finally, does the Leader of the House share the widespread concern about cases such as that of Mrs. Cannings, who was released by the Court of Appeal yesterday? It is tragic that she and her family have had this dreadful ordeal, in addition to the loss of two babies. I understand that the Attorney-General has ordered a review of 50 murder or manslaughter convictions involving evidence from particular expert witnesses. Is that correct? If so, may we have statements to the House from the Solicitor-General about the review, and about the prosecution procedures that will
1196
be followed in future? Is it not time that the Department of Health launched a proper scientific review of the evidence in this area, and told the House about it?
Mr. Hain: I shall draw the issue of a statement on infections in hospitals to the attention of the Secretary of State for Health. On the Hutton inquiry, perhaps I might repeat for the hon. Gentleman's benefit what I told the House on 16 October. He was not a Front Bencher then, so he may not be aware of my comments. I said:
"I thought it would assist the House if I outlined the Government's intentions in relation to Lord Hutton's report. When the Government receive the report, we shall publish it to Parliament, and ministerial statements will be made by the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs. The Government will also ensure that both Houses have an opportunity to debate the report once Members have considered its content."—[Official Report, 16 October 2003; Vol. 411, c. 259.]
So that deals with the Hutton issue.
On the defence White Paper, the Defence Secretary will make a statement on defence immediately after business questions. The higher education Bill will be dealt with in the normal way, which is by having a Second Reading debate on a single day.
I share the concern expressed by the hon. Gentleman about the appalling case involving Angela Cannings, and I am sure that the whole House is concerned about it. The Attorney-General has established a group to consider whether any cases in which the doctor involved gave evidence require a more in-depth review. Obviously, we want to make sure that justice is done, and done properly. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will accept that concern about the case is widespread across the House. We must ensure that there are no other cases like it and that there is none in future.
Mr. Paul Tyler: Will the Leader of the House say when he proposes to convene the all-party round table discussion of options for the legislative timetable for this Session? He will recall that the recommendation in the Modernisation Committee's second report of 1999–2000 was put to the House, and accepted. It was then implemented last year, most successfully, by his predecessor, the right hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook). The Leader of the House will acknowledge that such discussions are very useful in establishing a degree of consensus as to which legislative proposals are candidates for pre-legislative scrutiny, which should go to Joint Committees, and which might be candidates for carry-over. The discussions also help to determine the sequence of consideration of legislation.
The need for that degree of consensus is illustrated by the inadequacy of the present take-it-or-leave-it attitude to those matters in the Government Whips Office. For example, the Second Reading of the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants Etc) Bill is due to be held next Wednesday. There is a special meeting of the Select Committee on Selection that evening, at which the membership of the Standing Committee considering the Bill will be appointed. The result will be that that Committee will meet for the first time on the second day after our return in January. That leaves very

1197
little time for anyone—that means Labour Back Benchers as much as members of the Opposition parties—to table amendments. That sort of approach is not helpful to the good conduct of business in the House
Mr. Hain: We are adopting absolutely normal procedure in respect of that Bill, as I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will accept. As for the all-party discussions, I shall look at his proposal and see what needs to be done. However, in respect of consultation across the House, I remind him that I wrote only recently to the Chairman of the Liaison Committee, detailing all the draft Bills that will be involved in pre-legislative scrutiny, and the likely timetables. Twelve or more draft Bills will be published in the coming legislative Session. I know that the hon. Gentleman welcomes that, as does the whole House. The degree of open consultation and transparency shown by the Government is unprecedented. We should build on that, and not go down the route that the hon. Gentleman is inviting us to go down.
Mr. Paul Truswell: Does my right hon. Friend accept that there is escalating concern in this House and elsewhere about cold calling by criminals and high-pressure salesmen? I refer him to early-day motion 219.
[That this House is appalled by crimes committed particularly against older people by doorstep callers offering property maintenance and improvement services; condemns high pressure sales tactics employed by some doorstep callers, resulting in vulnerable people parting with extortionate sums of money for unnecessary, shoddy or grossly overpriced work; and calls for legislation to prohibit unsolicited doorstep calls for the purpose of offering property maintenance and improvement and for a national campaign to raise awareness of the dangers.]
The Office of Fair Trading is due to report at any time on the matter of cold calling. Will my right hon. Friend therefore arrange for an early statement to the House, so that we can debate the measures needed to tackle that increasingly nefarious activity?
Mr. Hain: I understand and sympathise with the point raised by my hon. Friend. Indeed, there is an Adjournment debate today on cold calling and, if he catches the Deputy Speaker's eye, he will have an opportunity to make his points even more eloquently. However, I am with him in spirit when it comes to trying to clamp down on that problem.
Mr. Robert Key: The Second Reading of the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants Etc) Bill is scheduled for next Wednesday. The explanatory notes state that the regulatory impact assessments have been completed for many of the issues covered by the Bill, and that they will be published. However, they have not been published. That is a crucial matter, and I urge the Leader of the House to use his best endeavours to get the assessments published before Second Reading, as the fees levied under clause 20 could be excessive. The Bill provides that they could exceed the amount incurred in administrative costs when an
1198
application is determined. That could be a killer blow for language schools in this country. The details of the regulatory assessments have been leaked, and it has been suggested that every language pupil coming to this country might face a visa fee—a surcharge—of up to £600. That is not good enough, and we need to know the facts before we debate the matter.
Mr. Hain: I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman makes, and that language schools are very important in his constituency. I know that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will take a close interest in the point that he has raised. Certainly, it is our intention to make regulatory impact assessments available as early as possible, and we will seek to do what the hon. Gentleman asks.
Mr. Andrew Love: My right hon. Friend will be aware of the publication yesterday of the interim report of the Barker review on the supply of housing. That important report addresses the combination of planning constraints on house building and accusations of market manipulation by house builders. Those are critical issues for all those who wish to enter the owner-occupied sector, or indeed to find any sort of housing, and for the future growth and stability of the economy. Will he make time available in the new year for a full and adequate debate on those important issues?
Mr. Hain: I agree with my hon. Friend that Kate Barker's report raises important issues of concern to him and his constituents, as well as to most hon. Members. It is for that reason that the Government initiated and published the report, and we will obviously wish to address the issues that it raises. My hon. Friend has the opportunity to apply for a debate in the normal way, but we will give serious consideration to his point.
Pete Wishart: As the Leader of the House will be aware, the West Lothian question is the one question that will not go away, and it now deserves to be addressed and answered. Will he find Commons time to debate our sensible suggestion that you, Mr. Speaker, should use your good offices to assess legislation that is put before the House? If it is assessed as affecting England only, with no consequences for Scotland, it should be referred to the English Grand Committee. That would be fair to Scotland and to England.
Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Hain: I can understand why it would be fair to the hon. Gentleman, because he wants Scotland to break away from the United Kingdom. He wants this to be an English-only Parliament, but that is not the view of Parliament or of the Government. As long as the Labour party remains in power, this Parliament will continue to operate with every Member, whatever part of the United Kingdom they represent, being equal. That is the basis on which we are elected and sent here. Perhaps some of the Conservative Members who approved of his question think that, for example, members of the Ulster Unionist party should not be able to vote on legislation that would not directly affect them

1199
I do not think that they would agree, and that is certainly an odd position for the Conservative and Unionist party to take. However, it is not an odd position for the Scottish National party, whose members do not want to be here in the first place.
Ms Karen Buck: My right hon. Friend will be aware that, in the context of the discussion of the modernisation of the House, we have recently had a heated debate about the impact on catering services. I understand that catering income has increased, not decreased, since the new hours were introduced, so will he ensure that we have an opportunity to discuss that point and set the record straight?
Mr. Hain: I am happy to set the record straight for my hon. Friend. Although business in various sectors of the catering provision has fallen in the evenings, demand is up overall, showing that more and more use is being made of the excellent catering facilities that are provided for Members and staff. The issue of our hours is entirely separate, and I know that she is concerned to maintain the existing position, although others wish to change it. Either way, it has nothing to do with catering.
Mrs. Cheryl Gillan: Will the Leader of the House give us an opportunity to debate delegated legislation and, in particular, the complete debacle of the Horse Passports (England) Regulations 2003 this morning? Is he aware that we could create thousands of potential criminals among the horse-owning fraternity—the crime being punishable by up to two years imprisonment—without those regulations ever having been discussed on the Floor of the House? When we discuss the West Lothian question, perhaps we could also discuss why six Welsh Members were responsible for voting down our prayer against that statutory instrument, thus imposing the regulations on English horse and pony owners.
Mr. Hain: I understand that we have already produced draft replacement regulations. The hon. Lady's general point is the same as that made by the hon. Member for North Tayside (Pete Wishart), but we are all equal in this House and we should remain so. I acknowledge that she is highly respected in the House, but she should think through the implications of what she says. Should Welsh Members vote only on certain items of legislation, and Ulster Unionists and Members representing other parties in Northern Ireland vote only on others? That is a very slippery slope which, if followed, would break up this Parliament and deny the fact that we are all sovereign Members who represent our constituencies on an equal basis.
Mr. Gordon Prentice: My local authority in Pendle is unhappy about the revenue support grant settlement, which will bear down adversely on the council. Yesterday, the Chancellor of the Exchequer generously told us that an additional £340 million would be allocated to councils in England. When will we be given details of how that money is to be distributed, so that we can find out whether Pendle council will benefit, as I hope it will?
Mr. Hain: The Deputy Prime Minister has that matter closely in mind. I am glad that my hon. Friend welcomes the extra £340 million for English local authorities—the total for local authorities across Britain is £400 million—which will bring in extra resources to ensure that the level of council tax rises is limited and is brought down to a reasonable figure, rather than what it has been in some cases.
In previous business questions, we have heard right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House complaining about the council tax situation. The Chancellor has acted, the Government are acting and I should have thought that everybody would welcome that.
Mr. Peter Lilley: I support the call made by my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) that Health Ministers should clarify whether they have new policies to cope with the scourge of superbugs in our hospitals, which kill between 5,000 and 20,000 people a year. On Tuesday, when, with your support, Mr. Speaker, I asked for a statement about the policy proposals that had been announced on Friday, the Minister of State, Department of Health, the hon. Member for Doncaster, Central (Ms Winterton), replied that
"if this were new policy it would have been brought to the House. It is not new policy".—[Official Report, 9 December 2003; Vol. 415, c. 910.]
However, the press release published by the Department of Health last Friday stated that the Secretary of State
"today published plans for a crackdown on… so-called 'superbugs'."
It referred to
"wide-ranging proposals…which seek to revolutionise the way potential infections are handled".
It also referred to "new rules", a "new system", a "new drive" and "new plans".
Normally when Ministers say outside the House the exact opposite of what they say inside the House to avoid being held accountable to the House, it is a serious matter and raises fears that they may be deceiving the House. However, my fear is that they are telling the House the truth and that in fact they have no plans to tackle that growing scourge. The UK's record is worse than that of any other country in Europe, and is getting worse faster than anywhere else in Europe.
Mr. Hain: I understand the points that the right hon. Gentleman is making and I am sure that the Secretary of State for Health will listen closely to them. However, the right hon. Gentleman will acknowledge that, as I think my hon. Friend the Minister for Health said the other day, the problem arises from the bodged way in which the Conservative Government introduced compulsory competitive tendering. That is where the problem comes from. However, I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that the issue of superbugs, hospital infections and inadequate cleaning in hospitals has to be addressed. We intend to address it and the Secretary of State for Health will take forward certain measures. He will obviously be accountable to the House for what he is doing and how the matter is developing.
Jim Sheridan: Will my right hon. friend use his good offices to reinforce the genuine concerns of British workers—I stress the word "British"—such as former employees of Hewlett-Packard in my constituency, who were presented with a fait accompli when their jobs were transferred to an agency with no effective or proper consultation? Is that the way things should be in a modern, progressive Britain? Should modern, progressive British workers be treated in such a way?
Mr. Hain: I very much agree with my hon. Friend's statements about the Hewlett-Packard workers in his constituency and others who may be similarly affected. He knows that we are introducing employment legislation to widen the provision of information and consultation for all employees in such a predicament, but the Secretary of State for Trade and industry will certainly want to monitor the situation closely and reflect closely on the points that my hon. Friend made about his constituency.
Richard Younger-Ross: Can the Leader of the House get the Home Secretary to make a statement about presumption of death certificates? The son of Nev Pope, my constituent, disappeared in Angola in 1999 but, under Angolan law, no death certificate will be issued for 10 years. We wrote to the Home Office on 28 October to ask whether British laws on presumption of death certificates could be changed. The reply was that the matter had nothing to do with the Home Office and that the letter had been forwarded to the Foreign Office. The Foreign Office replied that it had nothing to do with the Foreign Office and that we needed to go back to the Home Office; so will the Leader of the House ensure either that the Home Secretary makes a statement about the matter or that I receive a reply to my letter?
Mr. Hain: The hon. Gentleman is entitled to a full reply to his letter and I will ensure that he receives one. I remember that case from when I was in the Foreign Office. It is an appalling case and the family have been left in limbo and in anguish about what happened to their son. I know that both the Foreign Secretary and the Home Secretary will want to give the family every assistance in order to find out what happened as soon as it is possible to do so. The hon. Gentleman will also appreciate that it occurred in the middle of a civil war raging in Angola, which now mercifully is ended, and that it was very difficult to determine the true situation and what Neville Pope's predicament was. I am sorry about that, but the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that the circumstances were incredibly difficult.
Mr. Tony McWalter: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, among the very large number of welcome initiatives yesterday, there was no provision for people such as my constituent, Mr. Humphrey, who has been contributing to a pension for 38 years and was expecting a pension of £18,000 a year, but who, because of the inadequacies of the Pensions Act 1995, is going to end up with £4,000 a year? It is a bleak Christmas for people who were employed by organisations such as Allied Steel and Wire and Dexion, and there is currently no provision in the legislative
1202
programme for people in that position. Will my right hon. Friend ask the Minister for Pensions to come to the House to explain to pensioners what is happening, preferably before Christmas, so that they can have a less worrying time over the festive season?
Mr. Hain: I know from my experience as Secretary of State for Wales that the plight of the ASW workers in Cardiff has been appalling—people are scandalously and disgracefully being robbed of pensions that they contributed to, as in the case that my hon. Friend cited, for up to 30 years. Therefore, the Government are bringing forward new pensions legislation to introduce a proper pension protection fund to ensure that that never happens again. The Secretary of State and Ministers at the Department for Work and Pensions are looking at all the claims and looking at these issues very closely to see what can be done.
Mr. Douglas Hogg: The Leader of the House will have heard of the report from Amnesty International today to the effect that there are perhaps 14 persons held in British prisons under the terrorist legislation and in respect of whom there has been no trial or conviction. May we have an early statement or debate, so that we may address that matter? The Leader of the House will keep in mind the fact that the House has always protested against the holding of people without trial, whether in the Bastille in pre-revolutionary France, in the gulags, in South Africa, in Zimbabwe, or more recently in Guantanamo Bay. Surely the House should address the matter when it arises in our own country.
Mr. Hain: My own parents were detained without trial in the early 1960s in apartheid South Africa, but I am sure that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is not suggesting that the situation in Britain now is in any way or form comparable to a police state where the rule of law did not apply. The rule of law does apply here. However, the Home Secretary will obviously want to take close account of the points that he has made.
Mr. David Chaytor: My right hon. Friend will know that in this morning's press there is published a form of university league table, which describes among other things the balance of intake to universities of students from state and private schools. Although there is some progress to report among some of our leading universities, and notwithstanding his earlier remarks about the higher education Bill having a Second Reading debate on one day, does he not think that the complexity of the issue and the controversy surrounding the Government's proposal, which I sully support, in respect of higher education funding and the widening access to universities, justifies the argument for a separate debate on the issue? I endorse the comments that were made by the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald). Will my right hon. Friend look again at he question of a separate debate, specifically on all aspects of widening participation in our universities?
Mr. Hain: I acknowledge the effort that my hon. Friend has put into taking forward policies that improve secondary schools, which improve the chances of

1203
students from working-class backgrounds and low-income families of getting into university—something that I know he is very concerned about, as we all are on the Labour Benches. That is why the higher education Bill is intended to be brought forward to widen access, increase social justice and give a chance to university students who would never have dreamed of going, and whose families and ancestors have never been before. On the question of the timing and debate surrounding that issue, I will of course consider my hon. Friend's request, but at present the intention is to have the Bill brought through on one day.
Mr. Andrew Mackay: May I take the Leader of the House back to the Hutton inquiry, because his earlier response did not adequately settle matters? The House needs to know, first, whether all the Opposition parties will receive the report well in advance of publication? Secondly, will there be adequate time, preferably a week, between the making of a statement on Hutton and the actual debate? Finally, can the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the Prime Minister will not only, obviously, make a statement on Hutton but lead from that Dispatch Box when the debate takes place?
Mr. Hain: I have already made it clear that the Prime Minister will make a statement on Hutton. The way in which the report is handled is primarily a matter for Lord Hutton, obviously, as are the circumstances surrounding it, but the right hon. Gentleman will equally understand that the Government, having set up the Hutton inquiry and explicitly asked for the report, with its wide-ranging implications for everybody concerned, not least Ministers, will want to handle this in the proper way, with the House properly involved and everybody satisfied that it has been done in the proper way, so obviously his questions will be taken closely into account.
Mr. Harry Barnes: Has my right hon. Friend seen early-day motion 250,
[That this House notes with alarm the raid by the US occupying forces, using armoured cars and soldiers, on the temporary headquarters of the Iraqi Federation of Trade Unions in Baghdad on the morning of Saturday 6th December in which eight leading trade union officials were arrested; is further disturbed to hear that US soldiers ransacked and destroyed the federation's possessions, including banners and posters condemning acts of terror, and smashed windows, without reason or explanation; notes that the new independent trade union movement in Iraq opposed Saddam Hussein regime, and opposes terrorism by remnants of that regime and others; and calls upon the British Government to make urgent representations to the US Administration to discover why this raid took place and seek a swift apology and compensation for this appalling incident.]?
The Foreign Office has always taken a progressive line on trade unions and has encouraged and facilitated their development in Iraq. On 27 November in the House, the Foreign Secretary promised to encourage the Americans to take a similar line, yet on 6 December, United States forces smashed into the offices of the trade unions and arrested eight of their officials—an act that has been condemned by bodies such as the Congress of
1204
South African Trade Unions. May we have a statement from the Foreign Secretary, saying what responses he got to representations that he made about trade unionism, and what his response is to what the Americans have done?
Mr. Hain: I agree with my hon. Friend that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office always, under a Labour Government, takes a progressive line on trade unions. We have no information about an incident at the temporary headquarters of the Iraqi Federation of Trade Unions, although we understand that United States forces conducted a raid on the morning of 6 December in Baghdad, which resulted in the recovery of a significant quantity of arms and ammunition and the arrest of eight suspected fedayeen, two of whom now face murder charges.
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: Two weeks ago, I asked the Leader of the House to provide time for a debate on the Post Office, bearing it in mind that, under the Government's reinvention, four out of the five post offices in Belper are due to close early next year. Bearing it in mind that today's debate is important and is being squeezed, inevitably, by a very important statement, to which I do not object, will he consider in future protecting the time when there are Back-Bench debates, so that instead of finishing at 6 o'clock we finish five-and-a-half hours after we start them?
Mr. Hain: I will certainly consider the hon. Gentleman's request. I have just announced that there is an Opposition day early in January and the Opposition are free to choose that subject for debate, but we have responded in exactly the way the hon. Gentleman asked, by bringing forward a debate on post offices, as there is widespread concern among hon. Members on both sides of the House about local post office closures. I should have thought that he was encouraged by that.
Mr. Barry Gardiner: The Leader of the House was a very keen supporter of the Ottawa land mines treaty, whose effects we all commend. He has also a history of opposing the trade in small arms around the world and is no doubt aware of the call that Mary Robinson, the former President of Ireland and United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, made in the House yesterday at a meeting with Oxfam and Amnesty International, for a treaty on small arms. Will he ensure that the House can debate the need for such a treaty at an early opportunity, to ensure that its benefits, like those of the land mines treaty, are felt throughout the world?
Mr. Hain: I will certainly consider my hon. Friend's point about making time for such a debate. He obviously has the chance to initiate such a debate himself. I certainly agree with him that the land mines treaty, which our Labour Government initiated very soon after winning power in 1997, was a major breakthrough. I have experience of how small arms can completely devastate whole communities and regions of Africa. We need to get that under control, and the Foreign Secretary and the Secretaries of State for Trade and Industry and for Defence will certainly want

1205
to consider very carefully Mary Robinson's call and that of Amnesty International. This is an international matter, and we have to tackle it. The unscrupulous flow and spread of small arms is killing whole communities, and it needs to be brought under control.
David Burnside: Once again, the Leader of the House confessed his support for the fact that we are all equal in the House, and as an Ulster Unionist I must support that 100 per cent. Is he aware that one of Republican Sinn Fein's demands is that hon. Members should not have to swear or affirm the Oath of loyalty to Her Majesty the Queen, so that members of that party can take their seats in the House? Will he give a commitment that the Government will hold a full debate on that, and that they will not go down the route of ending up with second-class Members of Parliament, that we will retain the same equality and that we will all be obliged to affirm or swear the Oath of loyalty to the Queen when we first enter the House?
Mr. Hain: There was a vote that clearly established the current position, which I am sure the hon. Gentleman welcomed, in the last Parliament. This is ultimately a matter for Members, but I do not feel inclined to give way to a demand from members of Sinn Fein who are not even prepared to take their place in the House.
Mr. Colin Challen: Although I am aware that a debate on post offices will take place this afternoon, I understand that it will be answered by Department of Trade and Industry Ministers. May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to a recent question that I asked the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions? I asked whether he would withdraw guidance circulating in his Department that is designed to discourage people from taking up Post Office card accounts. Clearly, that is a very important matter, deterring a lot of people from using those services. Will he ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions to come to the House to make a statement about that, so that the DWP is not seen to be undermining the work of the DTI?
Mr. Hain: Without knowing the detail of the circular, I am sure that there is no intention, nor could there be, on the part of the DWP or its Secretary of State to undermine the work of the DTI. My hon. Friend obviously has an opportunity to raise that issue very shortly. From my own point of view as a Member of Parliament, I believe that people, especially vulnerable pensioners who depend on their local post offices, must not be intimidated into choosing a course that is against their own choice and free will. They have the right to continue to draw their pensions and other benefits in cash. Obviously, successive Governments have tried to encourage more people to use bank accounts—we all want that to happen—and modern life has been evolving in that direction for many decades, but no vulnerable pensioner or anyone else should be forced to do anything. A free choice is involved.
Bob Spink: May we have a debate on hospices? Adult hospices are 32 per cent. publicly funded, whereas children's hospices are only 4 per cent. publicly funded, which is indefensible. The remainder is raised by private fundraising. The proportion should be raised to 40 per cent. for both children's and adult hospices. We could then acknowledge the tireless work and dedication of all staff and volunteers in hospices and those people ho do the fundraising.
Mr. Hain: I certainly agree that there is a fantastic voluntary spirit in the hospice movement and that the work done is in the best traditions of volunteerism and of this country, but the hon. Gentleman ought to have been a little fairer in acknowledging that, as has been said publicly in the Help the Hospices conference, the hospice movement welcomes the extra money that has come from the Government on an unprecedented scale. No Government have ever provided the level of funds for hospices that we are providing. On whether there is time for such a debate, he has the opportunity to apply for one.
Mr. Nigel Evans: Would it be possible to hold an urgent debate on the meltdown of manufacturing industry in this country? In the north-west of England, we are losing manufacturing jobs at the rate of 700 a month. Sadly, there is news that LG Philips at Simonstone in my constituency will close with the loss of 400 manufacturing jobs. There was a time when this country was a world leader in the export of manufactured goods. Increasingly, under this Government, we are world leaders in the export of manufacturing jobs.
Mr. Hain: Obviously, I am concerned about any loss of jobs in the hon. Gentleman's constituency and for the employees involved—I am sure that he will do his best to assist them—but we knew all about the meltdown of manufacturing in the 1980s, under the last Conservative Government. Of course we did. Manufacturing, mining and heavy industry were virtually wiped out in Wales, which he was the Conservatives spokesman for until recently, but the difference is that, instead of finding themselves on the scrap heap, often for the rest of lives, people now have the opportunity to find new jobs, because of the near full employment that we have generated across Wales through our employment policies.
I also remind the hon. Gentleman that he ought to look at the facts. Manufacturing output is now up. The mood of optimism in the manufacturing sector is now greater than it has been for some time. We are part of a phenomenon that is affecting other European and advanced industrial countries, whereby manufacturing is increasingly under pressure from far more labour cost-competitive countries such as China, India and others in the far east and even eastern Europe. Maintaining the existing manufacturing sector is much tougher, but manufacturing is getting a lot of support from the Government, and it will continue to increase its output, compared with the dismal and miserable record of the Tories in their period of government.

Defence White Paper/Operations in Iraq
Mr. Speaker: I remind the House that, as I have said before, I am keen to protect the time for Back Benchers in Select Committee debates, so I hope to cut the statement in 45 minutes, but I also tell hon. Members that they should ask the Secretary of State only one supplementary question.
1.7 pm
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the defence White Paper, "Delivering Security in a Changing World", and a report entitled "Operations in Iraq: Lessons for the Future".
It has been five years since the strategic defence review was published by my predecessor, Lord Robertson, who steps down at the end of this year as NATO Secretary-General. I am sure that the House will join me in paying tribute to his determined contribution to modernising the alliance at a time of unprecedented challenges.
The strategic defence review concluded that we needed to move our armed forces into an expeditionary era and build greater flexibility to face increasingly diverse threats in both war-fighting and peace-support operations. Its conclusions have served us well in those five years, although it could not have anticipated the appalling events of 11 September 2001, or their strategic impact. That is why we published the new chapter last year.
The ability of our armed forces to conduct the full spectrum of operations has been well demonstrated since 1998. We have conducted operations, often concurrently, across three continents: in Kosovo, Macedonia, Sierra Leone, East Timor, Afghanistan and the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Our armed forces have been successfully engaged in combat operations in Iraq this year and are still heavily engaged in large-scale post-conflict activities.
The Ministry of Defence is today publishing its full report on operations in Iraq: "Operations in Iraq: Lessons for the Future". Hon. Members will recall that an initial report was published in July, which provided an authoritative account of the campaign and reflected on the early conclusions that we could draw from combat operations. Since then, a detailed and comprehensive analysis of the operation has been undertaken within the Ministry of Defence. Evidence has been taken from those involved in the operation at all levels, assessing the effectiveness of the equipment that we used and identifying from that work the lessons that we can draw from the campaign.
"The operation was a significant military success, achieving almost all of its military objectives within only four weeks."
Those are not my words, but the conclusion of the National Audit Office report on the operation, whose publication today I also welcome. Our people performed magnificently, the equipment was highly effective, the logistic support most impressive, and the revolution in strategy and doctrine that we set out in 1998 has again been vindicated.
If we want to maintain the battle-winning capabilities of our armed forces, however, we must learn from the difficulties as well as the successes. There is no benefit in
1208
a lessons process that is bland or uncritical. I have encouraged an honest, unflinching report that focuses rightly on the future and outlines the area in which we want to continue to improve. Some changes have already been implemented. Other lessons have no quick solution but will form the basis of work in the Ministry of Defence over the coming months.
It is important to emphasise, however, that we have been successful in recent military operations because we have always looked ahead at the capabilities that we need for future challenges. It is therefore appropriate that the detailed analysis of the Iraq operation is published on the same day as the White Paper, whose title captures what it is about: "Delivering Security in a Changing World". It sets out how we expect to adapt to keep ahead of the challenges. It sets out a policy baseline against which we will make decisions to provide the armed forces with the structures and capabilities that they require to carry out the operations that they can expect to undertake in the future.
The shadow of the cold war, which has shaped our armed forces for two generations, may have receded, and the threat of a large-scale conventional military attack on Europe may seem remote as a result. New threats are emerging, however. We must respond to today's strategic environment and prepare for tomorrow's. The proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and the threat posed by international terrorism, coupled with the consequences of failed or failing states, present us with a real and immediate challenge. Our experience of the recent pattern of military operations demonstrates the increasing frequency of the United Kingdom's involvement in small and medium-scale operations. The need for multiple, concurrent small to medium-sized operations will therefore be the most significant factor in force planning. Counter-terrorism and counter-proliferation operations in particular will require rapidly deployable forces that are able to respond swiftly to intelligence and achieve precise effects in a range of environments across the world.
Regional tensions and potential conflicts are likely to create a sustained high demand for enduring peace support commitments, such as the extended deployments that we have seen in the Balkans, but we must also retain the capacity to reconfigure our forces at longer notice to undertake the less frequent but more demanding large-scale operations of the type that we saw in Iraq earlier this year.
Expeditionary operations on that scale can be conducted effectively only if United States forces are engaged. When the United Kingdom chooses to be involved, we would want to be in a position to influence their political and military decision making. That will involve sharing the military risk, and will require an ability for our armed forces to play an effective role alongside those of the United States. We were able to do that in Iraq, for example, by procuring additional communications equipment for our aircraft. More generally, the key to retaining interoperability with the United States, for our European allies as well as for the United Kingdom, is likely to rest in the successful operation of NATO's new Allied Command Transformation.

1209
Whatever the strategic planning and equipment, it is ultimately people who deliver success. Our people will need to possess exceptional skills to deal with the complexity of modern operations. We must continue to invest in their recruitment and training and reward them properly for the difficult tasks that we ask them to undertake. The excellent contribution of our reserve forces in Iraq shows that they are an essential part of our defence capability and will remain so.
Resources must be directed at those capabilities that are best able to deliver the range of military effects required, while dispensing with those elements that are less flexible. It has historically been the fashion to measure military capability in terms of the weight of numbers of units or platforms—of ships, tanks and aircraft. That might have been appropriate for the attritional warfare of the past, but in today's environment success will be achieved through an ability to act quickly, accurately and decisively, so as to deliver military effect at the right time.
What are the critical elements, however, in delivering this military effect? The answer is threefold: sensors to gather information; an effective network to consolidate, communicate and exploit that information; and strike assets to deliver the decisive action. Technology will be a key driver for change and will present us with new opportunities: for example, the means by which to link "sensor to shooter" through network-enabled capabilities. By thinking about capability jointly rather than as a collection of separate platforms, the effects that can be delivered can far exceed the sum of the individual parts. That will provide significant opportunities when we consider the requirements for future force structures and will place a premium on flexible and adaptable network-enabled capabilities.
It follows that we no longer need to retain a redundancy of capability against the re-emergence of a direct, conventional strategic threat to the United Kingdom. Our priority must now be to provide the capabilities to meet a much wider range of expeditionary tasks, at a greater distance from the UK, and at an ever increasing tempo. The heaviest burden in those circumstances will fall on those key enablers and force multipliers that deliver more rapid deployment, better intelligence and target acquisition, with ever greater accuracy.
The structure of each of the services will also need to evolve to optimise joint operations and provide greater flexibility and capability to project power to counter the threats that we face. In the maritime environment, our emphasis is increasingly on delivering effect from sea on to land, supporting forces ashore and securing access to the theatre of operation. The new amphibious ships coming into service over the next two years, together with our existing aircraft carriers, offer a versatile capability for projecting land and air power ashore. The introduction of the two new aircraft carriers and the joint strike fighter early in the next decade will offer a step change in our ability to project air power from the sea, while the Type 45 destroyer will enhance protection of joint and maritime forces and assist force projection. Some of the older ships can contribute less well to the
1210
pattern of operations that we envisage, and some adjustments will therefore be necessary.
In the case of the Army, experience shows that the current mix of heavy and light capabilities was relevant to the battles of the past rather than the battles of the future. We need to move to a more appropriately balanced structure of light, medium and heavy forces, and place a greater emphasis on enabling capabilities such as logistics, engineers and intelligence. The future rapid effects system family of vehicles that we are currently developing will help meet the much-needed requirement for medium-weight forces. Over time, that will inevitably reduce our requirement for heavy armoured fighting vehicles and heavy artillery.
The work in this area is continuing, but we judge that we can start this rebalancing by reducing the size of our heavy armoured forces. We therefore intend to establish a new light brigade, reducing the number of armoured brigades from three to two. This will be achieved by re-roling 4 Armoured Brigade in Germany as a mechanised brigade, and 19 Mechanised Brigade in Catterick as a light brigade. We will announce further plans for future Army force structures next year.
We want to be able to project more air power from both land and sea, offering enhanced capabilities across the range of air operations. Storm Shadow missiles will provide a long-range precision-strike capability, and the increasing availability of "smart" bombs, such as Paveway IV, will ensure a higher degree of accuracy in our offensive capability than ever before. Around 85 per cent. of RAF munitions used in Iraq in 2003 were precision-guided, compared with only 25 per cent. in Kosovo as recently as 1999. Additionally, Typhoon and the joint strike fighter will offer much greater flexibility and balance in the air component of the future, reducing the need for single-role fast jets. Multi-role capability will also allow us to deploy fewer aircraft than previously thought necessary. We are therefore considering what those developments mean for the number of combat aircraft that we require.
The rapid deployment of land and air combat power is, of course, dependent on having a sufficient strategic lift capability. The core of the airlift capability will continue to centre on the C130 fleet, and the A400M when it replaces older C130s from 2011. We are considering the options for retaining a small force of C-17s after A400M enters service, to carry the largest air deployable items. We now also have a fleet of six roll-on/roll-off vessels that proved their worth in moving our forces to the Gulf and are crucial in achieving a rapid build-up for medium-scale operations.
When military action is required, it will be most effective when it comes in the form of partnerships, alliances and coalitions. For the United Kingdom, the key organisations through which we act will be NATO and the European Union.
NATO remains the basis for the collective defence of its members, and continues to play a vital role in crisis management. It is the transatlantic organisation through which the US engages with its allies in planning and conducting military operations. The European Union's European security and defence policy is complementary and provides a means to act where

1211
NATO as a whole is not engaged. The forthcoming intergovernmental conference will be an opportunity to strengthen the European security and defence policy and European military capabilities. As a result we will strengthen NATO, without any unnecessary duplication.
The security and stability of Europe and the maintenance of the transatlantic relationship are fundamental to our defence. More widely, our security and national prosperity depend on global stability, freedom and economic development. Our armed forces will continue to act as a force for good in the international community. We know that, ultimately, security cannot be delivered by military might alone. It is a matter of changing attitudes and bringing security to those regions where there is a risk of instability. That is a challenge for not only those of us in defence but all of us in Government. The White Paper should therefore be read in conjunction with the White Paper on UK international priorities that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary published last week.
Everything that I have set out involves change. The White Paper, by dealing with the policy context, will ultimately determine the shape of our armed forces. Within that overall shape, we will need to develop the details of individual systems and structures. However, before we can do that, we need to be certain that we have the right procurement and development projects, which is why the Ministry of Defence is undertaking a significant examination of our capabilities and overheads. This is not a new defence review, nor does it need to be, but it is a final check on our planning, to ensure that we have the right capabilities that are needed for the challenges ahead and that we are spending our finite funds in the most effective way. I shall make further announcements on the results of that work next year.
This is a changing world, and we must adapt if our armed forces are to stay ahead of potential adversaries. We must exploit new and emerging technologies and be prepared to make tough decisions to ensure that our armed forces are able to carry out the difficult tasks that we ask of them. It is only through the process of continuous change and improvement that we can ensure that our armed forces are equipped and structured to meet the challenges of the future.
Mr. Nicholas Soames: First, I thank the Secretary of State for his courtesy in allowing us sight of the White Paper earlier. I join him in the tribute that he paid to the remarkable and distinguished work of Lord Robertson at NATO. Together with Lord Robertson, Conservative Members remain extremely anxious about the Government's plans for European defence and look forward, after the conclusion of the negotiations this weekend, to hearing a rational and sensible plan that will continue to anchor America to Europe.
Despite the lack of detail, we agree with the fundamental thrust of the White Paper. It does, indeed, foretell considerable change for the conduct of the armed forces business across the board. The House must not forget that the strategic defence review—its predecessor—was never properly costed or funded, and
1212
the same must not be allowed to happen this time. For our part, we generally accept the Secretary of State's assessment of the strategic environment and the difficulties that flow from it. Indeed, it is clear that we have come to a decisive moment in history when a new and diverse constellation of threats have appeared that are not nearly as obvious as were their relatively certain predecessors. We assert that since the end of the cold war, the world has never been as dangerous and unpredictable, nor the threats so serious. An era of invulnerability is over and our adversary has changed.
Terrorism is not a technique, an ideology or a political philosophy, let alone an enemy state, but a fiendishly difficult threat with which to deal. The proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and the means to deliver them represents a major threat. We welcome the Government's decision to continue to examine missile defence. We are in a position, as the Secretary of State rightly said, in which we must be prepared for the wholly unexpected as well as being able to deal with conventional military tasks.
We have learned, and continue to learn, from the recent experiences of our forces in Afghanistan and Iraq. There are most profound lessons for us on preparedness, logistics, deployability, jointness, precision, speed and agility, but there are also clearly situations in which light forces are not the best solution. We look forward to studying in more detail today's Ministry of Defence publication, "Operations in Iraq: Lessons for the Future". While we welcome the National Audit Office report on Operation Telic, it rightly makes the point that although it is clear that British troops performed quite brilliantly, there were some serious shortcomings in the supply of nuclear, biological and chemical protection and other vital lifesaving kit, as well as more mundane yet important kit such as combat clothing. That cannot be allowed to happen again, and we look forward to hearing a detailed response to that from the Secretary of State and the Ministry.
Unlike the Secretary of State and what is said in the White Paper, we believe that measuring the capability of our armed forces by the number of units and platforms and the extent of manpower remains significant, because the same unit or platform obviously cannot be in two places at the same time. A combination of capabilities and numbers will thus continue to be critical in any assessment of the potential effectiveness of our armed forces. Infantry and armour on the ground can be augmented by technological wizardry but cannot be replaced by it. The peace in Basra today is being kept by some 10,000 soldiers on the ground. We underestimate at our peril the importance of the foot soldier and all that he can do in both combat and, equally importantly, humanitarian terms.
We welcome the intention to enhance the strategic enablers of communication, logistics and intelligence, but as a former Chief of the Defence Staff, Lord Guthrie, pointed out last week,
"it is important that we do not concentrate our efforts to too great an extent on one emerging threat—a knee jerk reaction—forgetting that there are other threats which have not gone away for which we should still be prepared."
We believe that such principles are of the first importance. Indeed, the histories furnish the most

1213
excellent lessons in that respect and we should, and must, learn from them.
We welcome the acknowledgement of the absolute need to continue robust and collective military training at all levels. We consider that it is vital to underpin the new doctrines with the single-service ethos and the remarkable fighting spirit that have done our forces so well over the years, to move to improve arrangements for families and general harmony, and to rebalance key support elements toward brigades from the divisional level.
Current events provide a sombre background to this important White Paper, for today there is a crisis in the Government's Defence budget. Frankly, Conservative Members and many serving and retired military have the gravest reservations about the Government's ability to sustain their current ambitions and equipment programmes. It is reported that the Defence budget is deeply in the red. Is it not a fact that the equipment budget is overspent in excess of £1 billion per annum and that this year's personnel budget is overspent by £600 million? Is it true that the Secretary of State has ordered cuts of £1 billion a year for four years? An internal MOD memo on the White Paper and departmental finances has warned that much of the so-called new money from last year's spending review —£3.5 billion—has already been earmarked for the new weapons programmes.
The reality is that even to balance today's books, let alone fund the new equipment, the MOD will have to defer or cancel elements of major equipment programmes and possibly even freeze recruiting. Is it correct that the programmes earmarked for cuts include Eurofighter, Nimrod, nuclear submarines, Type 42 frigates and heavy armour, in addition to existing assets? Given that there are so few hard facts in the White Paper, however, we are concerned that a whole raft of decisions on cuts in both manpower and equipment will start to leach out later, and we look to the Secretary of State to report back to the House in detail on the substance of his proposals.
May I ask the Secretary of State to answer the following questions? First, the new battlefield technologies will have to be paid for. Where is the funding for that to come from? Secondly, is he aware that the defence research budget has been cut by 10 per cent.? How can the Government be serious about the digitised battlespace and all the other associated technologies, and yet continue with defence research cuts? Indeed, it seems astonishing that, at a time of extraordinary pace in technological advance, military research and development has been so drastically reduced.
While paying the warmest tribute to the remarkable achievements of our Territorial Army and other reserve forces in Iraq and elsewhere, we welcome the chapter on developing the reserves and the acknowledgement in the White Paper of the urgent need to improve support for reservists and their families and employers. Will the Secretary of State give the House some idea of the future manning levels of the TA and other reserves?
1214
In the light of the reference to home capability, will the Secretary of State comment on his thinking on the present timing in respect of future force levels in Northern Ireland, and the possible consequences for manpower of the rumoured peace dividend?
Although Conservative Members recognise the demands for the new technologies and the need wholeheartedly to embrace them, we remain deeply concerned about the consequences that flow from the financial crisis in the Ministry of Defence at a time of severe overstretch. We look forward to the Secretary of State announcing his detailed intentions to the House and thus, we hope, removing the understandable anxieties of many of our loyal servicemen and women and their families.
The British armed forces have a reputation for excellence and skill at arms that is unrivalled throughout the world; indeed, they are the benchmark by which all other armed forces are judged. I am not in the least bit afraid for their ability to cope with change. Indeed, of all the great institutions in this country they have proved time and again at all levels to be the most adaptable and flexible, and certainly the most successful. But it is of the first importance that the Government and Parliament recognise, when addressing these profound changes, that whatever the technological advances, the fundamental character and nature of war will remain unchanged.
For the soldier of today and tomorrow, as it was for his ancestors, warfare will continue to represent the ultimate physical and moral challenge, where these young men and women will encounter extreme danger in rapidly changing circumstances amid conditions of chaos and great uncertainty. They have never let us down, and the Secretary of State must see to it that nothing is done that compromises the astonishing success of our armed forces. The fact is that they are too small for the tasks already laid on them. There is a great deal of work to be done, and the greatest possible thought and care needs to be taken in implementing these future programmes and the profound changes that they foretell if we are not to unbalance something that is truly excellent.
Mr. Hoon: I thank the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames) for the general tone of his observations and congratulate him on his rapid reabsorption of some of the more difficult issues that he faces when coming to grips with the profound changes that have happened since he served with such distinction as Minister of State for the Armed Forces. His observations today demonstrate that he has already reached a long way round that steep learning curve. I am particularly grateful to him for recognising the importance of the need for change.
If I can echo the hon. Gentleman's observations about the armed forces, I cannot imagine that there is a single organisation in the country that has had to face so much change in recent times. The profound point that we all need to recognise is that unless those changes continue, our armed forces will not be equipped to deal, or be capable of dealing, with the threats that they face in a modern world. Since we cannot anticipate each and every one of those threats and the crises that they may

1215
produce, the key to those changes will be flexibility—a flexibility that, as I indicated, requires us to be able to conduct not only large-scale operations of the kind that we have seen this year in Iraq but a number of smaller operations.
That is the answer that I would give to Lord Guthrie. I read his observations carefully. We are not concentrating our efforts in one particular area; we are not making the mistake of fighting the last conflict, albeit one against terrorism. We are ensuring that we have the flexibility to be able to take on a number of different kinds of operations whenever they present themselves, as inevitably they must.
There is no crisis in the defence budget. What we have is more than £3 billion of extra resources to spend over and above what was previously available. That is the largest sustained increase in defence spending in more than 20 years—not something that, with the greatest respect to the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex, he was ever able to say when he occupied a position in the Ministry of Defence. That money will have to be spent on ensuring that our armed forces have the right capabilities and equipment for the future.
I shall attempt to deal with the specific points that the hon. Gentleman raised. Certainly, new technology will have to be paid for, but right hon. and hon. Members need to recognise that it will deliver ever greater effect. I cited a statistic drawn from the "lessons learned" report about the number of smart weapons used. The more our weapons are smart—the more accurate those weapons—the fewer we require. That is a simple statement of fact. If we can deliver, as was done in Iraq, 85 per cent. smart weapons, all hitting their targets, as far as I am aware, that obviously means that the effect is far more dramatic and significant, in military terms, than 25 per cent. smart weapons, which we had as recently as 1999. That is a huge change in our ability to be successful in high-intensity warfare.
I accept the comment about the defence research budget. We certainly need to consider improvements in that area, but we also need to ensure that we maintain our existing equipment programme and our running costs from month to month and year to year. Inevitably, I have to take some difficult decisions, and unfortunately that is one of them.
Turning to reserves, who, like our regular forces, are volunteers, I anticipate and hope that we will maintain the present numbers. If there are more willing to volunteer, I am confident that we can absorb them into our existing organisations.
There has been a good deal of misplaced speculation about the consequences of a peace settlement in Northern Ireland. We all look forward to a peace settlement and to the prospect of reducing the presence of our armed forces back to the level that existed before 1969—to a normal peacetime situation for the Province. I look forward to that as a means of using those soldiers currently engaged in operations in Northern Ireland elsewhere in the tasks undertaken by Britain's armed forces. I want to make that clear. I want to emphasise the opportunity that that will give to relieve some of the current pressures on the men and women of the Britain's armed services.
1216
That probably deals with all the points that have been raised. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his remarks, and I look forward to responding to other questions.
Mr. Paul Keetch: I, too, thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of the statement. I join him and the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames) in congratulating the members of our armed forces, who continue to perform their work in Iraq and elsewhere with great distinction. The House also pays tribute to their families.
Liberal Democrat Members welcome the strategic rebalancing that the Government have announced today. However, that investment must never come at the expense of the number of regular and reservist personnel. Yes, our forces need to be able to fight high-intensity wars, but they also need to have the troop numbers to keep peacekeeping operations going and to give support at home. The message today from the Government appears to be that they can manage both—that they can maintain that balance—and we sincerely hope that they are right. However, the evidence so far does not always suggest that that is the case.
Today's National Audit Office report on Operation Telic highlights significant difficulties with supplying large numbers of troops in the desert, all of which were identified as problems after Saif Sareea 2. We warned of those difficulties at the time; indeed, members of one unit even returned to the UK to try to find NBC—nuclear, biological and chemical—equipment, without success. Either in Iraq there was no threat from chemical or biological weapons, or the MOD sent troops into theatre without proper protection. Will the Secretary of State tell us which it is?
Then there is overstretch. This morning, the Secretary of State said on the "Today" programme that the average tour interval is now 10 months, but the MOD's target is 24 months. Is that interval still 10 months, and how many troops would be required to meet the 24-month target? If he cannot tell us now, perhaps he will write to me. He said that reservist numbers will not be cut, but can he assure us that the overall establishment strength of all three armed forces will not be reduced further as a result of today's announcement?
The right hon. Gentleman rightly paid tribute to his predecessor, Lord Robertson, and mentioned the strategic defence review. One benefit of the SDR was that there was the widest possible consultation across the House and, indeed, the armed forces—in effect, the SDR belonged to Parliament, not just the Government. Does he agree that that consultation was helpful to the SDR, and will his future plans include a similar level of consultation? If they do, in the end our troops will be the winners.
Mr. Hoon: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his observations. It is important to look at the NAO report in context. It highlights the remarkable success achieved by our armed forces and the personnel who supported and equipped them while they were engaged in high-intensity warfare. At the same time, it recognises, as the Ministry of Defence and I have always done, that that was not perfect and that there were difficulties. I have made that point on a number of occasions to him and

1217
other right hon. and hon. Members in the House, so it is not new to say that there were difficulties. Overall, however, there was a remarkably successful operation to deliver in a short period large numbers of people and large amounts of materiel into theatre in time to conduct very effective military operations.
There are certainly lessons that we can learn. The "lessons learned" report that I have published today is a tough document. I did not want to put before the House a bland assertion that everything would be resolved. We have to learn the lessons and make improvements, but I am confident that, with the contribution of the armed forces and civil servants in the Ministry of Defence, we will be able to do so.
Rachel Squire: Does my right hon. Friend agree that a key reason why the United Kingdom Government can act as an influential global player is the high standards and professionalism of our armed forces? What assurances can he give us that the proposals in the White Paper and the detailed proposals that will follow will not in any way lead to a decline in the ability of our armed forces to maintain those high standards and their international reputation?
Mr. Hoon: I agree with my hon. Friend that we need to maintain those high standards, and we have to do so in the face of the changing strategic environment. I have come to envy my predecessors who were in office during the stability of the cold war, when force structures essentially remained constant from year to year. That has not been the case during the time in which I have had the privilege of holding this position, nor indeed was it the case for my predecessor. Consequently, we have to face up to the difficult decisions required to achieve precisely what my hon. Friend set out.
Mr. Peter Viggers: Service personnel at all levels carry a heavy burden of responsibility, and their conditions of service should reflect that. If under the pensions review large new categories of dependants, including unmarried partners, are given rights, and if the Treasury has insisted that the pensions review is carried out on a cost-neutral basis, does it not follow as night follows day that there will be significant reductions in pension entitlement? Is that fair?
Mr. Hoon: In fact, that is not the case. Obviously, in the course of considering both pensions and compensation arrangements, adjustments will be made to reflect the modern world in which we live. I gathered from the tone of the hon. Gentleman's observations that he is concerned about providing benefits for unmarried partners. The Ministry of Defence could be criticised for the fact that members of the armed forces have been rather tardy in recognising such relationships. Nevertheless, I anticipate that the change will be broadly welcomed, given the society in which we all now live.
Jim Knight: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement, particularly the commitment to sustaining interoperability with the United States and the commitment to Europe and NATO. However, will
1218
he give my constituents and me some reassurance about Bovington and Lulworth, which are based on tank training, given his comments about reducing the number of heavy brigades? Will the Ministry of Defence maintain its commitment to that important part of our armed forces' training?
Mr. Hoon: Training will continue to be essential as, indeed, will our reliance on heavy armour, which, as the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex implied, performed magnificently in operations in Iraq. It is important, however, to emphasise the need for flexibility. We need to develop, as the Army has recommended, not only light and heavyweight forces but medium-weight forces that can be deployed with greater protection than light forces currently enjoy. I will set out in more detail the precise implications of the proposals, and I apologise for not saying so to the House before. For my hon. Friend and other right hon. and hon. Members who believe that there may be implications for their constituencies, I should be delighted to discuss those implications with them.
Mr. Desmond Swayne: I draw the attention of the House to my entry in the Register of Members' Interests. I should like to ask the Secretary of State about supporting essay No. 3, which anticipates a policy of reserves being mobilised on any type or scale of operation. Does the Secretary of State accept that if reserves are repeatedly mobilised on low-intensity, medium-sized operations there will not be any reserves, because employers will not run the risk of engaging them—and I include in that my own constituents?
Mr. Hoon: I am delighted to welcome the hon. Gentleman back. If he will forgive me for making a personal observation, his period of volunteering in Iraq seems to have been good for him, given his general demeanour, colour, health and, dare I say, weight. I apologise for the fact that I was unable to see him during my visits to Iraq. I saw his colleague, the hon. Member for Westbury (Dr. Murrison), and I know that he was conducting valuable liaison work with the Italian forces, which was particularly important in the light of the losses recently sustained by Italy.
I do not entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman's observations about reservists. There have been efforts across the country to discuss with employers the way in which reservists were deployed, and we need to learn lessons about that. I participated in a number of those meetings and heard nothing but praise from employers for the role of reservists. They certainly want more information and want to be consulted earlier, and I have taken that on board. However, they are proud of their employees and the fact that they went into action as reservists. I saw no sign at all that they want to prevent that in future, although I cannot say the same about the hon. Gentleman's constituents.
Mrs. Alice Mahon: I should like to ask about the future of our armed forces in Iraq. My right hon. Friend will be aware that the CIA has conceded that Iraqi resistance is getting stronger every day. Because the Iraqi governing council has proved useless, the United States has changed its policy and said that it

1219
would speed up the handover to the Iraqis. If that happens and an Islamic government is elected, will our troops come home? Will that be acceptable to the coalition?
Mr. Hoon: The number of incidents has been reducing recently. I am not certain whether that trend will continue or whether it denotes a reorganisation of those who continue to support Saddam Hussein. In any event, we will remain vigilant. The number of incidents in the south, Britain's area of operation, is low. Most of the incidents still involve part of Iraq to the north and west of Baghdad, where the regime had its heartland and was at its strongest. It is vital—I agree with my hon. Friend to this extent—that before there is any kind of transition we must tackle the security situation so that a new government can take responsibility and, ultimately, so that there can be free and fair elections. Obviously, that can only occur once the security situation is resolved. As for the future Government of Iraq, that is entirely a matter for the Iraqis themselves. Our job is to create the conditions in which such a Government can be chosen.
Mr. A. J. Beith: Is the Secretary of State aware that he would not achieve his objective of spending money in the most effective way if he were to accept a proposal to throw away the multimillion pound investment that has just been completed at RAF Boulmer in order to move it all to Coningsby and provide it all over again? Will he note also that in Berwick and the borders, we feel strongly that the King's Own Scottish Borderers should have a role in the strategy that he describes?
Mr. Hoon: I indicated only a few moments ago that I would be happy to see the right hon. Gentleman. I emphasise to all hon. Members that such specific decisions have not been taken. I accept that there will need to be further consultation with right hon. and hon. Members, but I do not want to alarm anyone. None of these decisions has been taken.
Mike Gapes: The Secretary of State rightly referred to the importance of intelligence. He also mentioned the reserve forces. Is he aware that there are a great number of British Asians who could play an important role because of their linguistic skills and understanding of some of the societies from which terrorism is coming? Can he make a renewed effort to increase the number of ethnic minority members in our armed forces?
Mr. Hoon: My hon. Friend is right. There have been steady successes in our recruiting, but he is right that we need to redouble our efforts, partly for the reason that he mentioned, and also to ensure that our armed forces reflect the ethnic diversity of our society—a society that must be properly reflected in the composition of our armed forces. I agree that there are certain advantages in having a range of linguistic skills. He may be aware that Gurkha soldiers deployed in Afghanistan, for example, have been able to understand and communicate with a number of the local people, which has added enormously to their ability to help improve the situation there.
Patrick Mercer: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for outlining new and clear thinking about how our armed forces will be used. I was particularly interested to hear him speaking about expeditionary warfare and dealing with threats at a distance. What about the threats at home? Where is the clear, innovative thinking about how our regular and reserve forces, beyond the rapidly failing civil contingencies reaction force, will be adapted for the new style of warfare?
Mr. Hoon: I realise the difficulties that the hon. Gentleman faces in his particular position. As he well knows, the Minister for homeland security in the United Kingdom is my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. Having set out in the new chapter a detailed response to the kind of threats that we witnessed so tragically in the United States on 11 September 2001, I have not specifically dealt with the homeland implications today. However, I emphasise that they are constantly under review as far as the Ministry of Defence is concerned, and I believe that we make an effective contribution to the efforts made across Government, but specifically by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, to deal with those threats and challenges.
Harry Cohen: Should not the emphasis be on unmanned aerial vehicles, better situational awareness, forces-wide communications, asset tracking to improve logistics, and more appropriate armoured wheeled vehicles with suitable protection to back up foot patrols? Would not the money be better spent on those things than on cluster bombs or the unwanted occupation of Iraq?
Mr. Hoon: I was about to congratulate my hon. Friend on his excellent command of the jargon, which I confess still sometimes eludes me. I agree with nine tenths of what he said and reiterate what I have said to him on previous occasions about the use of cluster bombs.
Miss Anne McIntosh: I warmly welcome the Secretary of State's reference to the Eurofighter. Will he give a commitment that the use and deployment of the Eurofighter to RAF Leeming will be on the target date and in the same numbers that he confirmed? The Ministry of Defence is aware that there is a problem at RAF Linton. I pay tribute to the flying school at RAF Linton and the tremendous contribution that it makes, but the reduction of the number of flying schools used by the RAF and the Navy puts enormous pressure on the remaining schools. Can he give some indication of how that can be resolved?
Mr. Hoon: I am as keen as the hon. Lady to get what I think that we had better call Typhoon nowadays into service. I recognise that her experience in the European Parliament means that she likes to call things Euro-something or other. I hope, by the way, that that does not interfere with her well-deserved promotion. It is important that we concentrate on getting Typhoon into service, working with the RAF, and as I said, ensuring that it has a multi-role capability to deal with the kinds of operations that we currently conduct. I am as keen as anyone to achieve that.
Mr. George Foulkes: Will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity to scotch the myth being put around by Opposition scaremongers in Scotland that the review represents some threat to the Scottish infantry regiments? Does he agree that the real threat to our defence installations and personnel in Scotland is from those who would break up the United Kingdom?
Mr. Hoon: My right hon. Friend is right. As I have made clear, it is important that we see through the implications of the policy baseline that I set out today in more specific decisions. None of those decisions has been taken in relation to Scotland or any other part of the United Kingdom.
Hugh Robertson: The Secretary of State rightly drew attention to the fact that a National Audit Office report praised the speed of deployment of heavy armoured forces to the Gulf, and also picked up the fact that many commanders feel that our heavy assets—the Challenger 2, the Warrior, the AS 90—were the battle-winning assets. Bearing it in mind that the right hon. Gentleman is proposing a move to lighter forces, and that the threats that we face are rarely the ones for which we are configured, is there not a serious danger that the review may leave us less ready to face the unexpected?
Mr. Hoon: It is vital that that does not happen. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his observation. Challenger was used extremely effectively in and around Basra, for example, and I expect that tacticians would suggest that that was in a way not originally thought likely. That is why I place so much emphasis on flexibility. If ingenious commanders can use their equipment in a way that achieves the desired effect, and undoubtedly that was the case with the way in which Challenger was used, I for one will be delighted.
Mr. Michael Clapham: Did my right hon. Friend see the report in The Guardian yesterday that the second largest contingent in Iraq is made up of employees of large corporations? Does he share my concern that that illustrates the growing power of the military industrial complex? What steps will he take to ensure that Britain's defence programme is based on the needs of the country, not the wants of the corporations?
Mr. Hoon: My hon. Friend used jargon that I have not heard in some time. It was never a phrase that tripped lightly from my tongue, but I congratulate him on his sophisticated vocabulary. I do not really agree with him. Clearly, we must ensure that the civilians who support our deployed operations are properly protected and capable of doing their job effectively. Those
1222
civilians have done a tremendous job in providing timely assistance to the armed forces and relieving highly trained members of those armed forces from tasks that we do not want them to engage in. That is the point. If we recruit people into our armed forces, we want them to be trained to a level that means that they are no longer engaged on the kind of tasks that civilian contractors can fulfil extremely effectively.
Sir Patrick Cormack: If the Secretary of State follows the policy outlined in the White Paper—which is very short on detail, I might say—is he confident that, in 10 years, this country would be able to cope with a crisis in the Falkland Islands or mount another Iraq-style operation?
Mr. Hoon: I am confident. I know that the hon. Gentleman is far too sophisticated an observer of military matters to suggest that, if there were a new Falklands crisis, we would conduct the campaign in precisely the same way. The point of the developments and changes is to allow us to conduct the campaign in quite a different way and, I would argue, a more effective way. I would be more concerned about the implied criticism that he makes if we had had real reverses in military campaigns in recent times. That is not true. It is important that we go on developing such flexibility, both to conduct the kinds of campaigns that have been conducted so successfully in the past, and to give us the ability to conduct the kinds of campaigns, as the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex said, of which we do not know and which we cannot imagine today.
Miss Anne Begg: The best museum in my constituency—in fact, it is the only museum there—is that of the Gordon Highlanders, a regiment that no longer exists, not because they were called the Gay Gordons, but because they were the victims of a previous reorganisation. There is obviously concern in north and north-east Scotland that the Highlanders and Black Watch may suffer a similar fate. Will the Secretary of State assure us that he will listen to all representations from that area, because it is very important that the locality features in any recruitment and to ensure that the kilted regiments will not be consigned to the museum of history?
Mr. Hoon: I know that the Gordon Highlanders ceased to exist as a fighting force on 17 September 1994. That is still a cause of great concern to those who are strong supporters of the regiment, but it is an indication of the sort of changes that have occurred over the long history of Britain's armed forces. I cannot rule out such changes in the future, but I can tell my hon. Friend that no decisions whatever have been taken about such matters. I shall certainly consult her and any other hon. Member who is interested.

Points of Order
2.1 pm
Mr. Paul Tyler: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. We very much appreciate the efforts of the Chair to try to protect the interests of Back Benchers, and we understand the rationale for what Mr. Speaker mentioned earlier, but a large number of hon. Members are still seeking to question the Secretary of State. The exchanges between him and the Conservative Front-Bench spokesman took more than 30 minutes of the time available. In such circumstances, surely it is possible for the Chair to extend the time a little so as to include Members from all parts of the House in the discussions.
Mr. Nick Hawkins: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. In considering the remarks of the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler), will you bear it in mind that many of us represent substantial military constituencies and have many thousands of constituents who are directly employed by the armed forces or by defence contractors? Those of us who sat through all the exchanges and wish to question the Secretary of State will not be reassured by his invitation to discuss those matters with him directly. These are matters that should be raised in the Chamber of the House of Commons on behalf of our constituents.
Sir Patrick Cormack: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Could consideration be given to ensuring that when a statement of such importance is made on a Thursday in future, a further hour is allowed so that we can sit until 7 o'clock? Had that been done, all of my colleagues—I am conscious that you kindly called me to speak—could have got in.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): Order. I call Mr. Barnes on a point of order.
Mr. Harry Barnes: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. During business questions, I raised the matter of the attack by the United States—
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. If I may respond to the three related points of order that have been made, I shall come back to the hon. Gentleman.
I am aware that there is a great deal of interest in the House on defence matters. That was evident today among the hon. Members who were present to hear the statement. Mr. Speaker has a great responsibility, as he
1224
has indicated, to preserve time for the work of the Select Committees. I have noted what has been said, and Mr. Speaker himself will be aware of it. Of course, there will be other opportunities for hon. Members to discuss the content of the White Paper later in the parliamentary calendar. As to the point made about the timing for debates on Thursdays, that is a matter for the Leader of the House.
Mr. Barnes: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. During business questions, I raised the issue of the attack by United States forces on the offices of the Iraqi Federation of Trade Unions. In response, the Leader of the House, making use of information that has come from the Americans, indicated that that body might have been hiding fedayeen and arms. That is an incredible response, given the nature of the free trade union movement in Iraq, which stood up against those activities and operated in a clandestine way in order to establish a free Iraq. What opportunities can be given to the Leader of the House so that he can correct his statement if he receives further information from the Americans saying that the situation is different or to check out that the claim does not relate to the military-industrial complex that was mentioned earlier?
Madam Deputy Speaker: The Leader of the House is not present, but he will have heard or will read the hon. Gentleman's comments and may well choose to respond directly. Indeed, the hon. Gentleman himself may decide to pursue the matter through other parliamentary means.

BILL PRESENTED
  TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT
  Mr. Secretary Darling, supported by the Prime Minister, Mr. Secretary Prescott, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Secretary Blunkett, Secretary Margaret Beckett, Ms Secretary Hewitt, Secretary Tessa Jowell, Mr. Peter Hain, Mr. David Jamieson and Mr. Tony McNulty, presented a Bill to make provision for and in connection with the designation of traffic officers and their duties; to make provision in relation to the management of road networks; to make new provision for regulating the carrying out of works and other activities in the street; to amend Part 3 of the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991 and Parts 9 and 14 of the Highways Act 1980; to make new provision in relation to the civil enforcement of traffic contraventions; to amend section 55 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Monday 15 December, and to be printed. Explanatory notes to be printed. [Bill 13].
  ESTIMATES DAY
  [1ST ALLOTTED DAY, 1ST PART]
  ESTIMATES DAY
    Department for Work and Pensions

      Child Care for Working Parents
      [ Relevant documents: The Fifth Report from the Work and Pensions Committee, Session 2002–03, on Childcare for Working Parents, HC 564–I, and the Government's response thereto, HC 1184; and the Department for Work and Pensions Departmental Report 2003, Cm 5921.]
      Motion made, and Question proposed,
      That resources, not exceeding £22,505,326,000, be authorised, on account, for use during the year ending on 31st March 2005, and that a sum, not exceeding £22,418,785,000, be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund, on account, for the year ending on 31st March 2005, for expenditure by the Department for Work and Pensions.—[Ms Bridget Prentice.]
      [This Vote on Account is to be considered in so far as it relates to childcare for working parents (Resolution of 2 December).]
      2.5 pm
      Sir Archy Kirkwood: It is a very great pleasure to have the opportunity open this short debate. I perfectly well understand that there are pressures on time, as has just been demonstrated, and that an important debate on people, pensions and post offices will follow this debate, so I shall seek to make a few brief introductory remarks, after which I shall allow colleagues to make some comments on this important subject.
      Estimates days are big parliamentary occasions. The vote on account that we are discussing allows the Minister a mere £22.5 billion on account. I hope that he spends it wisely and that he might think of spending some more of it on child care to allow parents to get into education. I am pleased that my hon. Friend—if I may so call the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Pond)—is manning the Treasury Bench. He is a friend in many senses, but in particular he was a distinguished member of the Select Committee in his time and has an important professional track record on this subject. We are pleased to see him in his place.
      I should like to say a brief word of thanks to all those who contributed to the Select Committee report, and not only the Committee members themselves, who were assiduous as always. I like to think that the valuable work that we did had at least something to do with the little Christmas bonus that the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave us yesterday, for which I give much thanks. I shall return to that point later. Perhaps he should have more children more often, because it concentrates his mind. It is almost Christmas, and all these things help.
      The Committee had a very interesting time in the course of its inquiry. We received 44 high-quality written submissions and had four very good oral sessions. In particular, I pay tribute to Baroness Ashton of Upholland, who was kind enough to come before us and help us to understand the departmental view of things. We always get very good help from the Department and the ministerial team.
      1226
      I should like to describe the report, in terms of the totality of the work of the Select Committee on Work and Pensions, as a clear and earnest declaration of interest in what we believe to be a very important subject. In the fifth report of this year, that subject is limited to the part of child care that relates directly to employment, as that aspect is closely tied to our departmental duties and responsibilities as a Committee monitoring the work of the Department for Work and Pensions.
      If we had had time to do so, we would have explored some of the more philosophical and far-reaching elements of child care as a policy, which I think is an intrinsically important part of Government policy, and not only in the sphere of employment and work. Indeed, the evidence that Professor Peter Moss gave us in seeking to establish child care almost as a public good and a human right, and therefore something that should be made available on a universal basis, was compelling. It was not directly in tune with the more restricted remit of the Committee, but I would like to explore it in further detail at a later stage. In particular, the hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous), if I may refer to him as a member of the Committee, argued a very cogent case, which I found illuminating, about the need to focus on how child care affects families and on whether we should ensure that parents who want to stay at home and foster and nurture people are not left out of the Government's drive—I do not use that word pejoratively—to get people back into the labour market. It was an interesting and useful inquiry and report that demonstrated the fact that since the last election, when the Committee acquired the world of employment—we used to be the Social Security Committee; we are now the Work and Pensions Committee—it has been clear that the subject of work has had a whole new dimension. Wherever one looks in considering the pursuit of employment policy and how better to refine the facilities and provisions offered by central Government, the issue of child care is not far round the corner as an integral and essential part of Government policy in terms of meeting people's problems in their everyday lives.
      I do not read newspapers much at the weekend, but last weekend I stumbled across an article in the weekend supplement of The Guardian that told the heart-rending story of a lady called Charlotte Armstrong, who lives in Basildon. She is doing everything right by trying to study for a university degree, but everywhere she turns she fails against a barrier of child care or housing benefit. The tragedy is that that is not unusual. No matter how much support Governments try to give, it is difficult to get all the bits of the jigsaw right. People try to help themselves, as we all want them to, but they still manage to fail. The lady I mentioned is not a constituent of mine, but I would like to try to find her and send her a note, because I was captured by her dilemma. It is not unusual—we see similar examples in our constituencies nearly every week. For me, her story sums up the difficulties of people who are trying their hardest to help their families: we need to do everything that we can to make life easier for her and for people like her.
      Before I turn to the report's specific recommendations, I want to remind the House of the background against which this debate takes place. In

      1227
      1997, when we really began to tackle the problem, the United Kingdom started from a very low base—we were a long way behind our sister European nations—and there is still a long way to go. The debate is timely because it allows us to review progress to date and to see where we stand in the Government's scheme of things. The provenance of the policy dates back to the May 1998 national child care strategy—the Green Paper. That was a worthwhile and sensible document in its day, but it was not until the pre-Budget review of October 2001, which included the significant announcement of the child care review, that practical things started to happen on the ground. In July 2002, that was followed by the comprehensive spending review that directed the first significant resources—£1.5 billion—into the policy area. Yesterday, of course, we had this year's pre-Budget review.
      We began to see the policy build up, followed by resources—a welcome recognition of the high priority attached to the policy at a high level of Government. I am sure that the Minister was clever enough to contrive the PBR announcement being made the day before this debate to make matters easy for him. We all know that his decision really made the difference, but it was good to hear from the lips of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the issue is a priority for him, too. He did not say much in the way of new announcements, apart from on the increased element of the child tax credit, but his comments were welcome as a kind of payment on account.
      We have in prospect the Treasury interdepartmental review of the subject—an essential piece of work that will, I hope, inform the comprehensive spending review programme for the three years following July 2004. I hope that the Committee's report and this debate will strengthen the hand of Ministers at the Treasury and the Department for Work and Pensions—indeed, the Government as a whole, as it is an interdepartmental problem—in making the difficult choices required in finding the resources to maintain momentum.
      Having been a Member in a rural area for 20 years, I encounter pressures that are difficult when they bear down on individual families, but I do not have the volume and weight of casework of some of my colleagues—especially London Members such as the hon. Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North (Ms Buck). I admire and acknowledge her work—she is an expert on the subject and was largely responsible for the Committee's inquiry. She persuaded me that child care is far from being a second-order issue, but is in fact a core issue. Until 1997, I thought that dealing with poverty was about getting more benefits to families, but it is not as simple as that. She, more than anyone else, led me to conclude that the Government cannot abide by their own targets—I accept that they are ambitious, as is right and proper—unless they deal seriously and meaningfully with child care. That is axiomatic and central to the Government's anti-poverty programme. The targets on child poverty—to cut it by a quarter by 2004, to cut it further by 2010 and, most ambitiously of all, to abolish it by 2020—cannot be achieved without more extensive child care provision. Indeed, to abolish child poverty, provision would need to be almost universal.
      1228
      The Government also have ambitious targets on reducing children in workless households as a percentage of the population and getting 70 per cent. of lone parents back into the labour market. Those are all important aims that cannot be properly achieved without child care being central to everything that the Government do across Departments.
      The debate is not just about targets, however. Ambitious and welcome as they are, and I hope that the Government meet them, the more intractable and indefinable problems of persistent long-term poverty—chronic, grinding, deep-seated poverty—can be addressed only if families have access to quality, affordable child care. I know the Chancellor of the Exchequer well enough to be aware that he is focused on dealing with intergenerational poverty, which will not be eradicated by a target or an objective alone, but which requires a consistent, long-term policy.
      Chronic health problems can be addressed by children's centres that provide a package of support for families. Obesity is becoming a much bigger problem in all our constituencies. Consistent, accessible, timely child care, with back-up support, is essential. That also applies to illiteracy.
      I attend international social security conferences where experts say that we should be encouraging more people—not only the Chancellor of the Exchequer—to have children. I had better be careful—a safer way of putting it might be to say that the country needs a population policy. People of child-bearing age should be encouraged to become involved in parenthood, because the demographic trends are against us as a nation. If we do not have enough high-skilled, well-educated members of the population in 2050 and beyond, the country will have all sorts of other problems.
      We need to move to a position whereby children are healthy and confident and go to school ready to learn. The frightening fact is that children learn to be poor by the time they are raised, so early years education and the child care provision that supports it is quintessentially important to a successful Government policy in future. The remedy is at hand, and we quote it in our report. It is a piece of evidence from the Department for Education and Skills, which found that 63 per cent., or two in three, of non-working mothers and 78 per cent., or three in four, of non-working lone mothers said that they would prefer to go to work or to study if they had access to good-quality, convenient, reliable and affordable child care.
      So there is a willingness to liberate a cohort of the work force not only to work but to study. Work is important but so is studying. In the article in The Guardian, which I shall send to the Minister, the young woman wanted a university degree, not just any job. That caught my imagination. One could perhaps accuse the Government of wanting to get people into work, but being indifferent about their doing anything beyond that. Some American states are much more ambitious and talk of "A B C—any job, better job, career." There are young women who wish to get university degrees, which will enhance their labour market value, but whose attempts founder on the obstacle of absence of access to proper child care.
      Hywel Williams: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there are specific structural problems in providing child care in rural areas? As a rural Member of Parliament, can he suggest some remedies?
      Sir Archy Kirkwood: That is absolutely right. There is a problem, and the Government's response to that aspect of the report was a little weak. They mentioned trying to give local authorities a little more flexibility but I agree with the hon. Gentleman. In rural areas, there is often no critical mass to get child-care providers or run groups such as pre-school playgroups or after-school clubs. There are often not enough children in a geographically discrete area to make that easy.
      It is hard to fault the Government on their overall application. However, as part of the inquiry and report, we visited a couple of nurseries in north Kensington on the recommendation of my hon. Friend the Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North. I remember that clearly because, although we knew about the policy and the Government's direction, which we supported, we found much confusion about funding operations. The difficulties and uncertainty that the nurseries encountered about the security of the funding were worrying. Above all, an acute shortage of places remains. The Daycare Trust estimates that there is only one place for every five children who are under eight. That is a genuine supply problem.
      During the visit, it was also driven home to us that families in the United Kingdom pay a much higher proportion of the cost of places than our European counterparts do. The Daycare Trust estimates that UK parents pay 75 per cent. of costs whereas parents on the continent pay some 30 per cent. That information was reinforced last week when the Committee visited Denmark and France, where we were told about the importance of the provision and its extent in sister European countries.
      Let me briefly consider targeting resources. Focusing 20 per cent. on the most disadvantaged postcode areas is probably inevitable because one cannot do everything at once. However, I hope that, between now and the next comprehensive spending review next July, the Government will consider expanding the provision not only from 20 per cent. to the 30 per cent. that the Committee recommended, but to deal with the point that the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Hywel Williams) made about rural areas. More flexibility is needed so that people in rural areas can tackle the issues more thoroughly.
      I want to underscore the question of pay for child minders. It is a worrying trend that they are not being paid enough and that there is insufficient career development to keep them in the service of the families for whom they provide child care.
      The Government's record is hard to criticise but many problems remain. The Committee made some guarded comments about using employers in the way in which the Chancellor implied yesterday. I hope that the Government will reconsider the matter carefully. If I had the money for tax breaks for employers, I should put it into child centres. I would not have chosen an open-ended commitment for employers because that entails problems, which the report tackles in more
      1230
      depth. As I said earlier. other Ministers mentioned the pledge of 1,000 centres by 2008, but it was useful to hear the Chancellor put it on the record.
      I hope that the report and the debate will support and encourage the work of the Treasury interdepartmental review. We need approximately another £1 billion or £2 billion. That sounds an enormous sum, but it would be for three years. The Daycare Trust estimates that £2.5 billion over 10 years would yield almost universal child centre provision, although some problems in rural areas would probably remain. There is much work to do but the Government's direction is generally right. Opposition parties, Select Committees and those outside the Treasury will always want to move further faster, and I recommend that we do that.
      I hope that hon. Members understand that the subject is important and that the Committee has made the best fist of what is for us a short report. We reserve the right to return to the subject, but we want to leave Treasury Ministers with the message that, by their own lights, they cannot succeed unless they do more to develop child care provision in the middle to long term. It is in their interests to put in more resources and establish more child care centres as soon as they can.
      Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): I remind hon. Members that Mr. Speaker has imposed a 10-minute limit on contributions from Back Benchers.
      2.26 pm
      Ms Karen Buck: I am delighted that we are conducting a debate on child care. I thank the Chairman of the Select Committee on Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Sir Archy Kirkwood) for his warm words. I congratulate him on his leadership and his commitment to the subject, which, as he rightly says, is a passion of mine.
      Let me begin by citing two figures that provide some context for our debate. According to the Department's research, 1.3 million households are currently looking for child care that they cannot provide. That gives a human aspect to the Daycare Trust's figures of a place for only one in five children. PricewaterhouseCoopers conducted an analysis of the economic benefits of child care. It found that, in the long term—admittedly, in the long term, we are all dead and figures are subject to all sorts of different pressures—provision of comprehensive, affordable child care would lead to a £40 billion benefit to the economy. There is therefore a lot to play for.
      Although the report rightly deals with child care for working parents, it can be viewed only in the larger context of child poverty. The provision of high quality child care for young children is essential to any effort to create a fairer and more equitable society and to close the appalling gap in all sorts of achievements between economically disadvantaged families and others. The chief inspector of schools, David Bell, recently flagged that up when he drew attention to growing inequalities in primary school children's abilities. He said:
      "The gap between children arriving at school who do well, and those who do badly, is increasing, and that is very worrying".
      Economic and social disadvantage and the variations in access to a quality early-years experience is part of that problem.

      1231
      As the Chairman of the Select Committee said, from a standing start in 1997, the achievement has been awesome. The Chancellor added to that yesterday, especially for London, where costs are particularly high. I welcome the achievements and my comments must be viewed in that context. They constitute not criticism, but a desire to close some of the gaps and drive forward.
      Our report considered the fact that the emphasis so far has been on the significant and welcome investment in increasing early-years education placements and part-time provision. Again, this is not a criticism; we have to start somewhere, and there are supply-side constraints, particularly in relation to carers and teachers. We are talking here about part-time places, mainly for three and four-year-olds and provision through the Sure Start programmes and the neighbourhood nurseries initiative—NNI—for people living in the 20 per cent. of wards that are the most deprived. Our report makes it clear that, even in the most disadvantaged areas, the Sure Start programmes and NNI do not add up to comprehensive, affordable child care. The provision is, however, concentrated on those areas; we have to start somewhere.
      That means that the gap between what is required and what is available is still very large. One point that flows from the Chancellor's statement yesterday is that we must remember the importance of assisting low-income working parents who are not among the most acutely disadvantaged or living in the most acutely disadvantaged areas, because of the phenomenal cost of providing care. A family with an income of between £20,000 and £25,000 who are outside the range of financial support for child care and outside the 20 per cent. of areas that are the most disadvantaged could easily find themselves paying £200 a week for one childcare place. It is right and proper that something should be done to assist them with those costs, both to allow the lone parent or two-parent family to participate in the labour market—part time or full time—and to give the child some experience of early-years education, assuming that the quality is good, as that is usually a positive experience for them.
      In driving forward the expansion of child care, to which there is a commitment, and in tackling the huge task of eliminating child poverty by 2020, we must recognise the fundamental limitation in the approach that has so far served us well, which is to use the market mechanism of providing individual subsidies to parents to purchase child care. I believe that this method has several weaknesses. First, it has not been able to drive forward the supply of child care, particularly in isolated rural communities and high-cost urban communities. We can place subsidies in parents' hands, but if the child care is not available, they will not serve their purpose. Although there is a logical argument that the subsidy itself will make the care available, in practice that is extremely hard to achieve when dealing with the very high capital costs involved in developing nurseries, for example.
      Smilarly, the financial support given through the child care tax credit does not meet the whole cost of child care, particularly in high-cost areas, wherever they might be. Child care costs in London regularly exceed £11,000 a year, for example. Because of the relatively low threshold for families to qualify for the child care
      1232
      tax credit, it reaches only a relatively small number of parents. According to the most recent figures, only 285,000 households in the UK, and only 30,000 families in the whole of London, receive the tax credit, involving an average of £63 a week, and a n average cost of £7,000 a year. This is not a churlish criticism. That help was not there before, and it is very welcome. It is helping some people a great deal, but in terms of what has to be achieved, it is severely constrained.
      When the provision of child care is so dependent on individual purchasing, whether subsidised by the tax credit or not, it becomes very vulnerable to changes in economic circumstances. Speaking as a parent, I must tell the House that I would not want my child to be in child care in a way that was vulnerable to changes in my working circumstances. That is the big weakness of too much dependence on a labour-market-related subsidy or of being too closely connected to employer-based child care.
      This brings us back to the evidence of Professor Moss and to the case for children's centres. There will continue to be a case for individual subsidy, because the child minder service needs to be provided for and some people need financial assistance for their home-based care. There is not a case for doing away with the child care tax credit, for precisely that reason, but the next big steps that have to be taken must involve investment in the supply side. We must provide services that will allow non-working parents access to crèches and drop-in facilities as well as early-years education and child care, and that cannot be achieved through the tax credit system. That is the next move forward. I hope that the comprehensive spending review and the manifesto process will pick it up, because I see it as the big idea to help not only working parents, but those on very low incomes and the most disadvantaged, along with middle-income Britain. We must bring children together so as to provide an opportunity for people to enter the workplace and, possibly more importantly, to provide a high-quality early-years experience for our children.
      2.35 pm
      Andrew Selous: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North (M s Buck). I acknowledge her great interest in and knowledge of these issues, and it has been a pleasure to serve with her on the Select Committee.
      My party and I support the principle that work is the best way for people to come out and stay out of poverty, and the best route to ending child poverty, on which the Government are particularly focused. There is no disagreement on that. I approach this subject with the belief that we should provide working parents—indeed, all parents—with a real choice when it comes to looking after their children. We know from several polls undertaken by a popular magazine, Top Santé, that when young parents are asked what they would ideally like in their children's very early years, large numbers of them say that they would like to be able to afford to look after them themselves, at least up to the age of three. We should try to provide that choice.
      High-quality child care has been mentioned several times in this debate, and no one would disagree with the need for that. We all want the very best child care for our

      1233
      children. I am particularly interested in recent research from a number of different groups of researchers in north America, the United Kingdom, Denmark and Finland—the Select Committee visited Denmark only last week—which clearly suggests that certain types of group child care, especially for children under two, but sometimes up to the age of three, if not established in the right setting, is not in the best interests of the children and can have detrimental effects. That is not my research; as I have said, it comes from a number of organisations. Indeed, the Government's own study into the subject, the effective provision of pre-school education—EPPE—research project, refers to those findings.
      I drafted an amendment—it was not accepted—which can be found on page 48 of the Select Committee report, asking that, before the Government provide large amounts of public money for early years child care, they take note of the findings of the EPPE report in this regard. I was surprised that the amendment was not passed, as I felt that it was quite mild in nature and merely asked the Government to take note of that matter. However, for those who are interested, it can be found in the Select Committee report.
      When we were in Denmark last week, we spoke to the chairman of our sister committee. I learned from her that an important study had just been undertaken, analysing the performances of Danish and Finnish schoolchildren. In Finland, as in Norway, a Government scheme has allowed parents—mainly women—receiving 40 per cent. of the average national wage to look after their own children until they are three years old, if they wish to do so. Women did not have to take advantage of the experiment—they could have gone straight into the labour market if they wished—but 75 per cent. of Finnish women have done so, and the scheme has proved similarly popular in Norway.
      The study also found that Finnish schoolchildren scored better than their Danish counterparts in a number of respects. The researchers concluded that that was because Finnish children were involved with just one adult—a parent or a child minder—in their early years, whereas in Denmark the emphasis was on group nursery provision rather than one-to-one contact. When we asked about the ratio of staff to children in Danish nurseries, we learned that they were worsening—that just one adult might be dealing with eight or 10 children. There is evidence that that is not the best kind of care for very young children, aged 18 months or so.
      Ms Buck: There are a number of variables in comparisons such as this. In a country where parents with very young children do not participate much in the labour market, they are likely to be providing one-to-one care for their children at home. Why does that not happen here?
      Andrew Selous: I agree that more child-care options should be available, but I also think that all this research should be made available to parents. They should be able to choose whether to send their children to nurseries, to employ child minders or, if they can afford it, to look after the children themselves.
      1234
      The study also told us that after 18 months or so many working parents who had initially chosen a nursery setting for their children decided to employ child minders instead. As the hon. Lady knows, the problem in this country is that the supply of child minders has fallen considerably.
      I recently received a letter from a constituent, which I thought so significant that I drew it to the attention of the Under Secretary of State for Education and Skills, Lady Ashton, who appeared before the Select Committee—as can be seen on page 132 of volume 2 of the report. My constituent wrote out of extreme frustration: she was about to lose her job because she was about to lose her child minder. She was an intelligent, educated woman, working at a further education centre near my constituency. The thrust of her letter was that "quality" child care did not necessarily mean "qualified" child care. After all, the state does not prevent us from having children because we do not have certain qualifications, but most children are looked after by their parents. Surely it is a parent's right to choose who looks after his or her child, and surely it is acceptable for any state subsidies that are available to be spent on those whom parents consider most suitable to perform that task.
      My constituent wrote:
      "It is interesting to note that both my child and I were happier with the service provided by the unregistered child minder…Unregistered minders have more time to actually give to the children as compared to registered, who have to devote copious amounts of time building an NVQ portfolio, running around the house to check no toys are lying about"
      and so on. Much of her frustration arose from the fact that those who had been doing the child minding in her village did not want to devote the necessary time and effort to the courses that were required for them to gain the qualifications that would lead to registration.
      I realise that the Government often adopt a cautious approach because of alarming things that sometimes happen, but they should be aware of the problem when the supply of child minders is being adversely affected.
      2.46 pm
      Mr. John Battle: As one who is not a member of the Select Committee, I thank its Chairman and members for their excellent report, which focuses on a vital issue. I also support the Government's spending of public funds on child care.
      I want to make two points. First, child care provision makes a positive contribution to the establishment of a dynamic economy. The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Sir Archy Kirkwood) said that it should be seen as a public good, and I agree, but it should also be seen as an economic good.
      Secondly, while local initiatives are welcome, they will bed down better at local level if there is a better relationship between top-down and base-up developments. Investment in child care constitutes investment in the future, and that means that we must have a long-term, sustainable structure.
      I am delighted to see the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr. Pond), who is a friend of mine, on the Front Bench. We go back a number of years, to when he was the champion of the Low Pay Unit and I worked for

      1235
      Church Action on Poverty. At that time, our shared aim was to tackle poverty generated by lack of work, low pay and grossly inadequate benefits for the poor and their families. I am proud to have been, since 1997, a member of a governing party that has introduced a minimum wage and improved supportive benefits, and has made real inroads in the reduction of child poverty. Given that 3.1 million children are still in poverty, much remains to be done, but I welcome the Government's commitment of resources to child care in particular.
      Yesterday, the Chancellor announced an increase in resources dedicated to helping mothers and low earners. That will go a long way. The £50 a week tax incentive for employers to provide back-up child care will help many mothers who are in work, and many others too. It will mean more dynamism and more opportunities, rather than a contraction of the economy. The provision of help with approved child care at home is another useful innovation.
      In 1997, only 47,000 parents received help with child care costs; the figure is now more than 300,000. The report spells out what we are up against if we are to provide child care for the 1.3 million people who currently want it. There is massive need in that regard. Helping parents to balance work and family life, rather than leaving them alone to struggle, is key to supporting their role in the work force, and to ensuring that they enjoy work and are productive. It is also key to ensuring that they can enhance their training and skills, and their capacity to contribute throughout their lives.
      It is sometimes said that this is the age of globalisation. Such globalisation is characterised by increasing urbanisation, and by the increasing reality of personal mobility, which in turn stretches extended family back-up systems well beyond the clusters of local communities. In other words, in practice, grandparents, aunts, uncles, brothers and sisters do not now live alongside each other in local neighbourhoods; they are not there to provide personal family back-up. That is why care of the young, sick and elderly at home ought now to be regarded as part of a positive economic shift on the part of a progressive society that blends social justice and economic efficiency.
      The provision of personal services—the often unacknowledged and unpaid work that is usually done by mothers, grandmothers and daughters—ought now to be recognised as part of the growth of our overall economy. It is an economic function, and we should emphasise it more. Such care contributes jobs in new and expanding services. Moreover, serving each other will be the source of new jobs, new training, new income and economic growth. In other words, providing child care contributes to economic growth, and we should see it in that context.
      Let me cite the example of a young mother who grew up in and went to school in an area in my constituency that had more than 8,000 unemployed people in the 1980s; thankfully, that figure is now down to 1,500. She left school and, through the Government's new deal, got a place at the council-supported West Leeds Family Learning Centre, which specialises in training adults for work. She trained in basic qualifications, and then took a course in specialist child care training. She passed the test, got the qualifications, applied for a job with our new local Sure Start nursery project, and got it. She now works as a trained nursery nurse, providing child care
      1236
      back-up for other young mothers who are themselves on training courses or already in work. That is a tremendous success story, which should not be denigrated or sneered at. Some commentators suggest that such jobs are just public sector jobs that are not really worth while, yet they themselves are often paid directly from public funds. The opposite is true: such jobs contribute to the growth of the economy, and that shift to services provision should be recognised as an economic asset.
      Andrew Selous: I accept the economic point that the hon. Gentleman is making, but does he agree that it is important that we have some form of dialogue about the effect on children and the differences between various settings, so that, in terms of the environment in which they are cared for, we can ensure that they have the best start?
      Mr. Battle: Yes, and I hope to say a word or two about Sure Start, which is precisely the context in which some of that work can be done.
      At the moment, 14 people are participating in this term's child care course at the West Leeds Family Learning Centre, eight of whom have already got job places. Anyone who wants to work in nursery child care and is prepared to train will get a job; indeed, that is an indication of the level of demand. The Economic Secretary visited the centre last year, and he discovered that when we say to employers such as the Elite Group, "These women are training to work in your company. Will you look at your shift patterns to see whether they fit their child care needs and school hours?", the answer is yes. Therefore, we can achieve a better, more progressive and practical working arrangement. That is exactly the template that other employers could use.
      Currently, some 750 people are enrolled on 50 courses at the centre. Some go on to get university degrees, but we need to provide proper child care back-up. There is a nursery with reserved places, but it is over-subscribed and needs to be expanded.
      Another beacon project is the Sure Start programme. The programme in Bramley, which was one of the first in the country, employs 16 people, including qualified midwives, nursery nurses and speech therapists. They provide one-on-one family support, and the kind of context in the locality that the hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) referred to in his intervention. Such support helps to rebuild communities and neighbourhoods, and the networks that extended families can no longer provide.
      I must stress that such work needs to be long term. The excellent work of the Bramley Sure Start—and, indeed, of the new project in Burley—needs to be put on a long-term footing to ensure that it is consistent, and that people can have confidence in it. A brand new nursery and children's centre, run by the early years service, provides 52 new nursery places. That is welcome, but we need much more, and I hope that we can get assistance through the Chancellor's initiatives to extend provision nationally, as well as locally.
      I want to make one practical point about health. The Bramley Sure Start organised a birthday party for all local two-year-olds, but they used that occasion discreetly and sensitively as a means to check for early

      1237
      signs of delayed development in those children. Such an approach enables it to give practical support, and to intervene during the early years—the kind of idea that the hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire referred to. Similarly, the Burley Sure Start has begun home visiting. Improving family support, and providing early health and learning checks and good quality child care will be absolutely vital in tack ling poverty. That is what we have learned in the past few years, and it is the route to go down.
      I hope that the Government learn from the experience on the ground, in order to make sure that the local experience can be knitted in with the top-down money and initiatives. There are new ideas and experiences in the localities that can be shared and exchanged, and which the Government can also learn from. Doing so will enable us thoroughly to eradicate poverty, in ways that we perhaps had not thought of when the Minister and I were campaigning in the 1970s and 1980.
      2.56 pm
      Mr. Peter LuffLike the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle), I am not a member of the Committee. I congratulate it on this report, and I congratulate its Chairman on the way in which he opened today's debate.
      I agree with a great deal of what the hon. Member for Leeds, West has just said, but I was slightly uncomfortable with his emphasis on the economic impact of child care. For me, raising children is more about love, nurture and education than about crude economics. I felt that that aspect was rather lacking from his contribution; it was also perhaps lacking from the debate in general.
      Mr. Battle: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Luff: If the hon. Gentleman wishes to intervene, I shall happily allow him to correct the record.
      Mr. Battle: I do not want to diminish the role of nurture. However, I should point out that, although current commentary often says that all new jobs created are public sector jobs, some of them are damn good quality jobs in precisely the right areas, such as child care. Consideration of the economic impact ought therefore to be taken more seriously, not least by some of the hon. Gentleman's Front-Bench colleagues.
      Mr. Luff: I rather regret having given way, as the hon. Gentleman seems to have compounded my concern, rather than seizing the opportunity to say that mothers who work full-time caring for their children are performing a very valuable service, even if it does not feature in the nation's gross national product. But never mind—I do not want to get too confrontational in a debate that has been characterised by its good nature so far.
      Like the hon. Gentleman, I am an amateur in this debate, as I am not a member of the Committee. However, I am a father with a working wife, and I was brought up in a one-parent family, because my father
      1238
      died when I was only eight. I therefore have some experience of the issues relating to child care, and of the challenges posed to children.
      In addition to the need for love and nurture to which I have just referred, I want to inject three elements into this debate: the need for choice for parents, the need for opportunity for children, and the need for play. Technically speaking, the issue of play is not closely related to the work of the Work and Pensions Committee, but I am concerned that much pre-school provision is being driven in an increasingly academic direction. As a result, it is providing a different kind of environment for children from the one that they enjoy at home. Children do need to play before they go to school. My concern is that child care provision for the children of working parents should enable such play to develop. It is through play that children learn. [Interruption] I sense that the House is with me on this point, and I am glad to see nods around the Chamber; indeed, this is not the first time that we have agreed today. Such support is welcome, because Ofsted in particular is pursuing a rather worrying agenda through the creation of an increasingly academic pre-school experience.
      I am delighted that my own constituents are to get more choice. In paragraph 46 of the report, the Committee expressed its concern that
      "pockets of deprivation in towns and cities outside the 20 per cent. most deprived wards are not benefiting sufficiently from expanded child care provision."
      I am sure that it is right to express that concern. Tomorrow, I shall open a Pre-School Learning Alliance neighbourhood nursery in a very deprived ward in my constituency. I am privileged and delighted to do so. It will give children a chance to learn through play, on which the alliance puts great value. Also, it will provide a facility where parents can get to know each other and drop in for advice and social opportunities. That is hugely important, as it provides the network to which the hon. Member for Leeds, West referred.
      The ward about which I am speaking suffers from severe economic and social need. The new neighbourhood nursery will provide a safe, warm place where parents can meet, and where children—from six weeks to school age—can be cared for. It is an ambitious new programme.
      The Pre-School Learning Alliance is seeking to involve parents very much in the care of their children. It is running a campaign called "Changing Lives, Changing Life". The alliance has stated:
      "The Campaign is seeking, via its Charter for Parents and the Early Years, to obtain a childcare or nursery place for every child that needs one. The Campaign is also calling for the involvement and full consultation of parents in their child's early education; continuation of care for children; and a commitment to ensure a better deal for the voluntary sector as a major contributor to universal childcare."
      Two expressions in that quotation are worth picking out—
      "every child that needs one"
      and "voluntary". It is really important that we fully embrace the voluntary sector in the provision of child care. We want diversity of choice, and that means having a wide range of different facilities on offer. The voluntary sector has a big contribution to make. I hope that we do not over-professionalise the sector, and allow

      1239
      local education authorities, in particular, to take over too much responsibility. Voluntary organisations such as the Pre-School Learning Alliance have a huge role to play.
      My other point refers to the phrase
      "every child that needs one".
      Not every child needs child care. Neither women nor men should be defined by their working existence. Sometimes. I get a sense that the Government think that full-time mothers are bad and not to be encouraged. I am sure that that is not what they mean, but that is the sense that one gets from the Chancellor's pronouncements on the matter. Strangely, however, the impression is that the Government consider that working mothers who look after other people's children are good.
      That worries me. Parents should be free to decide, on the basis of well-informed choice, how to raise their children, but that is not the impression that I get. I get a sense of compelling urgency on the Government's part to force every woman out to work. I do not share that agenda. The amendments that were tabled to the report—all of them sadly rejected—reflect some of those concerns. I recommend that people read the amendments, as well as the report itself.
      The 2001 Rowntree report found evidence that children of full-time working mothers do less well academically. That is a difficult and worrying finding, but it has to be taken into account. We must not sweep what is a rather awkward thought under the carpet.
      The hon. Member for Leeds, West seemed to celebrate the world of work, and I agree that work can be very fulfilling. However, the House should celebrate those mothers—and fathers—who choose to make a full-time commitment to their children.
      For many children, though, child care is not only inevitable but the best option. It is crucial that children have access to the appropriate level of care. Children need to learn to learn. They also need to learn to respect others, such as their teachers and peers, and to communicate. Those skills can be learned in appropriate child care, before children go to school. I welcome the great success of many nurseries and pre school experiences in my constituency.
      My hon. Friend the Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) highlighted the problem of the decline in the number of child minders. That is a matter of great concern. Child minders provide very valuable and useful experience, but their numbers have fallen by about 20,000 over the past three years. Like my hon. Friend, I suspect that it is the red tape and bureaucracy with which they are confronted that has led to that decline. However, I do not think that we should be complacent about that. We need to find ways to boost the numbers of child minders; we must not force everyone into nurseries or formal institutions. A home is often the best place to care for a child.
      I worry very much that we are moving towards a cult of the professional in child care. Amateurs and natural parents are being squeezed out of the process. It is right that alarm bells should be sounded. There is room for diversity in this sector, as opposed to uniformity of state provision of nursery facilities.
      In addition, I sometimes think that we get wrong the balance of risks in relation to child care. It is true that there have been instances in which children have been
      1240
      abused or have suffered, but how many more children are suffering from the decline in child minder numbers? The work of the Criminal Records Bureau has posed many challenges to voluntary organisations in my constituency. Resolving the small problems that they encounter has imposed huge costs and burdens on them.
      I return to my basic theme, which is that there are three crucial propositions that we need to think about: choice for the parent, opportunity for the children, and play.
      3.4 pm
      Sandra Gidley: I welcome the opportunity to debate this subject. My only regret is that the Chamber is not fuller today, as I think that the Select Committee has chosen a very important subject.
      As someone who has had to wrestle with the problems of securing child care when I wanted to return to work—part-time at first, then full-time—I am all too aware of the hurdles that can be encountered. However, I want to say right at the outset that this is not an easy problem to solve, as no single solution will fit all working women's lives. Although I do not feel quite as strongly about this matter as the previous speaker, the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff)., I also wonder whether the Government are just a little too keen to encourage women to work.
      Not so long ago, child care was incredibly difficult to come by, and it was difficult for women to work outside the home. However, I think that we are now in danger of allowing the pendulum to swing too far in the other direction. We must not make women feel guilty if they make a positive decision to stay at home and raise their children. Many women choose to make that very positive contribution to society, and we belittle it at our peril.
      I hesitate to disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Sir Archy Kirkwood), but he welcomed the target of having 70 per cent. of lone parents in work by 2010, which I have some reservations about. The target appears to take no consideration of whether those parents want to be in work. It sends the damaging signal that only paid work is important. Choice does not appear to enter the equation.
      We have heard some statistics about women who want to go back to work, but a couple of recent surveys are worth noting. The first was compiled in May 2002 by the magazine Pregnancy and Birth. It found that 75 per cent. of mothers-to-be would not return to employment if finances allowed. In October 2002, the national birth and motherhood survey found that 85 per cent. of women would choose to be stay-at-home mothers.
      I suspect that the difference between the figures arises from the fact that some relate to new mothers, who very much want to be with their babies. They may feel almost forced back into the workplace by financial considerations. As families get older, women feel more able to return to the workplace.
      However, I have already fallen into the first elephant trap in this debate, as I keep referring to "parents" as "women". To get real for a moment, it may be politically correct to refer to "parents", but the reality is that it is predominantly the women who take over responsibility

      1241
      for arranging child care. There are many exceptions to that, and once the arrangements are in place, couples very often work as a team and co-ordinate child care arrangements. Therefore, it is right that we should regard child care as the responsibility of a couple. Although for many of us females it may go slightly against the grain to be lumped in with a spouse for taxation purposes, I suggest that there are great advantages in treating the family as a unit when it comes to children.
      The most obvious reason for that is the simple fact that child care is hard to come by, especially work-based child care. We should not assume that the child will be placed in a nursery at the mother's workplace. The reality may be that there is no provision there, while there may be at the father's place of work. However, the most likely scenario is that neither workplace will have a nursery, as only 5 per cent. of employers offer such facilities. Child care is especially difficult to find for people who live in rural areas. It may be that a work-based option is the most convenient solution, but it simply is not available.
      In many rural areas, the planning system actively blocks new provision. There are often very strong countryside policies on change of use. Also, neighbours in more urban areas will vehemently oppose the provision of nurseries. Those are matters to which the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister should pay greater attention.
      The Minister for Women has stated previously that child care provision in the workplace is not the favoured option. However, we need a variety of provision, as for some people the workplace option is the best.
      When I first started work, it was very difficult to find a nursery that was open outside the hours of 9 am to 5.30 pm, and it was impossible to find nannies willing to work a part-time week, so I had to use a child minder. She was absolutely great, and it is worrying that the number of child minders should be falling.
      Making and rearranging such arrangements is always a nightmare. A whole new set of problems emerges when children start school, as different arrangements have to be made for term time and the holidays. It was then that I nearly gave up work completely, as the whole thing had become a logistical nightmare. I thought that I was alone in that, but I was struck by the Department for Work and Pensions report that found that
      "in the majority of two parent families one or both parents frequently worked before 8.30 am, after 5.30 pm or at weekends. Just over half of employed lone parents also fell into this category. The issue of the school holidays is also a thorny issue for working parents who may also be juggling several sources of childcare."
      Things are a little better now, with nurseries being available for longer hours, but much child care provision does not reflect working lives. Many people have to rely on a combination of formal and informal child care.
      I mentioned the fall in the number of child minders, which may be a feature of regulation, but we should not forget that many of the women who used to be child minders were probably professional women in their own right who did not seek to go back to work 10, 15 or 20 years ago, because it was not as acceptable. Those women have now returned to work and diminished the pool of women who are willing to become child minders.
      1242
      When people find child care provision, it has to be affordable. Too many women carry on working only to find that practically all their wages are eaten up in child care costs. The Daycare Trust has shown that for a child under two the typical cost of a nursery place is now £128 a week, or £118 for a child minder. More worryingly, the trust has also highlighted the fact that British parents pay three quarters of the cost of child care, compared with 30 per cent. for parents in most other European countries. We need a fairy godmother, and I thought that one had arrived yesterday in the unlikely shape of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I do not know whether the number of Labour women Members have had an effect or the motivation was pure self-interest, but the pre-Budget report contained a very welcome announcement.
      However, the picture is not entirely clear and I seek some clarification. The Chancellor said:
      "I can announce as a first step that for every employee, whatever their income level, employers will be able—as long as the offer is made to every employee—to provide free of both employee national insurance and income tax and free of employer national insurance £50 a week for approved childcare.
      I can also announce that we will respond to two other long-standing concerns: help with child care costs will now be available when approved child care is provided in the child's own home; and, after consultation, we will widen the definition and therefore the number of approved child carers for whom the £50 a week or tax credits can be offered."—[Official Report, 10 December 2003; Vol. 415, c. 1069.]
      That sounds like good news, and I congratulate the Chancellor, but there is a tiny cloud hanging over those proposals in the form of the word "approved".
      I am in favour of a certain amount of regulation in the child care industry, but the House needs a definition of the word "approved".It is important to know whether some child care arrangements will instantly fall into that category or whether some bureaucratic assault course will have to be tackled prior to the doling out of the £50 per week. Will existing child minders be covered? Nannies are currently not registered, so will they be covered? How will more informal family arrangements be covered, if at all? It is also not clear whether the £50 is an amount from existing wages that will effectively become tax-free or whether employers will have to effectively make a top-up offer to all employees that will mean that employees with children are £50 a week better off. Neither is it clear whether there is an age cut-off. Child minding costs do not stop when children go to school, but child care for the under-fives is more expensive. Support may be needed for over-fives and during school holidays, and perhaps we will receive further enlightenment when the Minister winds up.
      I welcome the Government's ambition to create more child care places, but the demand for provision continues to outstrip supply. The study for the Department for Education and Skills, carried out by Woodland, showed that a quarter of all families—some 1.3 million—had reported not being able to find a child care place when they needed it. That was a particular problem for lone parents.

      1243
      One of the adverse effects of that problem is that an increasing number of families are turning to the au pair sector for help with child care. That sector was completely ignored by the report, much to my surprise. Strictly speaking, the au pair scheme is aimed at young people, male or female, who are single and aged between 17 and 27. They can stay for a maximum of two years and should expect to help in the home for five hours a day with at least two full days off a week. That is in return for a reasonable allowance—the suggested amount is £45—and their own room. However, the term "au pair plus" is now often used and that sets out a different range of working conditions for the au pair, which merge with those of a mother's help. The allowance for an au pair plus is expected to be in the range of £65, but the individual is likely to have full-time care of the children throughout the day in addition to other duties.
      Currently, beyond visa requirements, no regulations govern the checks and training requirements for a potential au pair who will have child care responsibilities. The au pair does not even have to sign a contract because the arrangement is an informal one. The au pair is supposed to be treated as a family member and not an employee, which is increasingly not the case. Of course, there are no police checks either.
      The au pair industry in the UK is virtually unregulated, despite the fact that families increasingly rely on that child care option. There has been an increase in the number of rogue agencies that exist simply to cash in on the system. In most cases, the agencies are not members of any professional body, have little or no knowledge of the rules that govern the industry and demonstrate no interest in the au pair when they arrive in this country. Often, there is no further contact.
      I contend that a disaster is waiting to happen, and the challenge that faces us is to ensure that the host family, the au pair and the agency are protected by mechanisms that prevent unmet expectations and demands and minimise the likelihood, for both the au pair and the family, of any potentially damaging situations. The Home Office is strict about which countries participate in the scheme but, alarmingly, Britain refused to sign a European agreement on au pairs placements that was drawn up in 1979. So the current situation remains and unknown young people can arrive in a family home, without police checks, relevant child care training or knowledge of legislation governing care of children and be given sole responsibility of care for young children while parents work.
      Perhaps we should consider the example of the United States, which developed an au pair programme under the control of the US Information Agency. Unlike the system here, their system allows young men and women, with child care experience and who are proficient in English, to stay and work with an American family for a year. The system is not cheap but it is regulated. In the US, an au pair can work for up to 45 hours a week, with no more than 10 hours in any one day, and they must take accredited educational classes and also attend monthly meetings with a co-ordinator so that any problems can be ironed out. The au pairs are not allowed to take care of children under the age of two unless they have 200 hours of documented infant experience, and must not take care of a child under the age of three months unless a parent or other responsible
      1244
      adult is present. Before being allowed to enter the family home, au pairs must also receive at least eight hours of child safety instruction and 24 hours of child development instruction. Sadly, it took a high-profile tragedy before the Americans decided on that system and we must ensure that it will not take a similar event to prompt action in the UK.
      The report contains some excellent recommendations. I endorse the recommendations on flexibility of early years education places, expanding out-of-school care and tackling the huge regional variations in provision, which are a real problem. I especially welcome recommendation 7, that sub-ward data be analysed to target pockets of deprivation within wards. I represent an affluent and leafy area, but it contains pockets that, if they were part of a larger similar area, would qualify for all sorts of benefits. Those areas are deprived of those benefits because they are not part of a Sure Start area or any sort of action zone, and it is time that we started to tackle those problems.
      Much has been said about the benefit to families and the workplace, but we must not lose sight of the most important question—whether children are benefiting from the system. We must increase the number of places, but not through a low-cost option, provided by women in low-paid jobs. It cannot be done on the cheap. It must be properly funded and properly respected.
      3.19 pm
      Mr. Paul Goodman: I signed the report that we are debating wearing my hat as a member of the Select Committee. If I may wear that hat for a moment longer, I congratulate the Chairman of the Committee, the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Sir Archy Kirkwood), on his skilled chairmanship. Like him, I found the subject more and more intriguing as the Committee proceedings continued.
      I speak today from the Front Bench, wearing another hat. I am sure that all hon. Members will agree that this has been a good debate and I want to pick up some points. I congratulate the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Pond), who has recently taken over some new ministerial responsibilities for child care. As the Chairman of the Select Committee said, the Minister, as a former member of the Select Committee, knows the territory well and I am sure that he will find child care as challenging and enthralling as we all did when we undertook our inquiry.
      I am sure that the Minister agrees that, as the report emphasised, decisions about child care are deeply emotionally charged for any working parent of young children. The hon. Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North (Ms Buck) was keen to emphasise that point in her strong contribution to the compilation of the report. There are few more emotionally charged decisions for any parent—especially perhaps for lone mothers, who are, by definition., without a partner—than the decision to trust their child to someone else, particularly a stranger or strangers. That emotional charge is intensified by the pressure of modern life on the work-life balance of women and families. In that

      1245
      context, I shall quote the evidence of a nurse, which the GMB quoted to the Committee. The nurse said:
      "Child care is a hideous stressful nightmare. My daughter is exhausted as she is up at 5.30 some days. She is woken early (I have no transport), walked to a childminder which takes half an hour. She's been up for 3 hours before she's at school. Some days it is awful, it really is."
      I cite that evidence to remind the House, if it needed reminding, of the stressful nature of the decisions that parents have to make about child care.
      In a very fine speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) picked up the key point: the degree to which parents love and care for their children and to which they have to make some difficult decisions. Those pressures on parents are exacerbated by the inevitable debate about the effects on the development of children of child care outside the home. In a very good speech, my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) developed, as I expected him to do, some of the points that he made to the Select Committee. Those points were also made by other Members during the debate.
      Members of the Committee will remember that there was some discussion about the degree to which our report should flag up the debate about the effects of formal child care on very young children. I have no intention of revisiting that discussion in depth today, not least because of the time constraints, but the report is extremely circumspect about those effects. It says of pre-school children that
      "there is strong evidence that pre-school provision—between 3 and 5 years results in higher educational attainment, both at primary school and long-term."
      However, the report comes to no conclusion about the effects of formal child care on the development of children younger than three and the House may care to take note of that.
      I must confess that I believe that the debate about the effects of child care on very young children, although important, may be beside the main point: given the emotionally charged nature of child care and despite the extremely complex ways in which it is provided, the key principle for working and non-working parents should surely be choice. The Select Committee report broadly reflects that view. Perhaps inevitably, the Committee found that there were different views about the choices that working parents want to make. Although working parents may sometimes disagree about the choices that they want, the House will agree that child care choice is what they want. That choice may be to stay at home when their children are very young—a point made by some of my hon. Friends. It may be informal care by relatives, friends or neighbours, more formal care, such as a child minder or high-quality formal care outside the home at a day nursery or children's centre. The key question raised by the report and the Government's response is whether the Government's child care strategy is firmly based on the principle of choice.
      The official Opposition want to study with care the announcements made yesterday, because we have learned from experience that when spending announcements are made it is vital to study not just the
      1246
      big headlines but also the small print. For example, the Chancellor said that
      "over the next five years there will be 1,000 children's centres."—[Official Report, 10 December 2003; Vol. 415, c. 1069.]
      When the Minister replies to the debate, will he confirm whether that figure represents an increase compared with the number that has already been announced? Will he also tell us what estimate, if any, has been made of the number of employers who will no longer provide child care vouchers as a result of the capping announced yesterday both of the present national insurance contribution exemption for vouchers and of the new tax exemption? He might also care to comment on the assessment made by Deloitte Touche:
      "The introduction of a NIC charge of amounts above the proposed limit…may not encourage employers to provide vouchers".
      I shall comment later on some of the other announcements made yesterday, but first I pay tribute to the commitment of Ministers in general and the Chancellor in particular to child care. There can be no doubt of the Government's commitment—
      Mr. George Osborne: Steady on.
      Mr. Goodman: I am sure that my hon. Friend agrees that it does politicians no good to be too adversarial, even if we necessarily have to be adversarial sometimes. He will also share my fear that despite yesterday's announcements, the evident good will of Ministers and the ever-rolling stream of initiatives and announcements, the answer to the question, "Do the Government have a coherent child care strategy based on choice?" is, sadly, "No". I shall explain why.
      As the Select Committee's report makes clear, the Government's child care policy for working parents is inextricably linked to their anti-poverty strategy. There was some discussion in Committee about whether the anti-poverty strategy was the foundation of their policy. The Government have set themselves two main targets and the hon. Member for Romsey (Sandra Gidley), in a very good speech, picked up one: reducing the number of children in workless households by 2006. The second target is that 70 per cent. of lone parents should be in paid work by 2010.
      Like the Chairman of the Select Committee, I was extremely impressed by the oral evidence that we heard from Professor Moss, on which I shall read out part of the Committee's conclusions. The report states:
      "Childcare should not just be about freeing parents so that they are able to work. In his view"—
      that is, Professor Moss
      "childcare is a public good which is the right of all children, regardless of whether their parents work or not."
      That point was alluded to by other speakers in the debate. The report continued:
      "The questions raised by Professor Moss suggested that the Government may be placing too much emphasis on a labour market-driven strategy as the basis for childcare policy. His evidence opened up an alternative vision of childcare, based upon the choices made by parents and families themselves."

      1247
      It seems that not only Government Back Benchers, but Front Benchers and indeed Cabinet Ministers agree. Let me cite the comments of one of them:
      "If I look back over the last six years I do think that we have given the impression that we think all mothers should be out to work, preferably full-time as soon as their children are a few months old…It's not our job to preach to people one way or the other, it's about providing choices."
      Those are the words of no less a person than the Minister for Women, published in The Daily Telegraph under the lurid headline,
      "We've failed mothers who stay at home admits Hewitt".
      The Opposition agree. However, as the hon. Member for Romsey acutely observed, it is hard for the Government to say that they want to provide choice for all parents while setting targets that would put 70 per cent. of a group of those parents in the labour market. There is certainly a tension, if not a contradiction, between those aims. That is why the report is critical of the main instrument of that labour market-driven strategy: the child care tax credit. It makes a series of suggestions for improving the credit, but it also says that the credit, though valuable to many parents,
      "poses complex and interlocking problems about take-up, eligibility, qualifying hours, the proportion of costs which should be covered, regional disparities and the funding of informal as well as formal care…The CCTC is certainly not consistent…with a childcare vision based on the choices made by parents and families themselves, since it is only available to some of them."
      It concludes:
      "We therefore believe that in the longer term, the CCTC may have a less central role"
      It is significant that most, although I grant not all, of yesterday's child care announcements will assist parents who work in the labour market only. A parent who does not work in the labour market will not be able, obviously, to take advantage of the new tax exemption for workplace nurseries announced yesterday. That point was picked up by the Chairman of the Committee and the hon. Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North. Nor can it be claimed that this announcement was a response to the Select Committee recommending an enhanced role for employers—which is, in the words of the report, "small but useful". Moreover, a parent who does not work in the labour market would not, I think, be able to take advantage of any extension of the CCTC to cover informal carers—a possible consequence of the consultation announced yesterday to
      "streamline this process and widen home caring".
      It cannot be claimed that this announcement was a response to the Select Committee recommending such an extension, because the report fairly bluntly said:
      "We do not believe that funding informal care through the CCTC is the best way forward".
      The Government may want to take note of that. A lone parent who is not about to work in the labour market will not be able to take advantage of the help with child care costs for lone parents announced yesterday in the week before starting work.
      The House may now begin to appreciate why the Government do not seem to have a clear and coherent strategy for child care based on parental choice. That lack of clarity, combined with the bewildering proliferation of funding streams and the administrative burdens that some
      1248
      providers report—my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire mentioned this in the context of playgroups, in his reference to the difference between quality and qualified staff—may help to explain why demand for child care continues to outstrip supply. The number of day nurseries is certainly up. But the number of child minders is, as the report puts it, "decreasing in number". In 1997, there were almost 100,000. By this year, that figure had fallen to almost 72,000 and the number of places in playgroups—my hon. Friend will have noticed this in his perusal of the report—has fallen from more than 350,000 in 1997 to roughly 300,000.
      Ms Buck: On that point, perhaps the hon. Gentleman would like to comment on the fact that the principal driver for the closure of playgroups across Britain from 1996 onwards was the introduction of the nursery voucher.
      Mr. Goodman: I am extremely concerned, in picking up the hon. Lady's point, to point to the administrative burden that my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire mentioned. As the hon. Lady raised the point, I note that it is a weakness of the Committee's report—I blame no one but myself, in retrospect—that it does not concentrate more on precisely those burdens, not all of which by any means came about before 1997.
      On the proliferation of the funding streams, I want to quote Anne Longfield of Kids' Clubs Network, who complained to the Committee:
      "At the moment you have got crime prevention strategies running up against regeneration strategies running up against child care strategies and the like…locally, too, but frankly, there are so many different initiatives that it is a full-time job for people in partnerships to even know those things exist…never mind join them up."
      If someone trying to make sense of the system stood back from what the report calls the funding jigsaw, he or she might also find a ministerial jigsaw, because there is, by my count: the Minister; the Minister for Children, who is in charge of the national child care strategy; the Minister for Women, who does not seem to have full confidence in the Government's strategy to date; the Minister for Social Exclusion; and a Minister for tax credits, as well as the Chancellor. All of them presumably have some claim to ownership of the Government's policy on child care for working parents. I will not inquire how often the Minister has bilateral meetings about child care with the Minister for Children, or how often they both have trilateral meetings with the Minister for Women, or how often they all meet with the Minister for Social Exclusion and the Minister for tax credits—
      Mr. George Osborne: And the Chancellor.
      Mr. Goodman: Not forgetting the Chancellor. I am not sure that we can have complete confidence that this is joined-up government. The key word here is mainstreaming. We need a child care strategy that mainstreams child care for working parents with child care for all, based on choice for all, as the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has said. On the supply side, that involves combining services directly provided by the state or by the state in partnership with the private and voluntary sectors, such as children's centres and Sure Start, with reviewing the administrative

      1249
      burdens on playgroups and child minders. On the demand side, it involves a less central role for the CCTC and a more central role for benefits and tax credits that permit choice for parents, such as child benefit and the child tax credit.
      I visited France and Denmark with the Select Committee on Work and Pensions last week, and I was struck, as every other member of the Committee will have been, by the thought that one reason why child poverty may be lower in France and Denmark is that families may be stronger there. That may be because for some 50 years those countries have put more money into families than we have. That is why the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) was correct in saying that he wanted to consider all this in the context of child poverty.
      In summary, the key word is choice. All parents—including, of course, working parents—must be allowed to make the child care choices that they want for their children, who are our future.
      3.35 pm
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr. Chris Pond): I congratulate the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Sir Archy Kirkwood) on securing this debate on the Select Committee on Work and Pensions report, "Childcare for Working Parents". I thank him for the kind comments that he made in his opening remarks. It was an honour to serve as a member of the Committee under his chairmanship some years ago, and I am pleased to have the opportunity to respond to the report and the issues raised in the debate. This has been perhaps an unusually good and good-natured debate on an important subject, and the debate has done justice to an important report.
      The Select Committee is right in emphasising the importance of child care to the Government's anti-poverty strategy. Ensuring that people of working age who want to work can do so is key to our meeting our targets of reducing child poverty by a quarter by 2004, reducing the number of children in workless households by 2006, and getting 70 per cent. of lone parents into paid work by 2010.
      The hon. Members for Romsey (Sandra Gidley) and for Wycombe (Mr. Goodman) suggested that the 70 per cent. target for lone parents was established irrespective of whether lone parents wanted to work. The target is based on the aspirations of lone parents themselves, 70 per cent. of whom say that they would like to work if they had the opportunity and support to do so, as well as on the needs of the whole economy.
      Andrew Selous: In the inquiry to which the Minister refers, was any reference made to what age children should be when lone parents would like to start work? That could make quite a big difference.
      Mr. Pond: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention because he makes an important point about choice to which I shall return because it runs throughout the contributions made by a number of hon. Members.
      1250
      For the reasons that I have outlined, the Chancellor highlighted in presenting the pre-Budget report yesterday the Government's belief that
      "Nothing is more important to the future of our whole country than the best schooling, services and financial support, ensuring for every child the chance to develop their potential to the full."—[Official Report, 10 December 2003; Vol. 415, c. 1068.]
      That is why he announced the package of measures to provide increased support for children and families to which many hon. Members have referred: the tax and national insurance incentives to employers to provide extra support with employees' child care—I confirm to the hon. Member for Romsey that that is available for all registered child care, including out-of-school child care—and the target of new child care places for 2.2 million children by 2006, as well as free child care for all those on the new deal for lone parents in the week before they start work and for those lone parents who undertake work-search activity in 12 pilot areas. Perhaps most importantly, the extra £3.50 a week for each of 7 million children through increased child tax credits is a major contribution to meeting our targets on child poverty.
      The Government's commitment to do everything that we can to improve the quality and quantity of child care for working parents was underlined forcefully in the statements by my right hon. Friends the Chancellor and the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions yesterday, which was generously acknowledged by the hon. Member for Wycombe, who has spoken in two roles this afternoon. He has spoken from the Front Bench—if I have not already congratulated him on that position, I do so happily now—and as a member of the Select Committee. I noted from the body language of his colleagues on the Front Bench, many of whom have now left him, that the Opposition Whips may speak to him later about that generous acknowledgement of our commitment, and we trust that his shaky voice in his presentation was no indication of a previous attempt to stop him saying such things.
      The Government considered the 21 recommendations in the Select Committee's report carefully, and responded to them on 12 September. I am pleased that the report acknowledged the substantial growth in child care provision since we introduced the national child care strategy in 1998, and that the report welcomed our commitment to further child care expansion even before yesterday's announcements. It is also encouraging that the Committee agreed that the Government were heading in the right direction with children's centres. Members have this afternoon welcomed the commitment to 1,000 children's centres by 2008 announced by the Chancellor yesterday, with the longterm aim of a children's centre in every community. I confirm to the hon. Member for Wycombe that that figure has not been announced previously—it is a new figure.
      We readily accept, as many Members rightly pointed out, that we have not yet reached the position that we want: accessible, affordable, good-quality child care in every locality. We understand fully the Committee's desire, and that of Members who have contributed to this afternoon's debate, to see us go further and more quickly. Our response to the report sets out some of the steps that we are taking towards making a reality of our

      1251
      vision. It is worth spending a few moments reviewing how far we have come in the past five years.
      By April next year, every three and four-year-old child will have access to a free part-time place in an early years setting, thanks to our investment of £2.6 billion a year in free universal nursery education. By 2004, we will have created new child care places for 1.6 million children. By 2006, that will have risen to 2.2 million children. When we came into government, there was one child care place for every nine children. Now we have one place for every five children. All but two of our 524 Sure Start local programmes are up and running, including, I am pleased to say, one in my community in Gravesham. I know from working with that programme the impact that it can have on children and families, in my constituency as around the country. That new Sure Start service is now touching the lives of 400,000 children under the age of four, and reaching about a third of the children under four living in poverty. By the end of this spending review period we will be investing around £1.5 billion a year in the services that we provide under the Sure Start umbrella.
      From April 2004, we will also introduce an extended school child care pilot in Bradford and the London boroughs of Haringey and Lewisham. The pilot is designed to maximise the use of existing local child care vacancies to identify quickly any areas where child care supply does not meet demand, and to create new school-based child care where that is necessary. The object is to ensure that lack of appropriate child care is not a barrier to the return to work of those within workless households. That will entail close working in particular between local authorities and Jobcentre Plus, which will be facilitated by the recently introduced Jobcentre Plus child care partnership managers.
      The Government have taken a number of steps to help working parents with their child care. My hon. Friend the Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North (Ms Buck), who has long been an energetic campaigner on child care issues, reminded us that the costs of child care can be a barrier to work for lower and middle-income parents. That is why we have provided substantial financial help towards the costs of approved child care through tax credits. She will be pleased that yesterday the Chancellor announced extra help with child care costs for those parents receiving both housing benefit and working tax credit. She will also be pleased with the announcement made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions that acknowledged the additional costs that parents in London face for such things as child care and gave a commitment to try to address the issue.
      More than 286,000 families receive help with child care costs through the working tax credit, and we are spending 90 per cent. more on child care through tax credits than before—almost £2 million a day. Since April, we have extended the tax credit to cover approved child care in the home, which is intended especially to help parents with child care needs who work unsocial hours or shifts and those with disabled children. The credit is now paid to the main carer. I can tell the hon. Member for Romsey that we are consulting on the proposed extension of such care early in 2004, and we would welcome her comments and those of other hon.
      1252
      Members on the appropriate form for that. Her point about au pairs is principally a matter for the Home Office, but I am sure that my colleagues in the Home Office are listening to the debate—[Laughter.] As, indeed, is much of the rest of the nation. I am sure that my colleagues in the Home Office will respond to the hon. Lady's point.
      I must emphasise that working tax credit is a targeted work-incentive measure that is intended to help to make work pay for low and middle-income parents. The child care element is designed to help to remove the child care barrier that often prevents people from taking up, or returning to, work. It is not designed to be a universal child care subsidy for all families. However, some universal support is provided by means of free nursery education and Government funding for child care places. In addition to the undoubted direct benefit to children of free nursery education, its provision has the effect of substantially reducing the cost of full-time day care for the parents of three and four-year-olds. Since August, young parents aged 16 to 19 have been able to receive free child care up to the value of £5,000 per child per year so that they may continue their education or take part in work-based learning through our care to learn scheme.
      Since April, we have provided a network of child care partnership managers in Jobcentre Plus districts to help advisers to assist parents seeking work. We have introduced support child-minding pathfinders in six key inner-city areas where child care is most needed to enable unemployed people to work. The aim is to engage existing child minders to attract new people into the profession and help them to set up in business. Funding will be provided to all local authorities for similar schemes from next April.
      The hon. Members for Wycombe and for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) referred to the decline in the number of child minders, which shows the importance of the scheme. I reassure them that we have managed to stem that decline and I am advised that since last April the number has increased by 9,000, so we are going in the right direction. We need to ensure that we continue to encourage more people to enter child care as a professional and, hopefully, well rewarded form of employment. I take on board the point made by the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire about the need to ensure that such people are properly rewarded. He might remember that when I was at the Low Pay Unit, it published a report entitled "Who Minds About the Minders?", which pointed out that child minders need to be properly rewarded.
      As was announced in the 2003 Budget, pilots of child care taster sessions will be available in specific locations for up to one week to help people on the new deal for lone parents to find out whether formal child care suits their needs. I know that the Select Committee was especially anxious for that to happen, so I hope that it welcomes the fact that we are moving forward with the scheme. Our intention is to establish the feasibility of the mechanism of taster sessions and to get a qualitative sense of their impact on parents' movement into work. The pilots will operate in the six metropolitan areas of London, Birmingham, Glasgow, Leeds, Liverpool and Manchester until March 2006 and will start in the first areas by April next year.

      1253
      We have also taken account of the needs of parents who are already in work through new laws that were introduced in April to provide them with more choice about how to balance child care with work. Those include the new duty on employers to consider seriously requests to work flexibly from parents of young and disabled children. The Government believe that there is more that employers can do to help people to balance their home and work responsibilities. Not only is that the right thing for employers to do; it also makes business sense, bringing benefits through improved recruitment and retention, staff morale and organisational performance.
      We consulted earlier in the year on proposals to encourage more employers to help their staff with the cost of good, safe child care. Yesterday, as hon. Members know, the Chancellor announced proposals to widen the tax and national insurance contribution exemptions for employer-supported child care.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North expressed her anxiety about whether we were doing enough about the supply of child care. She will acknowledge, I think, that we are doing a considerable amount, particularly on children's centres and on the support, which I mentioned, to encourage more people to enter the child-minding profession. We have also made a substantial investment in the creation of new child care places.
      We provide start-up funding for a wide range of child care settings: day-care nurseries, child minders and out-of-school child care clubs. In areas of disadvantage, that support can extend to up to three years, acknowledging that businesses can take longer to establish themselves at viable levels in such areas. We also plan next year to introduce short-term sustainability funding to protect good child care in disadvantaged areas, where those child care businesses are experiencing temporary viability problems.
      A number of hon. Members have spoken about quality. I have referred to our vision of having good, affordable child care in every area and community. We need to be clear about what we are trying to achieve for the quality of child care provision. We have introduced a new national framework of standards for child care for children under eight, which will be regulated by Ofsted, because we know that children's behaviour, socialisation and later life are crucially influenced by their early experiences. Those standards allow parents to work, train or study, confident that their children are in a safe and stimulating environment.
      The hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire expressed concern about quality. The Government are clear that we are not in the business of saying that child care needs to be just "good enough" so that the parent can work. We know from our research that it is the quality of the early years experience that makes the difference to the child's outcomes. We know from much American research that poor child care for parents in low-paid jobs can damage the child's outcomes. That means that although we want to expand child care provision as fast as possible, we will not sacrifice standards to numbers. It means investing in creating a strong and well-qualified work force that is rigorously
      1254
      inspected. We are committed to the concept of registration, which is important as a foundation not only for quality but for child safety.
      The Select Committee welcomed the fact that we were targeting resources, which are inevitably limited, to achieve the greatest impact. We understand the point made by a number of hon. Members that they would like us to extend provision further, especially, as the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Hywel Williams) said, into rural areas. I point out to hon. Members, however, that there is considerable flexibility for local authorities to seek to extend provision in that way. We note the slight scepticism of the Select Committee and its Chairman about whether that goes far enough, and the child care review will consider that and a number of other issues.
      The review will consider whether the long-term projection for child care and early years education is sufficient to meet the Government's aim for employment and educational attainment; whether the expansion is proceeding quickly enough; and whether there are areas where more remains to be done. The review will also look in detail at how we can ensure better integration between early years education and child care for pre-school children, because we know that, while working parents welcome the nursery education entitlement, they also need child care that wraps around it.
      We also recognise that working parents need to know that their children are safe and cared for during non-school hours, so the review will look at child care provision both before and after normal school hours. We want to see more extended schools providing more services to their local communities. In conclusion, the child care review findings will in form the next spending review settlement for the Sure Start unit, as well as the allocation of resources for child care for the three years from 2005–06. I cannot, of course, anticipate the results, but it is fair to say that child care and children's issues generally are at the centre of the political agenda to an extent that would have seemed impossible 10 years ago. I can reassure the hon. Member for Wycombe that we have a structure in place to ensure that child care initiatives that emanate from different Departments are properly joined up. The child care review is led by a ministerial team representing my own Department—the Department for Work and Pensions—as well as the Department for Education and Skills, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, the Department of Trade and Industry, the Treasury and the Department of Health. The Sure Start unit, as Members will know, is jointly responsible to the Department for Work and Pensions and the Department for Education and Skills. The Minister with day-to-day responsibility for the work of the unit, Baroness Ashton of Upholland, is a Minister in both Departments. I am sure that she will be pleased to read about the well-deserved recognition of its work in the opening remarks of the Chairman of the Select Committee.
      We have had a valuable debate, a theme of which has been the question of choice. The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire made a point that was reiterated by the hon. Members for South-West Bedfordshire, for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff), for Romsey and for Wycombe: that choice for parents is an essential ingredient of child care. They should have

      1255
      choice about the type of child care that they use and the balance between work and family. They should have choice about whether their child is cared for in a voluntary, private or public setting. Some parents, especially those with very young children, may choose to care for them without using other forms of child care provision that are available. To provide that choice, we have given a great deal of extra support for families with children. The amount of support for the first child in child benefit and child tax credit has increased from £27 a week in 1997 to £58 following the Chancellor's announcements yesterday.
      We want to give genuine choices to parents who want to work so that they have the opportunity to build on their achievements and fulfil their ambitions. As my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) made clear, the issue is about not just social justice but economic prosperity. Investment in child care makes good sense—not only do we want to ensure that we give choices to parents and children that enhance children's life chances but we want to make sure that we build on the strong economic foundations that the Chancellor of the Exchequer outlined yesterday. I thank the Committee for its report and hon. Members for their contributions to a good and, indeed, good-natured debate, which I am sure will enhance our determination that parents continue to have choice and that we continue to build a nation based on social justice and economic prosperity.
      Debate concluded, pursuant to Resolution [2 December].
      Question deferred, pursuant to Standing Order No. 54(4) and (5) and Order [29 October 2002] until 6 pm

  ESTIMATES DAY
  [1ST ALLOTED DAY, 2ND PART]
  ESTIMATES DAY
    Department of Trade and Industry

      People, Post Offices and Pensions
      [Relevant documents: Eleventh Report from the Trade and Industry Committee, Session 2002–03, on People, Pensions and Post Offices, HC 718, and the Government's response thereto, HC 1102; and the Department for Trade and Industry Departmental Report 2003, Cm 5916.]
      Motion made, and Question proposed,
      That resources, not exceeding £2,101,186,000, be authorised, on account, for use during the year ending on 31st March 2005, and that a sum, not exceeding £3,749,956,000, be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund, on account, for the year ending on 31st March 2005, for expenditure by the Department of Trade and Industry.—[Mr. Heppell]
      [This Vote on Account is to be considered in so far as it relates to the modernisation of the post office network, with particular reference to the impact on post offices of the direct payment of pensions (Resolution of 2 December)]
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Before I call the hon. Member for Ochil (Mr. O'Neill), may I say that a great many hon. Members are seeking to catch my eye in a limited time? The 10-minute rule does not apply to the hon. Gentleman whom I am about to call and Front Bench spokesmen. Hon. Members will understand what a difficult situation that creates, so I hope that they will be tolerant and sympathetic to their colleagues' needs.
      3.58 pm
      Mr. Martin O'Neill: I hope that I shall speak for less than 23 minutes, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
      When preparing for our debate, I went through my files and discovered that the Trade and Industry Committee, which I have chaired for eight years, has been looking at this issue since the mid-1990s. On about seven occasions we have taken evidence and reports have been produced, and we shall doubtless revisit the issue in the coming weeks and months. Our 11th report for the Session 2002–03, HC 718, was published on 17 July and the response from the Secretary of State appeared on 23 September. That response identified our two main areas of concern. For the purposes of debate, it may be better to focus on the concerns that the Government identified rather than on those that we identified, but I am sure that other Members will seek to widen our discussion.
      The Government identified two main areas of concern—the unnecessarily complicated procedure for opening a post office account, and the character of the customer information provided by the Department for Work and Pensions, which was considered insufficient for people who were applying for a card account.
      I recognise that in some respects, therefore, the responsibility for answering these charges lies at the door of the Department for Work and Pensions, as much as with the Department of Trade and Industry. I entirely understand the reason for the absence abroad of my hon. Friend the Minister for Energy, E-Commerce and Postal Services, and I welcome the Under-Secretary

      1257
      of State for Trade and Industry, my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Sutcliffe), to the minefield that is this topic.
      There is a degree of consensus about offering the option of direct payment of welfare benefits. It is technically possible to pay salaries and private pensions into people's bank accounts, so why not extend that to state pensions and a range of social security benefits? Since the proposal was first mooted in the past decade, the practice has become more common as more recipients have come to recognise the advantages of automatic teller machines and the like.
      The Government have long felt that the cost of providing benefit books is excessive, and as theft, forgery and general fraud have increased, the need to counter them has become ever more expensive. It has been suggested that that represents a cost to the taxpayer of some £80 million. It should be stressed, however, that there is no ministerial statement, and no consensus, on how much will be saved by the introduction of swipe cards, direct payments and so on.
      A sizeable number of people find it convenient to take their books to the post office and receive their benefit in cash over the counter. They include mothers who receive child benefit and who, although they may have a bank account of their own or have joint arrangements with their spouse or partner, may prefer to have access—for example, on a Saturday morning—to money that they have earmarked for specific purposes, such as children's clothing.
      The late Barbara Castle, as the Minister introducing the measure in the 1970s, stressed that the nature of the payment was important, as it would go exclusively to the mum. and would be spent independently of the rest of the family income. As I know from experience in my constituency, there are still men who do not tell their wives how much they earn, and who have a bank account of their own and hand out the money with a teaspoon at irregular intervals. Child benefit is important because it gives young mothers financial independence.
      There are others who just like going to the post office. It is an outing. Pensioners meet their friends and contemporaries there, and they can buy post office goods, such as stamps for their TV licence, and make utility payments.
      Mr. Nigel Watersonrose—
      Mr. O'Neill: I do not have much time, but I shall take the hon. Gentleman's intervention.
      Mr. Waterson: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is a matter not just of wanting to go to the post office but of finding one that is still open? Five post offices have closed in my constituency. Does he agree that we should examine the consultation process involved in such closures, which in my experience has been wholly inadequate?
      Mr. O'Neill: The hon. Gentleman may have the chance to catch the Deputy Speaker's eye. Such interventions are helpful, but their helpfulness is limited.
      1258
      There is a more important group covering the entire range of benefit recipients, including pensioners and mothers, who are dependent on the post office as the source of their family or individual income. Anyone who passes a post office at 8.30 on a Monday morning will see those who need their benefits to buy the day's food, to heat their home, to pay their debt collectors or to get money to get to work. I have no problem with the Government's programmes to end child poverty, which we discussed in the previous debate, or to improve social inclusion. A number of people still live on the economic margins, however, and have no cushion of savings. Such people do not have money in an envelope behind the clock and do not have bank accounts or credit cards. For them, a hole in the wall is merely a hole in the wall, and they do not have access to ATMs and the like. I make that point because we contend that, for many people, the processes of securing alternative means of payment are at best daunting and at worst unhelpful. The agenda of the DWP-instructed call centre staff is unduly biased towards securing maximum take-up of direct payment.
      Ms Joan Walley: Will my hon. Friend give way?
      Mr. O'Neill: I am sorry, but I want to make progress.
      Internal memos provided to me by the National Federation of Sub-Postmasters and the Communication Workers Union make it clear that the attitude is hardening. In respect of a Jobcentre Plus pay modernisation project, I have a document from a Mr. Alan Linton dated 7 October in which he states:
      "This letter is to inform you how we are aiming to issue robust and consistent messages on the importance of Direct Payment as due to commercial and political constraints, previous material issued has contained many 'soft' messages."
      I do not think that one has to be a textual expert or some sort of Noam Chomsky to get the feeling that there has been a step change in attitude. The document in question was issued in October, after the Secretary of State had given us his response, and it was produced within the confines of the DWP. There is a change in attitude, and it serves to underline the malign motives of the DWP in this matter. Some issues repeatedly arise:
      "Paying by order book costs 30 times as much as paying into standard or basic bank accounts. Paying into a Post Office card account costs even more and was designed to meet the needs of those who cannot gain access to standard or basic accounts."
      The last bit of information is:
      "Order books will start to be phased out from October 2004."
      The tone of those instructions does not suggest that they are an attempt to instruct people about how to help the disadvantaged. That serves to underline the fact that, in the seven months or so since we took evidence, things have not become better but have got worse—a view that is reinforced by the sub-postmasters and postal workers themselves. The objective is not to give an informed choice so much as to direct people to use existing bank accounts where appropriate, to say that they should acquire Post Office cards through a complicated procedure, or, last and least, to seek to discourage refuseniks by saying "It's going to go through anyway, so you had better get your act together and sharpen up."

      1259
      The Post Office card account is probably the best compromise, and I think that the DTI and Post Office Counters have sought to introduce it with reasonably good intentions. The DWP, however, has made applying for the account more difficult and complicated and has been able to load the choice system with active discouragement. Postwatch, the postal consumer watchdog, put it succinctly, saying that
      "the POCA application process requires the customer to retain and assimilate documents they receive at different stages in the process. Duration between receiving these different documents is often quite long. It can be confusing and is potentially off putting."
      Postwatch makes several suggestions. People can apply to the Post Office, avoiding any contact with the call centre, or they can take the migration letter from the DWP agency and go to their post office with identification such as a benefit book, which seems as good a means of identification as any, after which the form would be completed at the post office and sent on by post. Another option is to issue the Post Office card account instead of a new order book, so that once the customer tells—I had better get the name right—the customer conversion centre that they want a card, it can be issued at a nominated post office. Alternatively, it would be possible simply to use the existing bureaucracy, so that once the customer receives the POCA information she has to give the relevant DWP agency her details, and the Post Office can inform the DWP agency of the account details. That would streamline the existing application process by removing one stage.
      The DWP's response to those suggestions by the consumer watchdog for postal services has been somewhat slow, or tardy—the vulgar among us might suggest other expressions—but suffice to say that it was, simply, "Get lost." A proposal by the body that is charged with protecting consumers at post offices is dismissed because it would probably result in too many people taking it up and undermine the cost-effectiveness of the grand design.
      Mr. Nick Hawkins: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. O'Neill: I am sorry, but I am under time constraints. I do not want to be awkward, but I have a wee bit more to get through.
      The statistics suggest that a lot of people are making applications—some get to the first stage and drop out, while others carry on. If the situation continues, the findings of Postwatch suggest that by the appropriate time next year several million people will be in considerable difficulty: without an exceptions arrangement, a card or a bank account, they will be left in a distressing limbo. The Minister must deal with that problem, because it is becoming more evident as time goes on.
      I have to say, however, that progress has been made on exceptions. Some of those who cannot get to post offices, do not have accounts, or simply cannot cope will get something along the lines of the old giro cheque. We must give credit for the fact that there has been movement there, but I wish that there was more movement on the non-exceptionals—those who are doing it for other purposes.
      1260
      We must recognise that many people are dependent on the post office network as a source of income and employment. A great deal of disquiet has been expressed about the programme of network reinvention and the medium to long-term protection of rural post offices. Other hon. Members will want to raise those issues: all I will say is that anecdotal evidence provided by Members on both sides of the House questions the approach taken by Post Office Counters—the pursuit of soft options involving voluntarism, whereby taxpayers' money is available for closure, rather than the more attractive option of a clearly defined programme of reorganisation where customer need is pre-eminent.
      Mr. Hawkins: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. O'Neill: I am sorry, but I do not have time.
      There is suspicion that several closures could be announced just before the forthcoming holiday period, thus reducing the time available for consultation, disquiet that insufficient consultation is being carried out with local authorities to ascertain further development, especially in areas of urban regeneration where social housing programmes are to be carried out on brownfield sites, and great worry about the future of Post Office Counters—the Crown post office network itself.
      My colleagues on the Select Committee and I have stuck with this issue for the best part of a decade—through three Parliaments under Tory and Labour Governments, but the anxieties that we have repeatedly expressed have not all been addressed. There are better ways of paying benefits than using a book—that is not in dispute—but we have moved on from the days when social security benefit distribution could be regarded as a privilege for which the recipient is answerable to the terms laid down by a generous donor. In a modern welfare state run by what I would like to think is a modern, social democratic Government, the poor and disadvantaged—and, frankly, the cussed and determined—are entitled to have their views heard on how their benefits should be paid and how they can be advised on their rights. Sadly, on the issue of direct payment the Government are paying attention neither to the many nor the few.
      4.14 pm
      Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Ochil (Mr. O'Neill) for the way in which he introduced the debate. I say to hon. Members who have not yet been afflicted by the reinvention programme that "reinvention" would qualify as the most misused word from a Government to whose misuse of words we have become accustomed.
      In my constituency, several post offices have closed in the past few years. Indeed, since 1997, those at Cubley, Longford, Roston, Flagg, Lea Bridge, Kniveton, Fenny Bentley, Clifton and Taddington have closed. Some closed because people wanted to retire and no one could be found to replace them. I accept that there will always be some post office closures. It was almost inevitable when nearly 20,000 post offices covered the United Kingdom.
      However, I was shocked and horrified to receive a letter from the Post Office a few weeks ago to inform me that in Belper, which has five post offices, four are set to

      1261
      close. That is a reduction of some 80 per cent. in the service. Belper is a large town with a population that exceeds 20,000. Even the Post Office's consultation document describes the terrain as hilly. That is a good description; we are not considering a flat part of the United Kingdom. It is just to the south of the start of the Peak district.
      The Chairman of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry commented on the brevity of the timetable for consultation and for people to make representations. That is felt strongly in Belper. The consultation period ends on 23 December. Most people would accept that other things are on people's minds in December.
      Mr. Harry Barnes: Has the hon. Gentleman experienced the specific problems with consultation that I shall describe? When he and his constituents make their objections, they receive a reply from the Post Office, 80 per cent. of which argues the general case for the closure programme. That happens in the middle of the consultation. When a post office's closure is confirmed, it is found that a document to that effect has been published months previously, even before the consultation. In a case in my constituency, the document was published in March but the decision was made on 28 September.
      Mr. McLoughlin: I do not know the exact case to which the hon. Gentleman refers, but I say to the Under-Secretary that he must get a grip on the issue because it affects many constituents. He should note, from the attendance at the debate and the fact that the Speaker has had to impose a time limit on speeches, the growing anxiety in all parties.
      The position is unacceptable. Earlier, the Leader of the House assured us that if people still want to collect benefits from post offices, they should be able to do that and obstacles should not be put in their way. It is all very well making that point from the Dispatch Box, but if, as is suggested in Belper, four out of five post offices close, the Government are forcing people not to take the option of going to the post office.
      Mr. Hawkins: Will my hon. Friend give way?
      Mr. McLoughlin: I would rather not because many hon. Members want to speak and I shall not take 10 minutes. I want to be short and specific.
      The Government must reconsider the matter. Recommendation 20 of the Select Committee report states that is far too early to reach a view on the reinvention programme. I suggest that the Committee conduct an urgent review of it. When the reinvention programme—what a name—hits other constituencies, other hon. Members will experience the same anxiety about it as me.
      Ms Walley: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the urban reinvention programme is flawed because it does not provide the kind of safeguards that we need in deprived urban areas?
      Mr. McLoughlin: The hon. Lady is absolutely right. I know that many people wish to participate in this
      1262
      debate, so I shall attempt by other means in the House to secure another debate, in which I can talk at greater length about the problems that I face in my constituency. I must warn the Minister that he will find himself answering a lot of Adjournment debates unless he changes this policy, because one thing that we are not seeing is reinvention. I see none at all; I see a closure programme. That is what it is, and the British people are now seeing that. They are not seeing a reinvention programme or a saving of the post office network; they are seeing its closure. I do not believe that that is what the Government intended, but that is what the Post Office is achieving for them. The Government need to be aware of the dangers that they face in this regard.
      4.20 pm
      Rachel Squire: I welcome the Select Committee report and the speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ochil (Mr. O'Neill). I would particularly like to express my opposition and that of many of my constituents to the closure of three sub-post offices in the Dunfermline area as part of the so-called reinvention and modernisation proposals. They are at Baldridgeburn, Townhill road and Netherton.
      Dunfermline is a town with many hills, some of which are very steep. It is clear from a letter from Post Office Ltd. that, during its survey, its representatives failed to walk along those hills or to go along the routes that it was suggesting that people should take if those sub-post offices closed. Given the difficulty that I have in walking up those hills without pushing a wheelchair or a buggy or carrying heavy shopping, I dread to think what the impact will be on many of my constituents if the closures go ahead. To pick up on a point made by the hon. Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin), the Post Office's survey says in respect of the alternative post offices that it proposes people use in the event of the closures:
      "This office is on a hill.
      There is a continuous and steep hill.
      The route is hilly.
      There is a steep climb up the New Row
      While the sub-post office at Townhill road is itself on a hill, it is very well located to reduce the climb that people have to make to reach it.
      I should also like to mention the timing of these proposals. I find it unacceptable that the consultation period includes both Christmas week and the week of the new year, when almost no community organisations meet and when many people have other things on their mind, especially their own families. I shall urge Post Office Ltd. to show that there is some meaning to its commitment to consult by extending the consultation period by at least two weeks.
      Mr. Hawkins: The hon. Lady is clearly facing the same kind of issues that I face in my constituency. I am battling to save Mytchett post office. The alternative post office is situated beyond a bridge that floods regularly. The consultation period was so short that there was no time, following the recent heavy rain, to take photographs showing the flooding on the road under the bridge, which elderly people and mothers with children could not have got through. I got a letter

      1263
      yesterday, within a week of the consultation period finishing, saying that Mytchett post office was to close. It was quite apparent that the consultation had been a sham. Does the hon. Lady agree that in her constituency, as in mine, it is a sham?
      Rachel Squire: I suppose I live with a glimmer of hope that it is not a sham, but I fear that the hon. Gentleman may be right.
      I worry about just what pressure has been put on sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses to agree to closures. There may have been at least the implied threat that if they did not co-operate, they might forfeit the compensation that was being offered.
      Judging by what Post Office Ltd. says about the community role and urban regeneration, it takes little account of the fact that Dunfermline is one of the fastest-growing areas in the country—in Scotland, certainly—with hundreds of new homes and with existing businesses expanding or relocating. While it notes that Netherton sub-post office is near a large office development housing a work force of 600, it seems to consider that irrelevant.
      Finally, let me echo what my hon. Friend the Member for Ochil said about pensions. Evidence from my constituents suggests that they were never really encouraged to open Post Office card accounts, as opposed to being pushed in the direction of bank accounts.
      When debating a subject connected with a Select Committee report and under the overall heading of "Estimates", we should bear in mind not just the financial but the human costs of policies. I hope that, along with other Members, I shall be able to campaign effectively against proposals that demand such a heavy price from the communities that will be affected by them.
      4.26 pm
      Mr. Roger Gale: I want, briefly, to raise three issues. I want to return to the issue of card accounts, to say something about the way in which the Post Office defines the difference between rural and urban sub-post offices, and to discuss the way in which the Post Office measures distances between the old offices and those to which business will be transferred. I make no apology for being parochial, as the parochial examples illustrate the wider problem.
      We all have evidence from the National Federation of Sub-Postmasters to suggest that while the Government say, "We will be even-handed, open and honest, and will promote all kinds of account", the Department for Work and Pensions is making it as difficult as possible for elderly people in particular to obtain Post Office card accounts. It is sending the message that that is not the best kind of account, and should not be encouraged. Postwatch resents its interference, as do the National Federation of Sub-Postmasters and individual sub-postmasters who, as private business people, are trying to promote what they regard as their product rather than anyone else's.
      As it is so difficult to obtain a Post Office card account, many people are being driven away from post offices and into banks, as the Department wishes them to be. That is damaging the business of sub-post offices,
      1264
      and making it easier for the Post Office to say "These outlets are not viable, so we must close them". It is hardly surprising that, faced with such a situation, sub-postmasters are taking the money—a lot, in some cases—and running. They have no business left, and when they see a financial way out, they go for it. When we say to the Post Office "If you want to shut that outlet, there is another just down the road that is prepared to take on the business", the answer is "No. We are not looking for alternatives in the vicinity; we are looking for closure". That is what letters from the Post Office now say. Forget reinvention; that is out of the window. This is about closure and nothing else. It is a sham, and the Post Office card account is a charade. The Minister must take that on board, and do something about it.
      Let me now deal with the definitions of rural and urban post offices. Let me cite Greenhill post office in Herne bay, in my constituency. Greenhill is a village in its own right. It is separated from the rest of Herne bay by a very major road, the same road that separates the oldest part of the area—the original village of Herne—from the rest of the town. The two communities are almost identical in terms of demographics. Each has a church, pubs, schools, shops and roughly the same population. Herne is regarded, quite properly, as rural; Greenhill, the Post Office says, is urban. I asked the Post Office to take a look at Greenhill, and it sent a senior manager. Greenhill post office has been shut. I wanted it to be reopened, and to be offered to another outlet that wanted it.
      To give the Post Office its due, it confronted me face to face. It said, "We understand why you feel, and why the people of Greenhill feel, that this is a village community, but our book—the Ordnance Survey book—says that Greenhill is part of the town. So that's all right then: the post office stays shut." It is not all right: it is all wrong, bad and doctrinaire. I said to the Post Office, "Aren't you prepared to apply common sense?" The answer, in effect, was, "No, because if we do that in one case, we will open the floodgates." As a result, Members on both sides of this House would say, "Me too!" The Post Office knows that it cannot afford that. There is also the small matter of managers being paid bonuses for shutting post offices.
      Another issue is distance. Studd hill, in my constituency, is another community that is almost a village in its own right. The distance to Sea street post office, the nearest suitable post office, is measured—miraculously—as just under a mile. That mile is post office to post office in a straight line: as the crow flies. The pensioners in my constituency do not travel by crow; they travel on foot. They will have to travel—as the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Rachel Squire) said of her constituency—literally up hill and down dale. The hills in question are very steep, and the real distance is well over a mile. It is quite dishonest of the Post Office to behave in this way—to pretend that the straightest route on a map between A and B is the relevant route.
      The Ramsgate road post office—which is at the other end of my constituency, in Margate—serves a very large area on one side of a major road, on one side of the town. The distance measured to the main town post office is under a mile, but again the journey is up hill and down dale. What we are dealing with is not the real world in which our constituents live—the elderly,

      1265
      mothers with prams, people who actually want to get to a post office—but a bureaucratic world that understands straight lines on a map, bonuses for closure, and reinvention, which actually means closure.
      I finish with an aside. So cavalier is this process that I am told that, in the case of Margate's Ramsgate road post office, alternative methods of transport include a train and an underground. Although I have represented North Thanet for 20 years and would agree that I may have missed certain things, I have yet to travel on a Margate metro. This policy is nonsense. I ask the Minister, on behalf of all those whom we represent, to rethink this issue. I ask him to get the Department for Work and Pensions to rethink its own attitude, and to compel the Post Office to understand that we have to maintain a service that meets the needs of the elderly, the sick, young mothers and single parents—the most disadvantaged in our society. Those are the people in my constituency who are missing out as a result of this policy.
      4.33 pm
      Mr. Mark Todd: I do not want to dwell for the most part on the closure programme. In my area, much of which is rural, some post offices—at Egginton and Walton-on-Trent, for example—have actually re-opened through the efforts of villagers. That is commendable, although I hold my breath in respect of how the urban programme may work in the small part of my constituency that is urban; however, I shall not comment on that now.
      Although the Select Committee report is excellent, I want to begin by touching on a point that it missed: having done so, I shall discuss some of the points that it did touch on. It missed the fact that the Government are participating with the banks in the promotion of financial products that, admittedly, all of us in this Chamber have taken for granted throughout our lives. Nevertheless, those products are being promoted to people who—through choice or denial—have not had them before. They are often pensioners, and elderly ones at that.
      I do not believe that the banks are entirely benevolent in this respect. It is clear that they see some business advantage in widening access to their products. I looked at the Select Committee's questioning of the Minister on the matter, and that showed that he believes that, too.
      The products are basic, by and large, but they carry some risks. I asked the Department for Work and Pensions about the advice available to people to ensure that they knew about the products that they were buying into, and I was told that people with concerns should go to the citizens advice bureau. There is only one CAB office in my constituency, and getting there can involve a long journey. People seeking help have to queue for a long time to get it, despite the best endeavours of the people who work there.
      The large-scale promotion of financial products to people who are unfamiliar with them carries some risks. We need to provide access to advice, so that people can know exactly what they are signing up to. That is especially important, given that some more advanced
      1266
      banking products are being promoted as part of the range of available options.
      My next point has to do with the promotion of the Post Office card account. The promotion is not equivalent to that available for the banking options. One has to read the literature very carefully to understand that it is possible to continue to receive money through the post office. In addition, the timings are out of synchronisation. A constituent who wanted to make use of the Post Office card account was told that it was not available and that the choice was either to sign up to one of the options, or to stick with the existing arrangement. However, many people do not understand that it is possible to stick with the existing arrangement until the card account becomes available. The clear inequity there was not accidental but entirely preconceived.
      The process is also woefully complex. I was startled when one of my sub-postmasters showed me the form that had to be filled in if one wanted even an absolutely basic financial product. It required a lot of effort, and that is wrong.
      Mr. Paul Truswell: The position is even worse than my hon. Friend describes. A constituent of mine had to fill in four application forms before receiving the card, and another, who completed all the procedures punctiliously, was then subjected to the usual catechism of hard sell about the alternatives.
      Mr. Todd: My hon. Friend is right. That seems to be many people's experience.
      The Select Committee report touches on another matter, although it does not bring out all the relevant aspects. The problem has to do with the collection by a nominated person of another person's pension. At the moment, people can obtain an extra card, which can be given to a trustee of some kind who can collect the benefit on their behalf.
      The difficulty is that pension or benefits recipients cannot rely on only one person in those circumstances. For instance, the nominated person involved may not always be available to obtain the money when the recipient cannot do it personally. That is a real risk for any such arrangement.
      I have already debated the development of an exceptions service in correspondence with the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr. Pond), who has left the Front-Bench firing line for a moment. My hon. Friend the Member for Ochil (Mr. O'Neill), the Chairman of the Select Committee, has given that service a hesitant commendation for the progress that has been made, but I think that the Government response on the matter has been poor. They have said that they did not want to design an exceptions service before seeing the whole system in operation, but that they would set something up based on that experience. Of course, I would expect some flexibility, based on experience, in any service, but I would not expect no design to be in place to deal with entirely predictable exceptions before the scheme was launched. That stems from an attempt to introduce the scheme without

      1267
      dealing with, as my hon. Friend put it, the cussed and those in genuine difficulty, of whom there are many. I am indebted to one of my constituents, Mrs. Smedley from Aston-on-Trent, who described the experience of someone who collects pensions on behalf of other people and the difficulties that might arise.
      I also wish to comment on the change programme for the Post Office, and on that point I am indebted to Mrs. Mason, the sub-postmistress in Hilton. As an enterprising lady, she wishes to develop the service she provides further, but she was appalled by the standard of training offered to sub-postmasters and mistresses on the introduction of the programme. She wanted some training on how to offer the full range of financial services available through the alliances that the Post Office has with various banks, but that was not on offer in the training programme that her husband attended. That is appalling. If we are not training the key participants properly to take full advantage of the freedoms that will be available, we will be making a big mistake.
      It is also unacceptable that sub-postmasters and mistresses are unable to take up the option of setting up a PayPoint in their post offices. It is obvious to most of us that paying bills through the post office has become harder and harder as organisations claim that it costs too much to accept that means of payment. PayPoint provides an alternative method, but the Post Office—by contract—says that no sub-post office may set one up. That restriction of business enterprise and opportunity is unacceptable. The Minister has many points to respond to, from my contribution and others, and I shall listen with interest when he winds up.
      4.42 pm
      Pete Wishart: I congratulate the Select Committee on an excellent report. As for the Government's response to it, I have rarely read such self-congratulatory, irrelevant nonsense. Like other hon. Members, I have spent an inordinate amount of time in post offices in the past few months in pursuit of my save the pension book campaign. In the process, I have spoken to many people who use post offices regularly and several sub-postmasters who run them. I have not found overwhelming support for the plans, as the Government's response suggests, but overwhelming hostility.
      People do not like the plans. They do not like the fact that the pension book will no longer be an option for pensioners. They do not like the fact that pensioners have been corralled into opening bank accounts at the expense of the Post Office card account, which is what is happening— regardless of what the response says. The most compelling evidence was given by Postwatch, which told the Committee that
      "it is appearing to be much more difficult to open a card account at the post office than to open a basic bank account. Consumers have to go through eight steps".
      The Government's response contests the number of steps, but it concedes that customers have to go through three steps for a Post Office card account, as opposed to two steps for an ordinary bank account. That is a slight concession by the Government that it is more difficult to open a Post Office card account, and I hope that the Minister will confirm that when he winds up the debate.
      1268
      Direct payment suits many people; it may suit most people; it may even suit the vast majority of people; but it does not suit everybody. Even those who now receive their pension through direct payment acknowledge that, and agree that those who do not want a bank account should still have the option of receiving their pension through their pension book.
      Mr. Hawkins: In the hon. Gentleman's experience of this issue, has he come across pensioners who believe that they have been conned by the system? Pensioners using post offices such as Mytchett in my constituency have discovered that the minute that they fill in a form that gives their bank details, it is treated as a request to have their pension paid into a bank account, even though the form did not say that that would be the result. Pensioners are asked to give their details and, when they do so, it is treated as a request. It is then impossible to return to using the traditional system that they prefer. That procedure, and the way in which the leaflets are written, is dishonest and is another aspect of what is making pensioners in my constituency—and, doubtless, in his—very angry.
      Pete Wishart: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention; he makes the point very well and I agree with him on that issue.
      After the debate, I shall, on behalf of my constituents, be presenting a petition of thousands of names. The petition insists that the pension book remain an option and asks the Government to think again about their plans.
      Many of the pensioners who signed the petition probably have their pension paid directly to their bank, but they believe that pensioners without a bank account and who do not want a bank account should be left with the option of receiving their pension through a pension book as they have always done. Many pensioners simply do not understand why they can no longer use their pension book. For them, if it ain't broke, why bother trying to fix it? Many pensioners have an attachment to their pension book that the Government have either failed to understand or have chosen wilfully to ignore. That attachment goes back to post-war times when the old age pension was introduced.
      Of course the Government will call their plans modernisation. They are determined to foist that modernisation on the group in our society who are the most resistant to it. Pensioners want to be left alone; they do not want to be modernized—if they want to be anything-iced, it is to be traditionalised.
      For many pensioners, collecting their pension at the post office in the normal way is a social activity, as the hon. Member for Ochil (Mr. O'Neill) mentioned. For many, it is an opportunity to meet friends and to organise social engagements, but it is more than that. The post office can act as an early warning system for some of the most frail and vulnerable members of our society. I have observed sub-postmasters acting in an almost pastoral way. They look out for their frail and vulnerable customers. If those pensioners fail to turn up at their usual time, the postmaster raises the alarm. A lot happens in the post office and it is central to much of the life of our communities.
      I do not believe that the Government really know about the role that post offices play, especially in our rural communities where the post office is so often the

      1269
      centre of community life. We are witnessing the erosion and degradation of community infrastructure in rural villages and settings, and that threatens the viability of the Post Office card account.
      I represent the fifth-largest constituency in the United Kingdom, an area of small towns and villages with no obvious urban centre. We are witnessing the disappearance of banks and post offices throughout the constituency. In Scotland, most people bank with one of the three big banks—the Royal Bank of Scotland, the Bank of Scotland or the Clydesdale—none of which has an arrangement with the Post Office, so people in my constituency are denied access to the Post Office card account. That means that 90 per cent. of the people of Scotland will no longer have that option.
      There are big problems in Scotland, not only in our rural areas but in our urban areas where there are also serious threats to post offices because of the Government's plans to have benefits paid directly into bank accounts. Sub-postmasters do not deserve that. I have spoken to many of them and find them a modest bunch. Sub-postmasters take their community responsibilities and social obligations very seriously. Most of them went into the business thinking it would be their own pension book—their little nest egg. However, the nest egg will not take care of their future; they have found a cuckoo in the nest and it is devouring their whole livelihood.
      Postmasters are being encouraged to diversify and to take on "extras". Indeed, any hon. Member visiting a marginal post office in their constituency would hardly be able to move for greeting cards or ready-made meals, but if sub-postmasters lose their core trade from pensioners and benefit claimants they will lose that extra business, too.
      Many post offices have been put up for sale recently. In my constituency, there are post offices that have been on the market for three years, and they can no longer be sold as a going concern. To buy a post office nowadays would be financial suicide.
      Under the Government's plans, more closures are inevitable. This is no reinvention: we are witnessing a closure programme. I hope that the Government will think again about what they are doing and that perhaps they will put the interests of our post offices and those who operate them closer to the top of their agenda.
      4.49 pm
      Linda Perham: My starting point in this debate is that there is a threat to four of the 13 post offices in my constituency—plus one just along the road from my home, which was closed a few months ago, because of a dispute between the postmaster and the council over the lease, which means that five out of 13 may go. However, I am working with Postwatch to see what support there is for keeping those post offices open—Claybury Broadway, Great Gearies, Tring Close and Woodford Bridge.
      On 29 November, I met large numbers of residents at each of those post offices—mainly elderly or disabled people or young parents, all concerned about the alternative facilities available. Some of these alternative branches are more than a mile from the closing post
      1270
      offices—this in Greater London, in a London borough with nearly a quarter of a million residents. One of the main alternative post offices, in Barkingside high street, already has queues stretching out of the door, so that is not really much of an alternative. Many residents have now signed petitions and flooded my office with responses and reasons why they want to retain their local branch.
      Of course no one wants to see the loss of a community resource. I prefer to call local post offices "shops in a social setting", because that is what they have become. However, it is all too easy to blame the Government of the day for failing to prevent post office closures and in particular at present to point the finger at the introduction of the direct payment of benefits. The debate on the Committee report is therefore timely; as a member of the Committee, I have taken a great interest in this issue.
      One conclusion of our report commended the assurances of Post Office Ltd. that it would make decisions about the future of individual post offices by reference to strategies for communities and areas, rather than in isolation; but I am not convinced that the programme of closures can be termed strategic if the postmasters or mistresses are volunteering to go, because it could lead to under-used post offices staying open while well sited, better-supported post offices are shut—such as Woodford Bridge in my constituency, which is in quite a large shopping parade.
      The Committee voiced concern at the reduction in customer choice with the phasing out of order books, which my hon. Friend the Member for Ochil (Mr. O'Neill) mentioned. It questioned the savings expected for using the increase of direct payment to combat fraud. It questioned the failure to have in place "exceptions" procedures for blind or other disabled people, and—the point that my hon. Friend emphasised at the beginning of his remarks—criticised the accuracy of information on the options and the unnecessary complications involved in opening a Post Office card account.
      A couple of days ago I received a letter from a constituent about the fact that he had filled in no fewer than six forms for such an account, only to be rejected by the Post Office. He wrote that
      "the post office say they can't fill in the form for me, despite my being poor sighted. I have today filled in yet another form and await the reply…Please can you help?"
      Our report was very well received, especially by the Communication Workers Union and the National Federation of Sub-Postmasters. My constituent, Iain Stanford, the counters sectional secretary of the CWU in Romford, wrote to me on 21 November, saying that
      "the main conclusions and recommendations of the report have provided a strong platform to support and save our Post Offices".
      However, both organisations expressed their disappointment in the Government's response to the report, published on 16 September, and both are critical of the DWP's approach on direct payments. The CWU claims that the DWP intends to move nine out of 10 new claimants to direct payment as quickly as possible. Indeed, in a written answer to the hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) on 8 December 2003, at column 321–22W, the Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Chris Pond), said that the

      1271
      DWP had published a public service agreement that by 2005, 85 per cent. of customers would have their benefits paid by direct payment.
      There is no doubt that in recent years the Post Office, even though it is a monopoly, has managed to lose millions of pounds, including £194 million last year. It has had and is having considerable problems. There is equally no dispute that hundreds of post office branches have closed in each of the past 20 years, the worst so far being 1991–92, when 478 shut. Since DP was introduced in the early 1980s, increasing numbers of people are opting for it.
      I should like hon. Members to take note of something that the Select Committee said in the summary at the beginning of the report:
      "The change in policy on benefits payment presents Post Office Ltd with a serious challenge as it tries to bring its business back into profit, but it cannot be seen as a root cause of the problems faced by the business. The trend away from the use of the post office network for benefit collection started a long time before the introduction of Direct Payment."
      We as a country must face up to the consequences of changes in lifestyle and habits, which have led to those with the best transport options expressing their choice to range further afield to gain access to consumer goods and services, so that we make the best provision that we can for those with restricted transport availability.
      I welcome the Government's assistance to the Post Office, including investment grants to improve post offices and other substantial financial support running into hundreds of millions of pounds, as the Prime Minister pointed out a couple of weeks ago. I strongly reinforce the Select Committee's recommendation that urges the Post Office to make progress on introducing new business activities and flexible working to open new possibilities to maintain a healthy local post office network. I note that when the Minister replied to the debate on post office closures in Wales on 9 December, he said the company had been slow to develop new income streams and offices had become over-dependent on making benefit payments.
      As has been requested, the Select Committee promised to return to the impact of DP on the post office network's income and on individual sub-postmasters and mistresses, and to monitor the progress of the urban reinvention programme and the effect of Government support for rural post offices in the near future. On those extremely important matters, which have caused so much interest in the House and throughout the country, our constituents—certainly mine—would expect no less of us.
      4.57 pm
      Sir Robert Smith: This debate is welcome as we are trying to focus the Government's mind on some of the key issues that the Chairman of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry raised in opening the debate. This is about a fair choice for the customers. Fort-our rural post offices are left in my constituency, and I am pleased to say that I have been able to attend the reopening of some that had closed. I recognise how vital they are to many communities, but the people who want to use those post offices have grown up with different lifestyles, different ways of working and different ways of
      1272
      operating their money. It is arrogant of the Government to assume that they know best about how people should operate and that they must have hank accounts and run their weekly budgets using them. It is the Government's desire to force people down the road faster than they wish to move.
      The move to direct payment was an option; it was part of the fair choice. No one can deny people the right to use their banks to manage their benefits, but if they wish to separate their savings in a bank account from their weekly cash budget by taking that through post offices, they should be entitled to do so as easily and simply as though they were doing so through a bank, and they should not have to go through hoops to open a Post Office card account. The submission from Postwatch suggests three ways to make that simpler, so the Government need to reconsider the current options and recognise that, even if they have written to people with an invitation to migrate to direct payment, that should be the only trigger that they need to go to the post office and start the process, as though they were opening a bank account. Why do people have to go through hoops if it is not to put barriers in their way? There is no explanation from the Government.
      As the hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Mr. Todd) made clear, the Government need to recognise the danger of the kind of advice that they are giving to people, given the pace at which they want them to transfer their way of operating. If people move their weekly traditional cash budgeting even to a basic bank account they may be told that they cannot go overdrawn, but there is a great danger that they will lose control of their budgeting if they switch to systems that allow automated payments to come out of their accounts. If people are living on the basic minimum that the Government provide to protect them from poverty, the last thing that they want is a £30 letter from the bank saying that they are overdrawn.
      Clearly, the Government are in danger of going too fast down that road and, by accelerating the process, they have accelerated the challenge for the Post Office. If they had allowed things to move at the pace at which customers were adapting naturally, the Post Office could have adapted its services to the way in which the market was moving. Because the Government have accelerated the pressure on our sub-post offices, the Department of Trade and Industry must now pick up the pieces at the other end of the scale and try to sort out the mess facing post offices to keep them open. The Government have promised people that they will still be able to collect their benefit at the post office, but that is a hollow promise if there is no post office from which to collect it. I hope that the Government, who promised on page 6 of their reply to send the Committee follow-up research on the cost-benefit analysis in October, will deliver that research eventually. It would be helpful to know when they plan to do so.
      If the Government are so confident about the way in which they are handling this matter, they should also respond more positively to Postwatch's request to send out research material, the production and postage cost of which Postwatch will pay for. The Government's excuse for not allowing Postwatch direct access to consumers is data protection, but they could do more to work with Postwatch to facilitate its research, which

      1273
      could reassure us and the wider public about how the system is being processed.
      I repeat that the key is to operate a fair choice. The National Federation of Sub-Postmasters has pointed out that, in reality, there are eight steps to opening a Post Office card account. That is a long-drawn-out process, and the Government need to look at that again if their reassurance is genuine that people who are entitled to a Post Office card account, and who want one, should have an easy option.
      The final point that the wider public need to understand from this debate and the information provided by the Government is that if they want to stick with their pension book, for the moment, they can do so, and they are entitled to do so. They are entitled to say, "Don't rush me, I want to carry on using my pension book." We need to reassure people that the pension book is still there for the moment. I welcome the movements being made on the exceptions service, and reassurance is also necessary in that regard. Above all, a fair, level playing field is required—for those people who want to stick with their post office and the card account, opening a card account should be as easy as if it were a bank account.
      5.2 pm
      Mr. Brian Jenkins: I am grateful for the opportunity to join this interesting debate. It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir Robert Smith). I welcome the opening comments of the Chairman of the Select Committee and was pleased that he restricted the area of debate this afternoon in so far as he did not want to talk about the past failures of the Post Office and its management.
      There is no doubt that we all recognise that post offices have been suffering from falling business, with many more people using bank accounts. We recognised that, so we went out promoting the Post Office card account system, using the local media to try to attract as many people as possible to take it up. We promised them that they could go to their post office and draw out cash. We said that they did not have to draw it out all at once—they could draw it out on a daily basis if they wanted, which would leave them less open to the difficulties in our society, such as being mugged on their way back home.
      Members can therefore imagine my surprise when last Thursday a pamphlet from the Post Office dropped on my desk that said that it was investigating the 24 post offices in the town of Tamworth, and that, by the time that it had finished, the investigation could lead to the closure of one or more branches. The one or more turned out to be nine out of the 24. But that is the not the best part of the Post Office plan. That plan is a very cunning plan—the only very cunning plan that I have seen to match it was Baldrick's in "Blackadder".
      I doubt whether any Member can beat my record today—please try—because it is either the worst or the best option imaginable. Let us imagine a town of 77,000 people, which, around the periphery, has a river on one side and a bypass on the other, which forms a wedge. Within that wedge are nearly 20,000 people, and at
      1274
      present six sub-post offices. How many of those is the Post Office going to close? Surprise, surprise, it is going to close six. It will open one in a petrol station shop. The consultation document says that people will be able to get to the petrol station by public transport but, unfortunately, no buses go across there from one part of town because the bus routes go into the centre of town rather than around it—as happens in any town with a radial pattern.
      Let us consider the situation for a disabled person with his account card who used to go to Hockley post office. He will trundle down there only to find it shut. He will think, "I know, I'll go to Wilnecote post office", so he will trundle down the road for nearly three quarters a mile to find it shut. He will think, "I know, I'll go to Belgrave post office", but he will go down the road to find it shut. He will think, "I'll go to Kettlebrook post office", only to find it shut. He would have to travel 2.5 miles into the centre of town to access a Post Office outlet.
      The Post Office says that the alternative option is to use Dosthill post office, but there is no public transport between Hockley and Dosthill. Dosthill has got one thing: a big hill. People might be able to come down the hill but I am certain that a less able pensioner will be unable to walk up it. A person would have to be built like Arnold Schwarzenegger to get a pushchair up the hill—it is a difficult and hard route.
      When I received the consultation document, I thought that I would telephone the Post Office because a report about it appeared in my local paper on the very morning I received it—my local paper had got the information before me. I asked it what it was playing at and why it had not told me about the plan upfront so that I could have made preparations and got my act together. I got a surprising answer: "Who are you?" I was told, "We don't even recognise MPs. We just treat them the same as everyone else. We talk to the press first." I was treated with total disdain by Post Office management.
      When I think about the set-up with 20,000 people being served by one outlet, I start to ask myself questions. Has Postwatch been consulted on the document? It told me that when it asked to hold discussions and consultation, the Post Office said, "Go away. We're not interested." However, the documents that the Post Office sent out recommend that people get in touch with Postwatch, despite the fact that it will not hold local meetings with that body.
      I now know that the sub-postmasters have taken the money. The generous handout that the Government have given has not been to maintain the post office system but to shut it down. I do not blame the sub-postmasters for taking the money because life is tough out there and if they have been read the riot act by the Post Office itself, they should probably cut and run. However, we have been offered no extra outlets, so how does the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions intend to get benefits to pensioners and others who have a right to receive them? Does he intend to send Securicor round with money every Thursday? How will he make arrangements for individuals to go to a post office?
      People have to pay a bus fare to go to the post office, and if there are no buses they must pay for a taxi. Do we intend to reimburse those people for the cost of picking

      1275
      up their benefit? One can imagine a different situation. My town contains dozens of people who ride around on little electric buggies. Every Tuesday, they should collect together at a starting point in Hockley with policemen at the front and back of the group. They could then trundle down the town for 2.5 miles picking up new passengers as they went along while other buggies could continue to join what would become a modern wagon train. People would be able to get to the post office, pick up their cash and trundle all the way back.
      Did the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister consider what would happen as a result of the proposal? If six outlets are shut, meaning that 20,000 people must use one post office that is not served by public transport, they will all have to drive there. Hundreds of extra car journeys will be generated in a town in which I am trying to encourage fewer car journeys. I am trying to encourage parents to walk their children to school by using school walking buses. The Post Office is undermining such activities.
      David Taylor: A town that will be very familiar to my hon. Friend, Ashby-de-la-Zouch, about 12 miles east of Tamworth, may have a similar problem now that Westfield post office has closed. There is now just one post office serving a population of about 13,000, and the capacity of that post office was inadequate before Westfield was flagged up for closure. Is that similar to the position in Tamworth?
      Mr. Jenkins: Very similar. My hon. Friend reinforces my point. The Post Office is not providing a service.
      The Post Office has enjoyed a unique relationship with the Government. It delivered benefits through its network; it provided a service; and it enjoyed a monopoly position. It now sees itself as a business, not a service provider. Unfortunately, regulators have forced the Post Office to become more and more competitive. I have seen regulators operating in different service areas, and I would like to tell the Secretary of State and the Minister—I feel sorry for my hon. Friend; I realise that everyone has run away and left him to be the whipping boy—that we may now have a regulator who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing. Will the Minister assure the House that the golden shareholder does not hold that principle?
      5.10 pm
      Mr. Owen Paterson: It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Tamworth (Mr. Jenkins), who described the difficulties of getting about his constituency. I have direct knowledge of mine because, with huge incompetence, I chose the hottest day of the year, 6 August, to drive 150 miles around it, visiting 28 post offices. I apologise to the four that I did not get to.
      The consistent message that I got on that journey was striking. First, I would like to stress the clear link between the village post office and the village shop, and the way in which they hold the community together. Apart from providing postal products, almost every post office that I went to doubled as a supplier of fresh and frozen food and stationery and household goods, and many were off-licences. The two services are inextricably linked.
      1276
      Colin Doyle, of Knockin post office, has worked seven days a week as a postmaster for 22 years. He said bluntly, "If the post office goes, the shop goes, and if the shop goes, the village goes." It is critical that the Government understand that post offices are the centre of village life; they have the village notice board, and everything revolves around them.
      Last week, I went to see the Minister for Energy, E-Commerce and Postal Services, the hon. Member for East Ham (Mr. Timms). Perhaps it was after that meeting that he decided to go to an urgent meeting today and leave the wretched junior Minister to face the flak from all sides. I took Colin Doyle along to that meeting, but, sadly, other postmasters could not attend because of travel problems. I was pleased that the hon. Member for East Ham agreed that post offices are vital in rural areas, and he confirmed that it is the Government's intention to place a requirement on the Post Office to make "no avoidable closures".
      We agreed on that, but the hon. Gentleman did not agree on the root problem, which is of the Government's making and which numerous hon. Members on both sides of the House have mentioned—that of brutally forcing customers to take their benefits direct. I was struck by the number of post offices that take a high proportion of their turnover from benefits payments. In my constituency the figures are as follows: Gobowen, 60 per cent.; Willow street, Oswestry, 75 per cent.; Treflach, 80 per cent., Pant, 70 per cent.; West Felton, 60 per cent.; Baschurch, 50 per cent.; Wem, 75 per cent.; Prees, 50 per cent.; and Cheswardine, 40 per cent. Even one postmaster with only 30 per cent. of his turnover from benefits said:
      "We cannot afford to stay if we lose the benefits."
      Nearly all those post offices have already lost child benefits, but time and again I was told that the Department for Work and Pensions has made it as difficult as possible to acquire a card. We have heard that numerous times this afternoon. That is despite the fact that, as one postmaster said:
      "the majority of those taking cash do not want a change."
      Another said:
      "The Benefits Agency is bullying people to change. The Government has not been fair."
      Another said:
      "The Benefits Agency has been very difficult. The forms are designed not to help."
      Yet another said:
      "The initial letters give a clear idea that customers must go direct. They are misleading. The bank section is deliberately put before the card section."
      To give an idea of the anger that I encountered, I have one final quote from my tour:
      "The Government have no idea of what they are doing. They are totally clueless. They are destroying the infrastructure of country life. The procedure for applying for cards is deliberately hugely complex."
      The National Federation of Sub-Postmasters has described 22 steps to acquire a card, yet the Government claim that there are only three. Last week, Mr. Doyle explained to the Energy Minister that people who struggle through the system and finally acquire a card do so with a huge amount of help from the local postmaster. Benefits represent £400 million of income

      1277
      for post offices, which will close in ever increasing numbers if a substantial proportion of that income is removed.
      Having created a hideous problem for themselves, the Government have put their hand in the taxpayer's pocket and promised £450 million to tide rural post offices over until banking services are in place. Last week, the Energy Minister stressed time and again that everyday banking should eventually replace benefits. I hope that he is right, because I want post offices to prosper. A senior analyst, however, dismissed the card as the
      "amoeba of banking—the most basic form of banking life available in the UK."
      That is not a great start. Three major banking groups—HSBC, Halifax and Bank of Scotland, and the Royal Bank of Scotland—do not offer access to their accounts through the post office network, and 80 per cent. of basic bank accounts are not accessible at post offices. As Mr. Doyle told the Energy Minister, banking would only be the "icing on the cake". I am afraid that I share my postmasters' scepticism about the chances of banking replacing benefits income.
      The £450 million intended to tide rural post offices over until 2006 is vital, and I am grateful for the letter that the Energy Minister sent me, as promised, on 8 December, in which he outlined the totals available for Post Office Ltd. I should be grateful if the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Sutcliffe) provided a follow-up letter that I could send to my postmasters telling them what steps they have to take and what hoops they have to jump through to get their hands on some of that money before 2006. Not one of the postmasters whom I have talked to knows anything about that money.
      I am afraid that we are on the brink of a rural catastrophe. In the past two years, 80 per cent. of all closures have been in rural areas. The Government have got it badly wrong. The benefits changes are extraordinarily unpopular and penalise many of the oldest and most vulnerable people in isolated rural communities. The Government should suspend the current programme, redesign the forms and make it easier for my constituents to receive benefits through their local post offices as they have done for years, and as they wish to continue doing.
      5.17 pm
      Richard Burden: I, too, should like to make a few remarks about the consultation associated with the urban reinvention programme. In particular, I draw hon. Members' attention to early-day motion 236, which I tabled on that very issue.
      We were assured by Post Office Ltd., both in the Select Committee and elsewhere, that the urban reinvention programme was not simply a closure programme. We were told that it was aimed at creating a sustainable urban post office network. Some post offices would close, but others would remain open and new business opportunities would be explored. The needs and circumstances of different areas would be taken into
      1278
      account. However, that was not what was happening on the ground. In my own area, the Shenley lane post office was slated for closure. It was having difficulties and the sub-postmistress wanted to get out. However, when the Post Office was looking at the area's needs and assessing the viability of that sub-post office, it either missed or did not take into account the fact that there was a multi-million pound regeneration programme for the community. I pay tribute to the Bournville Village trust, which is involved in that programme, and to Postwatch, local councillors, the local church and, most of all, the local community, for banding together and winning a reprieve for that post office.
      I was pleased when I learned that Post Office Ltd. was adopting a new approach. We were told that instead of looking at post offices branch by branch, it would develop area plans at constituency level so that everybody would be aware of what was happening. A letter to MPs from Royal Mail dated 14 August said that
      "this will bring greater certainty for everyone, should improve the consultation process, making it more meaningful for our customers and MPs, and will settle the future shape of our urban sub-post office network much more quickly".
      That is all very well, but, reading on, I found that the only people whom the Post Office was going to consult about that plan were itself and sub-postmasters and mistresses. Only after the plan is drawn up will local communities, MPs and other people be consulted. Where in that is there any attempt to identify the opportunities, not just the threats, or to engage local communities? If I read that letter right, we will all, as hon. Members have said, simultaneously be trying to shut a number of stable doors after the horses have bolted.
      I have been trying to get some straight answers from the Post Office, and it has taken a while. I did, however, get a straight answer from my hon. Friend the Minister for Energy, E-Commerce and Postal Services on 18 September when I put the matter to him. I was encouraged by his reply. He said that he agreed with me
      "both about the benefits of the changed arrangements and about the importance of thorough and careful consultation throughout"—
      I emphasise "throughout"—
      "particularly involving local communities, on the plans for an area. I will certainly ensure that the points that he makes"
      that is a reference to me
      "are passed on to Post Office Ltd."—[Official Report, 18 September 2003; Vol. 410, c. 1060.]
      I hope my hon. Friend did so.
      This week I received a definitive response to my letter from Post Office Ltd., which says that it is not practical to consult people at the strategic stage, as that would take too long. However, Post Office Ltd. reassures me by stating that Postwatch is involved in drawing up the plans. Let me tell the House how Postwatch is involved: it is given two weeks to comment before publication, on condition that it does not tell anyone else about the plans. Postwatch must make its comments in confidence. We are told not to worry—Post Office Ltd. will take everything into account. That reassurance comes from the people who did not notice the regeneration programme at the Shenley lane post office.
      We are told that there is a sophisticated modelling system for the needs and opportunities in an area. That

      1279
      is good news. The Select Committee was encouraged by that. One of the things our report requested was to allow us to see the sophisticated modelling system. The answer contained in the Government's response is no. We cannot see the sophisticated modelling procedure because it is commercially confidential, so we do not even know how the Post Office is going about its activities.
      That is not good enough. If the urban reinvention programme is to command confidence, people need to have a say in it—not just a say in the closure of post offices, but a say in the strategy for those closure programmes. Consultation will not take longer, because the programmes are being prepared anyway. Consultation will take place as they go along. But if it does take a little longer and the plans are improved as a result of the expertise of local people, what is the Post Office scared of?
      In conclusion, I again draw the attention of my hon. Friend to the assurance that I received in the Chamber from my hon. Friend the Minister for Energy, E-Commerce and Postal Services on 18 September and ask him to ensure that Post Office Ltd. abides by the assurances that he gave me about that consultation, and that it changes course and agrees to consult hon. Members and the local community on the strategy for the area plans, not just on their effects. If Post Office Ltd. fails to do that, we must draw a simple conclusion: the Post Office may be interested in stamps, but if this is the way it goes about its affairs, the only stamps it is interested in are rubber ones.
      5.22 pm
      Mr. Mark Francois: I am pleased to have been called to contribute to this important debate. It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden). We may not agree on much, but, curiously, this evening he and I are largely in agreement. I shall focus my remarks on the unfortunate effects of Government policy on the closure of post offices, particularly as it affects people in my constituency.
      There are some 17,500 local post offices across the United Kingdom, 97 per cent. of which are operated by sub-postmasters, under contract to Post Office Ltd. Collectively, those offices comprise the largest retail network in the whole of Europe, receiving some 45 million visits a week. Despite that, the so-called urban post office reinvention programme is scheduled to close about one third of the current 9,000 offices designated as being in urban areas.
      We have faced several closures in my constituency in recent years. For example, two years ago the Post Office announced the closure of the village post office in Rettendon, which was then part of the rural network. A few months ago, it went on to close the urban network post office at Eastwood road in the town of Rayleigh. Now two further urban network closures are proposed, at Golden Cross in Ashingdon and at Apex corner at Plumberow avenue in Hockley. The two latest proposed closures, particularly the last one, have led to considerable anxiety in my constituency, which I take the opportunity to highlight directly to the Minister this evening.
      I am concerned about the way in which the Post Office has gone about announcing the programme of closures. The pattern appears to be one of trickling them out over
      1280
      a period of time, which only creates further uncertainty about what further closures, if any, may be in the pipeline. Frankly, it is also difficult for the associated consultation system to retain much credibility. A closure will often already have been agreed with the sub-postmaster in question before it is even announced to the general public, and, crucially, little emphasis is then placed on attempting to find a replacement. There is an understandable degree of cynicism and a perception that the Post Office is merely going through the motions in many instances when it initiates a consultation exercise on a proposed closure. Even the highly standardised consultation letters that are sent out to MPs tend to lend themselves to that conclusion.
      Those are my criticisms of the way in which the process is being carried out, but I should like now to consider the two individual cases to which I have referred. The proposed closure at Golden Cross in Ashingdon worries me. The alternative office proposed in the consultation document is at Ashingdon road and is 0.8 miles away—only slightly less than the Post Office's recommended maximum distance for an alternative office, which is one mile. Ashingdon road itself, with which I do not expect the Minister is personally familiar, is very busy. That could be a hazard to pedestrians, and especially those such as women with young children, who will have to keep their children under close supervision if they are attempting to walk as much as a mile to use the proposed alternative office.
      I am also very concerned about the proposed closure of the post office at Apex corner, Plumberow avenue, in Hockley. Again, the alternative post office, this time in the centre of Hockley, is cited as being 0.8 miles away from the office earmarked for closure. However, I reiterate a point that has been made by a number of hon. Members: that is the distance as measured on the map, but the ground in question is undulating, which means that the journey travelled is much nearer to the full mile in practice.
      The Plumberow avenue office is located in an area that has a high proportion of senior citizens. A range of bungalows is situated nearby, and there are several local care homes. That happens to be an unfortunate coincidence in the context of the proposed closure. Most of those people will now have to walk to a busy main road, under a railway bridge and into the centre of Hockley to go to the post office. That could be a hazardous journey, especially in the wet, because of the nature of the ground, and especially for someone whose mobility is impaired, perhaps by their age. Moreover, the nearest bus stop to Apex corner is half a mile away. Even if people get to that bus stop, there is no direct bus link to the proposed alternative office in the centre of Hockley. For a range of reasons, the proposed closure is particularly unsuitable. If it goes ahead, it will cause considerable anxiety and inconvenience to my constituents, and not only senior citizens, although it will affect them in particular.
      What has upset my constituents is the feeling that nobody is listening to them. They have been denied even a little conversation, let alone a big one. They believe that the matter is effectively a fait accompli and that a large organisation, which is ultimately owned by the Government and over which they have little or no influence, is taking decisions in its interests without

      1281
      regard for their interests. I seek sincerely to drive that point home to the Minister this evening.
      I shall summarise, as I am conscious that other hon. Members wish to speak, and I want to facilitate that. It must be apparent to the Minister from this debate that we are not discussing a purely partisan issue. He has been in his bunker taking artillery fire from all parts of the House, and I think that some artillery fire is yet to come. I genuinely ask him to appreciate that there is serious concern in all quarters. The programme has obviously started to go seriously wrong, and this should be exactly the point at which Ministers, if they are listening, should step in to take a grip on the situation and try to do something to put it right.
      I am responding to the consultation exercise, so I hope that my points will be taken seriously. Is there anything that the Minister can do, or any advice that he can offer, that would be of benefit to my constituents in Ashingdon and Hockley and to those of other hon. Members who are in the same boat?
      The important social role that post offices play was stressed by many Members, from the Chairman of the Trade and Industry Committee downwards. For the sake of brevity, I do not intend to rehearse the argument, but it would be a great shame if the Minister did not take that particularly important point on board.
      5.30 pm
      Malcolm Bruce: The Minister should be aware that destroying the post office network and the services that people rely on is unlikely to prove a vote winner, either in this House or outside it. Indeed, he has been under attack from all sides. He needs to recognise that our network of dedicated, but extremely demoralised sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses, as well as millions of customers, are confused and angry about what is happening in their local post office, which they thought was there to provide a service to them and which is a Government agency in their own community that is behaving inconsistently and incomprehensibly.
      On a personal basis, I may have been an early victim of urban reinvention in my constituency when a member of the Post Office's national management sidled up to me and said, "I have just written a letter to you to designate Inverurie as an urban area", to which I replied, "How is it up to the Post Office to decide whether it is an urban area?". He said, "We have decided that it is an urban area because we have to close one of the post offices." I asked, "What is the purpose of all this?" He replied, "To close the post office." The phrase "urban reinvention" had not been touted around at that stage, but I can assure the Minister that no reinvention took place: I simply have one fewer post office.
      People are worried that these products were developed not to meet the needs of customers and claimants, but to buy off the anger and confusion that they feel about not being able to carry on using the products that they want. I entirely accept that the move towards bank transfer has been carrying on and will continue to carry on, and that the Post Office would have to respond to that. However, the reality is that many people knowingly rejected that option for the purpose of their benefit, even if they wanted to make
      1282
      other transactions through their banks, and others did not want it because they preferred, for good reasons, to do their business in cash. Not only is it difficult to get a card, but it is such a basic product that many people ask why they could not have kept using the book, because the only difference seems to be that the card is a plastic version, but one that involves a great deal of difficulty.
      Mr. Alan Reid: My hon. Friend makes an important point. I have received many phone calls from elderly people, some of whom are disabled or blind, and who are very frightened by the letters that they get from the DWP because they think that if they do not move to a bank, they will lose their pension. Their freedom of choice is vital, and the Government should make that clear.
      Malcolm Bruce: That is right. It is particularly true in the case of elderly people who feel confused and uncertain about the future, but it even applies to people who collect child benefit, many of whom believed after the first round of letters that they had to transfer the payment to the bank, only to discover afterwards that that was not necessarily so. Moreover, they were not told—because sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses were not allowed to intervene to explain it to them—that the probable consequence of their making that transfer was that the post office would close within the foreseeable future, particularly if it was in a rural area. Several people have told me that if they had appreciated that the consequences would be that severe, and that there was no real guarantee of a long-term future for those post offices, they would not have taken the decision that they did.
      I turn to the consequences for the network. It has been stated that when the transfer programme is complete, it will result in a loss of about £435 million to £440 million a year in revenue to the Post Office, and that that gap has to be filled by people using the post office for bank transfers and bank transactions. I am not at all sure that the effect will be as major as the Post Office and the Government argue.
      I make the next point not just because I represent a Scottish constituency, although that makes the position more acute. The Scottish banks' refusal to sign up is bad for the United Kingdom because they are UK banks and it diminishes the choice in every branch. However, in Scotland, it means that the option of using cash does not exist for the majority of customers because the banks on which they most depend have not been prepared to cooperate with the Post Office. Bank transactions and the new proposal for financial services, welcome as it may be, are unlikely even to approach making up sub-post offices' income deficit.
      If there were a genuine programme of rural and urban reinvention, one would like to believe that one of its actions would be a review of the services that post offices can provide over and above benefit transactions. It is a constant source of frustration to many hon. Members, who are often asked why different branches cannot provide passport forms or issue vehicle excise duty licences. One is passed from pillar to post. First, one is told that one has to approach the appropriate vehicle licensing agency or the Passport and Records Agency. Those agencies say that they have contracted with the Post Office and it has told them that "x" number of

      1283
      branches deal with licences and passports but that they do not know which ones; they simply pay them. We thus get passed backwards and forwards. However, we cannot get a single review of a post office that states that there is willingness to extend the service.
      Let me give a specific constituency example. Keith, a town of 4,000 people, has a post office that provides an excellent service and is run by the owner of another post office in a different part of the county that has a passport service. The person who runs the Keith post office is therefore fully trained and capable of providing a passport service. There are many demands for such a service in Keith. However, for the reasons that I have described, the sub-postmaster has been told that there is no possibility of that. The nearest post office with such a service is in Banff, 14 miles away. That is absurd and unrealistic. Reinvention should mean that if we change circumstances, we meet people's needs, give them the products that they want and recognise that they want services.
      I should like the Under-Secretary to comment on the updated information from Postwatch about uptake and the gaps that appear. As of 14 November, the uptake of card accounts was 33.8 per cent. That constitutes just over half the people who were contacted. There may be 5 million or 6 million cardholders at the end of the process. However, in spite of all the frustrations, 2.5 million people have put up two fingers to the process and not responded. Perhaps that is wise, given the frustrations, and many more people should have done that.
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe): Let me emphasise that, so far, 1.5 million people have taken up card accounts and the business target was 3 million.
      Malcolm Bruce: If people do not respond, how will the process conclude? What will happen if millions of people say, "I haven't talked to you about a card account or a transfer. I'm still a benefit claimant and I've still got a book." I presume that at some point, they will be told that their book is not valid. We could have a huge crisis, whereby millions of people suddenly need to take up card accounts or opt for banked transfers. How will that be tackled?
      If the result is that those people, for whatever reason, do not wish to opt for a banked transfer or a card account, what is the solution? Millions currently say that they cannot or will not go for that. Let us consider those who cannot—those who are blind or confused, those who cannot use PINs and those who do not find a new system appropriate—as opposed to those who will not. The Chairman of the Select Committee suggested that people might get something like a giro at the end of the process. Could it be a book of giros? Will it resemble the book that people currently get? If, at the end of the long drawn-out process people get a benefit book to enable them to claim, millions of people, who wanted to keep the book in the first place, will be furious because they had been denied that right and forced to accept a second-best option.
      What is happening is the exact opposite of what a public service from a public agency should achieve in
      1284
      recognising consumers' rights to deliver a service in a way that is appropriate to them. It has been echoed on all sides of this debate that nobody wants us to be where we are at the moment. There has been much valid criticism of the management of the Post Office, particularly on the closure issue, but on the issue of payments and of the survival of the post office network, the Post Office has been presented with a fait accompli by the Department for Work and Pensions and forced to come up with solutions, many of which are less than adequate to meet the needs of its customers.
      5.40 pm
      Michael Fabricant: There was considerable cross-party agreement in the debate on child care, and there seems to be agreement in this debate, too, on the question of choice. We debated choice in regard to child care, and we are now debating choice with regard to post offices. That involves choices about how benefits might be paid, and about which post office it is convenient to visit. As we have heard, those choices have been stripped away.
      I should like to take this opportunity to congratulate the Trade and Industry Committee on its excellent report. The hon. Member for Ochil (Mr. O'Neill) said to me a few days ago that he suspected that I might agree with its conclusions, and he was right: I do agree with the conclusions of his very hard-working Select Committee. In the few minutes allotted to me, I want to talk about direct payment and the future of urban and rural post offices. Those issues have all been raised by hon. Members today, and they all affect people and pensioners.
      The hon. Member for Ochil opened the debate, and quite rightly said that there had been no consensus or ministerial statement on how much would be saved by direct payment. Perhaps the Minister will take this opportunity to outline to us what is being saved by this rather unpopular measure. The hon. Member for Ochil also rightly said—as did other hon. Members; this has been echoed on both sides of the Chamber—that people like going to the post office, and that it was an outing for them, a part of village life. That should not be taken away from them.
      My hon. Friend the Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin) spoke of the closure of four fifths of the post offices in Belper in his constituency, and pointed out quite rightly that the measure of one mile can be quite arbitrary. We hear time and again from our constituents—as we heard from my near-neighbour, the hon. Member for Tamworth (Mr. Jenkins) today—how one mile is an arbitrary figure, in that it might be measured as the crow flies, but people do not fly like crows. Indeed, they do not fly at all. If only they did, perhaps the Post Office's mysterious model might make sense. However, it does not, and it is of course a great secret as to what the model is, because the Post Office will not show it to us.
      Mr. Andrew Turner: Will my hon. Friend give way?
      Michael Fabricant: I will not give way, because I have only a short time to speak.
      The hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Rachel Squire) talked about how impractical it was that the consultation was being carried out over Christmas and

      1285
      the new year. My hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale) said that it was dishonest of the Post Office to maintain that the shortest route between two points was the distance that people actually had to travel, because that is not the case. The hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Mr. Todd) made some interesting points about the woefully complex process required to get a card account. He pointed out that a card account is a very basic financial product, so why does it require seven steps to obtain one, when it is far simpler to obtain more complex products from a bank?
      I could go through the long list of other hon. Members who have spoken, including my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson), who talked about the link between the village post office and the shop. He said that if the post office goes, the shop goes, and that if the shop goes, the village goes. He is absolutely right; the post office is an intrinsic part of village life and it needs to be protected.
      The Trade and Industry Committee report on the impact of direct payment highlights the many concerns expressed by people who are in receipt of benefits. It referred to complicated bank accounts, complicated application forms for Post Office card accounts, and a lack of information on other ways to collect benefits. It also referred to closures in the post office network. The Government have justified the change to direct payment as necessary, maintaining that it is more modern, efficient and reliable. However, 83 per cent. of claimants who collect benefit from post offices already have bank accounts and 79 per cent. of them said they wanted to keep their benefits separate from those accounts. How can the Government say that by removing payment books they are increasing consumer choice? They are not. It appears to me, and to the Committee, that however modern direct payment is some customers simply do not want it. Their choice is being reduced rat her than increased.
      The performance and innovation unit supported the creation of a universal bank, and the National Federation of Sub-Postmasters has found little evidence that the claimants have an unmet need for a simple, trusted, secure means of gaining access to their benefit income. The Government have made it very difficult for a claimant to opt for a Post Office account, as we have already heard. Postwatch discovered that the DWP stopped the Post Office advertising the fact that cash would still be available after the introduction of direct payments. Again, how does that increase customer choice?
      The hon. Member for Ochil cited much evidence provided by the National Federation of Sub-Postmasters. I have here a memorandum issued by Jobcentre Plus, which makes it clear that paying into a Post Office current account costs even more than paying into a bank account, and that the system
      "was designed to meet the needs of those who cannot gain access to standard or basic bank accounts".
      Time and again, Jobcentre Plus tries to discourage people from opening Post Office accounts. That must be wrong.
      Postwatch wanted to undertake a survey of public awareness of direct payment, but the Government,
      1286
      objected, hiding behind customer confidentiality legislation. It is clear that they do not want to encourage any independent regulatory bodies. We have already seen the abolition of independent community health councils. We now have a Government quango for them, and if it were possible we would have one to control post offices.
      If it were allowed to do so, Postwatch could regulate levels of awareness and produce a response free of any kind of party-political interference. Why are the Government so keen to obstruct that? Will the Minister tell us in his reply?
      What of the difficult process of acquiring a Post Office card account? The Government say that they do not accept that it is a "particularly onerous process". The National Federation of Sub-Postmasters disagrees, along with—as we have heard today—many other bodies. There are seven steps involved in getting a card account running. Even the National Consumer Council thinks that far too much bureaucracy and complexity are involved in opening one.
      Why should that be so? Could it be because the DWP originally anticipated that only 2 million card accounts would be needed? We now know that 5 million will eventually be needed. Where will the Government's much-heralded choice be then? Where will the money come from? Will it come from the prudent Chancellor? I think not. That is another question that the Minister must answer.
      As we have heard, the Post Office is closing 3,000 of the 9,000 urban post offices. As we have heard, its decisions are arbitrary. Many people have described the closure programme as a complete sham. Let me give an example of that. The Post Office announced on 26 August that it proposed to close the City Way branch in Rochester, Kent: it was, it said, "considering closing this branch". When the branch was eventually closed, a leaflet entitled "Getting the most from the Post Office" was made available. It was dated March 2003, six or seven months before the sham consultation process had even begun.
      What of rural post offices? They are supposed to be protected. There are some 9,000 of them, yet we do not know whether funds will be available after 2006 to protect them. I hope that the Minister can reveal today whether there will be a rural postal network after 2006. To be somewhat cynical for a moment, I should point out that the next general election might well occur before 2006. Perhaps that is why that date was chosen for the provision of such a service.
      I have asked the Minister a whole series of questions about direct payment, the closure of urban post offices and the future of rural post offices. But in reality, these are questions about the future of our community and our nation's duty of care to the vulnerable. The question is: has the Minister got any answers? As my hon. Friend the Member for West Derbyshire said, in respect of post offices choice is being diminished. It has now become clear that the urban reinvention programme is in fact a closure programme.
      Today, we have had the big conversation that the Prime Minister boasted about. That conversation has given rise to a very clear message from both sides of this House. I hope that the Minister will listen.
      5.50 pm
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe): I welcome the opportunity to respond to the issues raised today. An incredible level of interest has been shown in the Select Committee's report, and I congratulate the Committee's Chairman, my hon. Friend the Member for Ochil (Mr. O'Neill). I will not be able to respond to all the issues raised in the nine minutes available to me, but I will try to respond to the common themes. I shall write to Members to ensure that the other issues raised are dealt with.
      Mr. Andrew Turner: The Minister for Energy, E-Commerce and Postal Services told the right hon. Member for Edinburgh, East and Musselburgh (Dr. Strang):
      "Other than in exceptional circumstances",
      the network reinvention programme
      "will not extend to post offices in the 10 per cent. most deprived urban wards".— [Official Report, Westminster Hall, 21 May 2003; Vol. 405, c. 312WH.]
      When the Minister writes to us, perhaps he could say who defines "exceptional circumstances".
      Mr. Anthony D. Wright rose—
      Mr. Sutcliffe: I shall try to respond to that point, but first I shall give to my hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth (Mr. Wright), who was unable to speak in the debate.
      Mr. Wright: Two of the post offices that closed in my constituency were in wards that number among the 50 most deprived wards. The consultation process certainly took into account many issues, but they were never dealt with. Will my hon. Friend assure us that he will look into the way in which the Post Office has consulted, and has acted on that consultation process?
      Mr. Sutcliffe: I will respond in a manner in keeping with the genuine spirit of constituency involvement that Members on both sides of the House have shown. I am grateful to the House and to the Chairman for accepting the reasons why the Minister for Pensions has been unable to attend today; I am really pleased to be here in his place. [Laughter.]
      Some serious issues have been raised, and I refer Members to the Government's response to the Select Committee report. It is in no way arrogant, and it genuinely addresses the question of direct payments. However, today's debate was about the urban reinvention programme, rather than direct payments, so I shall concentrate my remarks on that issue.
      Kate Hoey: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way, as I, too, was not called to speak. In the light of the document leaked by the Department for Work and Pensions, it is a pity that the relevant Minister cannot respond. Can the Minister confirm that that document actually reflects Government policy?
      Mr. Sutcliffe: Governments of all persuasions do not respond to leaked documents, but I will refer to the general issues raised—if I have time left in the seven minutes now available to me.
      1288
      I want to show my hon. Friend, the Chairman of the Select Committee, the appropriate courtesy by pointing out that we value the Committee's work, the evidence it has taken and the views that it has expressed. I recognise that Members have deeply held views about the problems in their constituencies. When I attended a recent debate in Westminster Hall on post office closures in Wales, I experienced at first hand some of the concerns about the consultation process—a point to which I shall perhaps return. I accept the individual constituency cases that hon. Members have described, but I do not accept the partisan political points that have been made. It is rather sad that that happened, given what the Government have tried to achieve with the Post Office. A viable post office network is important to all hon. Members.
      The performance and innovation unit report of June 2000 on the post office network concluded that the business had not kept pace with change and was not exploiting its very highly trusted status as a provider of financial services. It was losing business. As the hon. Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale) said, sub-postmasters are business people. They have found it increasingly difficult to make a living and have left the network in increasing numbers. Doing nothing was not an option; that would have led, simply, to the uncontrolled collapse of the network, and left deeply damaging gaps in it.
      The problems date back more than 20 years. Under-investment has been a factor, but the real drivers have been greater mobility, changes in shopping habits and increased choice—including through new technology. People have simply decided not to use the Post Office. The business must face up to the challenge and make itself more relevant to modern customer needs, or it will not survive.
      The Government accepted all 24 recommendations in the PIU report. The change has to be managed properly. As many as 3,500 post offices closed before 1997. Opposition Members champion the post offices' cause, but they should remember the lack of investment in that period. However, important matters must be taken into consideration as we move to direct payment.
      In the past, Post Office income was heavily dependent on benefit payments, but that business has been dwindling. As the hon. Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce) said, direct payment is not new: it is something that increasing numbers of benefit recipients have been choosing.
      Ahead of the Government's decision to switch to making all payments by direct payment, it should be noted that more than 43 per cent. of benefit recipients already received their cash paid directly into their bank accounts. In addition, 62 per cent. of all new child benefit recipients and 68 per cent. of all new pensioners already get their benefit money paid directly into their bank accounts.
      The current order book system is outdated. It is inefficient, open to fraud and abuse and costly to administer. It needs to be modernised to keep in step with changing customer needs, and to reflect the fact that owning and using a bank account is now the norm. More than 87 per cent. of benefit recipients and around 90 per cent. of pensioners have access to a bank account.

      1289
      However, given that there has been some scaremongering, I want to make it clear that people can still get their pensions across the counter at the post office. The development of any future system will be based, as in the past, on work with the full range of representative groups. As Minister with responsibility for consumer affairs, I can tell the House that I am deeply involved in making sure that consumers are protected, and that I will make sure that I have that input. I hope that that will put an end to the scaremongering that has been noted, and which has been aimed especially at vulnerable elderly people.
      The Government remain absolutely committed to ensuring that those who wish to can continue to collect their benefits at post offices, in full and free of charge. That will remain the case even after the move to direct payment. The launch of universal banking services on 1 April this year is delivering that promise. We have provided £480 million to automate every post office branch. That investment has enabled the establishment of the technical infrastructure to support electronic banking services. That not only provides the means for the Post Office to continue to make benefits and pensions payments in cash, but it also gives the Post Office the vital opportunity to widen its customer base by increasing its offering of banking products.
      Under the new arrangements for benefits payments, customers have three account choices when deciding how they want to be paid. They can use a standard bank or building society account, some of which can be accessed at post offices; they can use a bank or building society basic account, many of which can be accessed at post offices; and, finally, they can opt for the Post Office card account.
      Customers choose the account that they want. If post office access is important to them, I do not doubt that they will choose accordingly. We want people to use post offices because they want to, not because they are forced to do so.
      There is some concern that the Government are steering people away from opening Post Office card accounts, or making it difficult for them to do so. Such concerns are misplaced.
      The Department for Work and Pensions is running a national and comprehensive information campaign to give customers the facts that they need to choose which account option is most appropriate for them. The campaign, which is costing £25 million, has been produced in consultation with the Post Office, with the aim of ensuring an unbiased and balanced message.
      The Government do not accept that the process for opening a Post Office card account is particularly onerous, and there is no evidence that it is putting off customers from applying for card accounts. The Post Office card account is proving popular with customers. More than 1.6 million people have chosen this account to have their benefits paid into. Take-up to date means that the eventual number of card accounts is now expected to exceed significantly the operating assumption of 3 million, but there remains no cap on numbers or eligibility criteria. It is clear that we will have to return to the subject, and I look forward to the many
      1290
      Adjournment debates that we will have. Consultation is vital and it has to be meaningful—
      It being Six o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded to put forthwith the deferred Questions relating to Estimates which he was directed to put at that hour, pursuant to Standing Order No. 54(4) and (5) (Consideration of estimates etc.) and Order [29 October 2002].

    ESTIMATES

      Department for Work and Pensions
      Resolved,
      That resources, not exceeding £22,505,326,000, be authorised, on account, for use during the year ending on 31st March 2005, and that a sum, not exceeding £22,418,785,000, be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund, on account, for the year ending on 31st March 2005, for expenditure by the Department for Work and Pensions.

      Department of Trade and Industry
      Resolved,
      That resources, not exceeding £2,101,186,000, be authorised, on account, for use during the year ending on 31st March 2005, and that a sum, not exceeding £3,749,956,000, be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund, on account, for the year ending on 31st March 2005, for expenditure by the Department of Trade and Industry.

      SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 200–4
      Resolved,
      That further resources, not exceeding £6,616,861,000, be authorised for use for defence and civil services for the year ending on 31st March 2004, and that a further sum, not exceeding £7,324,511,000, be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to meet the costs of defence and civil services for the year ending on 31st March 2004, as set out in HC 15.

      ESTIMATES, 2004–05 (VOTE ON ACCOUNT)
      Resolved,
      That resources, not exceeding £122,627,365,000, be authorised, on account, for use for defence and civil services for the year ending on 31st March 2005, and that a sum, not exceeding £117,444,070,000, be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund, on account, to meet the costs of defence and civil services for the year ending on 31st March 2005, as set out in HC 16, 17, 18 and 19.
      Ordered,
      That a Bill be brought in on the foregoing resolutions: And that the Chairman of Ways and Means, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Paul Boateng, Dawn Primarolo, Ruth Kelly and John Healey do prepare and bring it in.

      CONSOLIDATED FUND BILL
      Mr. John Healey accordingly presented a Bill to authorise the use of resources for the service of the years ending with 31st March 2004 and 2005 and to apply certain sums out of the Consolidated Fund to the service of the years ending with 31st March 2004 and 2005: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a second time on Monday next, and to be printed [Bill 12].

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

      ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS
      That the draft Telephone Number Exclusion (Domain Names and Internet Addresses) Order 2003, which was laid before this House on 3rd November, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.
      LOCAL GOVERNMENT
      That the draft Local Government Best Value (Exemption) (England) Order 2003, which was laid before this House on 17th November, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.

      ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
      That the draft Producer Responsibility Obligations (Packaging Waste) (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2003, which were laid before this House on 1st December, be approved.—[Charlotte Atkins.
      Question agreed to.

      Ordered,
      That Mr Simon Thomas be added to the Committee on Standards and Privileges.—[Charlotte Atkins.]

      REGULATORY REFORM
      Ordered,
      That Mr Paul Goodman be discharged from the Regulatory Reform Committee and Mr Archie Norman be added,—[Charlotte Atkins.]

      PUBLIC ACCOUNTS
      Ordered,
      That Mr Nick Gibb be discharged from the Committee of Public Accounts and Mrs Cheryl Gillan be added.—[Charlotte Atkins.]

    PETITION

      Pensioners
      6.2 pm
      Pete Wishart: I am grateful for the opportunity to introduce my petition this evening. It reads:
      The petition of the concerned citizens of North Tayside,
      Declares that we believe that pensioners have the right to choose how they receive their pension.
      The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons passes legislation to ensure the survival of the Pension Book as a means of collecting pensions from local post offices.
      And the Petitioners remain, etc.
      To lie upon the Table.

      Cold Calling (Elderly People)
      Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Charlotte Atkins.]
      6.3 pm
      Dr. Julian Lewis: When it first became known that I had been fortunate enough to secure this short debate on cold calling and vulnerable elderly people, I began to realise that I was addressing only the tip of an iceberg of cruelty that is happening in our society today. I am pleased to have the support of the hon. Member for Pudsey (Mr. Truswell) from the Government Back Benches, who has done important work on the issue. I hope to finish my contribution in time to give him the opportunity to explain the wider context of the debate.
      I could not have been more delighted to find that the Minister who will reply to the debate is the Minister for Crime Reduction, Policing and Community Safety, for whom my admiration has been undimmed since the days when we served together as officers of the all-party group on motorcycling. To see the hon. Lady bowling along on a motorcycle, in the full knowledge that if ever she came to a halt her feet would barely reach the ground on either side, is an object lesson in fortitude, courage and bravery. I hope that she will be equally robust in her response to the debate.
      Since the subject of the debate became known, I have received information on concerns about cold calling from Hampshire county council, CORGI—the arrangement whereby British Gas attempts to prevent bogus callers masquerading as gas representatives—and from BBC South, which is carrying out important investigative work on cold calling. What struck me most was the number of individual cases that were brought to my attention. I shall refer briefly to four, two of which came to my attention by indirect means and two of which I have extensive direct knowledge about, and I shall make a declaration of interest at the appropriate point in my remarks.
      The first case is that of Muriel, an 80-year-old artist living in SW 14. She was persuaded to give £900 in cash to three cold callers who had tidied her garden. Only timely action by her friends, the police and the bank, in turn, prevented her from being defrauded of even more money.
      Then there is the case of Stephen, an 84-year-old retired civil servant living in Blackheath, who made as many as nine cashback withdrawals in a single day for cold callers and who is believed to have withdrawn more than £20,000 in cash from his bank for them over a three-month period.
      Those two cases were brought to my attention by immediate friends in my close circle. I am sure that other hon. Members could replicate those stories indefinitely. However, the two stories that I shall address in detail relate to Pat, an 80-year-old retired railway worker, and Sam, a 90-year-old retired tailor. Both lived alone in Swansea. south Wales, and both had the misfortune to be targeted by a man called Paul Grey. In that connection, I record my personal thanks for the support that I have received—as will become clear—from several sources. The first is the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams), my old adversary in the

      1293
      1983 general election. The right hon. Gentleman would have been in the Chamber this evening, but he is attending the funeral of his predecessor, Hugh Rees, who served as Conservative Member of Parliament for that constituency between periods of—let us say—rather intense Labour representation in Swansea. The second is Detective Constable Ian Griffiths of Swansea CID. The third is Mr. Ray Potter of Swansea trading standards department, and the fourth is the investigative reporter, Mr. Chris Segar, and his team on the programme, "The Ferret". I have been most impressed by the way in which they addressed those cases.
      The first case is that of Pat Meehan who, as I said, is 80. He lives on a state pension and a small railway pension. Paul Grey knocked at his door one day and offered to replace his hedge with a wall. The idea was that the job would cost £600 and Mr. Grey was given £200 for materials. Before the job was not even nearly complete, Pat was cajoled into parting with the other £400 and Mr. Grey never went back to finish the job.
      Pat Meehan is no ordinary retired railwayman. Like so many of his generation he is a tough character. He may be a hit deaf, a bit shaky and quite elderly, but he landed on the beaches on D-day plus 6. He went to Paul Grey's home and tried to confront him. Mr. Grey saw Pat coming, wound down the window of his van, called out to him, made a V-sign and drove off. As Pat's sister-in-law, Christine Meehan, said to me only this afternoon, "It's disgusting, isn't it?"
      We now come to the question of Sam. Sam is Sam Lewis. Sam is 90. Sam is my father. He was Mr. Grey's other recent victim. He is now safely in a residential home in London, which is why I can share this story with the House.
      Back in November 2002, I was due to send in some builders to Sam's home to deal with an outbreak of dry rot. I rang my father the week before 25 November, which was the date they were due to start. To my surprise he told me, "Oh, but the builders are already here, Julian." He said he was unhappy about what was happening—it was turning into a very big job and they were making a terrible mess. I asked him whether he had paid them any money. The problem with Sam was and is that, although he is perfectly lucid, and although he is perfectly intelligent and not confused, he has virtually no short-term memory. So he went and recovered his cheque book and he looked up what he had paid, because he is also very meticulous. He told me that he had given Paul Grey a cheque for £800 on 14 November and one for £1,000 on 18 November. I was not very happy about that but eventually I managed to speak to Mr. Grey, who assured me that the £1,800 would be for the total job. I also spoke to Lloyds bank in the Uplands in Swansea, two doors from where my father lived at the time and where he had his account, and I asked it please to alert me if anything suspicious happened with regard to withdrawals of money from my father's account.
      In the second part of December 2002, I heard again from Mr. Grey, after the other builders—the ones I had put into the premises to do a much bigger job than Mr. Grey was supposed to be doing—had finished their work and departed. Mr. Grey said that he had almost finished his work but asked whether I would like to have
      1294
      some guttering and pipe work renewed while he was doing it. He indicated that that needed to be done, so I agreed to pay him £400 for what should have been two to three days' work. That cheque was cashed on Christmas eve.
      When I went back to the house—this is the problem with dealing with elderly relatives a couple of hundred miles away—on 26 January, I found that the work was nowhere near completed. On 27 January, in the morning, I managed to speak to Mr. Grey. He was terribly sorry; he would give it his personal attention. His roofer, a man called Joe Edwards, had assured him that the work had been finished. One of Mr. Grey's techniques is that he gets other people to do what passes for the work that he inflicts on his victims.
      However, later that Monday morning, just before we were about to come in for Defence questions, I received a call from Lloyds bank. An alert cashier, Hazel Matthews, had become concerned that my father was withdrawing large sums of cash. She then looked into it further, saw that I had asked to be informed, and duly contacted me.
      Unfortunately, this was rather late in the day. That evening, I rang my father, and I found that as well as the £800 cheque on 14 November and the £1,000 cheque on 18 November, to Paul Grey, the following cash withdrawals had been made: £500 on 4 December, £400 on 6 December, £1,200 on 16 December, £1,000 on 20 December, £800 on 7 January, £1,000 on 9 January, £1,200 on 24 January and £1,400 on 27 January. Interestingly, when I finally managed to obtain my father's cheque book, I was able to see that after the two cheques to Mr. Grey, where all these cash withdrawals started, the first of those withdrawals, for £500, had originally been made out to P. Grey, crossed out and altered to "self"—that is, cash.
      I decided to see whether I could get some evidence together to nail this man, and I decided to do something that I was not entirely happy about, which was to ring up my own father, ask him to go over the story again and tape record what he said. I tried to do this on 29 January but found that Mr. Grey was in the house. I obviously did not want to let on that I was suspicious about what was going on, because my father was quite frail and I did not like the idea of a confrontation while my father was still in the house, but I succeeded the next day in talking to my father again, and tape recorded his answers, which were identical in every respect to what he had told me on the Monday. He spoke with total lucidity. He explained again and again that every bit of this money had been given by him to Paul Grey.
      At the end of the conversation, my father collapsed and I had to dial the emergency services. He went to hospital. After a week of 24-hour care, he went into an assessment unit on 7 February, and the happy ending to this story is that, as I said at the outset, he is now safely resident in a good residential home in London.
      On 14 February, I visited the house and found that Mr. Paul Grey's work was still incomplete. On 23 February, I managed to confront Grey over the telephone. He denied that he had taken any of that money, but he refused to give me any detail that would enable me to track down the only other person who had been regularly on the site: his alleged roofer, Mr. Joe Edwards, allegedly of Manselton. When I insisted on

      1295
      having those details, he concluded the conversation with the words, "You effing find him"—he did not actually say "effing"—and slammed down the phone.
      Subsequently, with the help of "The Ferret"—the programme that I mentioned earlier—I discovered that there was no roofer of the name of Joe Edwards in Manselton; only a milkman, a well-known character in the community, who died recently. Mr. Grey refused to respond to letters, to list the people on the site and to name a solicitor with whom I could correspond. I later discovered that he has 10 criminal convictions, dating back over 25 years until 1999. Those convictions included theft, deception, criminal damage and shoplifting. I discovered that he had a habit of calling on my father every November. In November 2000, he was trading as Enterprise Roofing and Building; in November 2001, as St. James's Building Services; and, in November 2002, Paul Grey Building Services. He has been interviewed by the police, and the Crown Prosecution Service has yet to decide what to do, but I am the first to concede that it is not easy for them. The only way in which they might be able to proceed would be to put my elderly father through the ordeal of giving evidence and facing cross-examination, and at his age I doubt whether that is something that ought to be inflicted upon him.
      I have no doubt that Paul Grey spun out a two-to three-day job over two months, during which he ruthlessly exploited Sam's frailty fraudulently to obtain thousands of pounds in cash. What is to be done about people like Grey? Before I hand over to the hon. Member for Pudsey (Mr. Truswell), who has great experience of this problem—I thank the Minister for allowing me to make that arrangement—I should like to give my single idea: it may be too draconian to ban cold calling altogether, although I would have sympathy with that view, but, as a first step, may I suggest that it ought to be made a criminal offence for anyone with a criminal record to engage in cold calling? That would nail the likes of the lowest of the low, like Mr. Paul Grey.
      6.17 pm
      Mr. Paul Truswell: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis), and I thank him for the opportunity to contribute to the debate. Similarly, I thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and the Minister. The hon. Gentleman describes classic cases of abusing cold calling. They are bad, but they are far from being the worst. I came to the issue of doorstep crime and unscrupulous selling five years ago, when a number of my constituents were stung by a home improvement outfit called Midland Coatings. Thanks to an excellent campaign by the Yorkshire Evening Post, in which I was closely involved, we drove that cowboy outfit out of town. Unfortunately, it is only one of many.
      That campaign brought me into contact with a phenomenal individual called Brian Steele. Brian is a retired detective chief superintendent, who has made combating doorstep crime his life's work ever since he investigated a particularly harrowing case. A lady in her 80s, Isabel Grey, was murdered by burglars who tortured her and broke her back. It was later discovered that she had been a serial victim of bogus builders of the type that the hon. Gentleman describes, and that they had carried out a series of botched jobs on her property.
      1296
      Brian subsequently studied the activities of distraction burglars. His interviews with them in prison revealed a picture of cynical leeches who said that they could smell the money in an old person's home, who bought and sold the names of their victims and who showed not the slightest contrition about their crimes. I helped Brian to lobby the Home Office for a £500,000 grant to set up the Leeds distraction burglary initiative, which has proved highly successful in tackling a range of doorstep crime and pressure selling. Brian acted as co-ordinator for the first three years, and now works for trading standards authorities in the north of England. It is my privilege to work with him, with colleagues such as Stuart Pudney, head of trading standards for North Yorkshire, and with numerous organisations, in campaigning for a law to prohibit cold calling at someone's home for the purpose of offering property improvement, maintenance or repair. It is a measure that those experienced people, who include police officers, have decided is perhaps the only way forward in combating such activity. It is not a panacea but it will help to paint thosevillains further into a corner and to restrict their areas of operation. My hon. Friend the Minister may be aware of early-day motion 219, which refers to that campaign.
      The campaign is targeted specifically at those who call for the purpose of offering property maintenance, repair and improvement services. There are two reasons for that. First, that is the principal modus operandi of criminals and the sort of character who fleeced the father of the hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis). Such people are criminal in every respect apart from, unfortunately, sometimes, the narrow legal sense. Secondly, although we may not like it, many people have a legitimate and sometimes altruistic reason for knocking on our doors, and it would be a pity to have a blanket ban and rule them all out.
      My hon. Friend will be aware that the Office of Fair Trading will report shortly to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry regarding cold calling. I hope that one of the recommendations will be on the need for such legislation as well as other measures. In the interests of joined-up government, I trust that my hon. Friend's Department will have some input into the discussion on this matter. It is crucial that it does not fall between the two stools of crime prevention and consumer protection. There is often a fine line—even a grey area—between those two aspects. Prohibiting cold calling for property repair, improvement and maintenance would help to tackle that range of crime and sharp practice.
      I also urge my hon. Friend to ensure that her Department takes more effective steps to record such doorstep crime, which, as I say, falls between two stools, which makes it more difficult to demonstrate the incidence of such crime even though experience shows that it is widespread.
      6.21 pm
      The Minister for Crime Reduction, Policing and Community Safety (Ms Hazel Blears): I am delighted to have the opportunity to respond to the hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) in what is an extremely important debate. I also welcome the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Mr. Truswell). It is fair to say that the cases that both have highlighted this

      1297
      evening are shocking, and illustrate the despicable behaviour of some people in these circumstances. It is excellent that these issues have been raised in the House.
      I am responding as a Home Office Minister, but both Members have made the point that bogus callers, distraction burglary and people being deceived into parting with their money cross over the boundaries between the Home Office, in terms of crime reduction and crime prevention and, inextricably, the Department of Trade and Industry, in terms of consumer protection and the important role played by trading standards officers in seeking to regulate this area. I will do my best to reply across the piece, because I accept entirely the point of my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey that we must ensure that these issues do not fall through the gap, whether in terms of regulation, the OFT's response to the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux super-complaint, or gathering intelligence, which is absolutely key in such matters.
      I am delighted to tell the hon. Member for New Forest, East that a very good operation in the south-west, Operation Litotes, now brings together all the agencies and the five forces across the south-west to share intelligence about the kind of people who conduct the terrible acts highlighted this evening, whether bogus callers, people seeking to extort money for the kind of home improvements that have been highlighted, or those attempting distraction burglary. It is important that once we share that information, we can track such people across a wide geographic area, as it is clear that they are prepared in a cynical way to travel hundreds of miles to find their victims.
      As I said, both distraction burglary and cold calling are covered, but I would not want elderly people to be unduly alarmed—distraction burglary represents a small proportion of burglary as a whole, and elderly people are only a quarter as likely to be victims as young people. I would not want this matter to be taken out of perspective. It should also be taken in the context of burglary being reduced by about 39 per cent. over the past few years. In relation to relatively small numbers of burglaries, therefore, bogus calling is difficult to record. I acknowledge that a huge amount of work is already going on.
      The issue is especially important to me because I recently had cause to knock on people's doors during the Brent by-election. I knocked on the door of an elderly lady aged 82 four minutes after she had been burgled and deceived. A man had come along purporting to want to get into her bathroom because repairs were being carried out three doors down the road. She opened her door perfectly innocently, but he pushed past her to break into her home. He stole not only her money, but money that she had been collecting for her church. I have no doubt that she was traumatised by the event and that it affected her independent way of living. The incident showed me the depths to which people are prepared to sink in such circumstances.
      A great deal of work has been done on distraction burglary, such as establishing projects and a taskforce. The taskforce has been extremely successful in the area of my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey. However, I shall talk about consumer protection, because that was the main issue that was raised in the debate.
      1298
      Hon. Members will know that the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux published its report on doorstep selling in September 2002. The report was based on 1,500 case studies that were submitted by citizens advice bureaux over two years. The case studies were analysed and recommendations for improvements were made. During national consumer week last year, the Office of Fair Trading announced that it would accept the details from NACAB as a super-complaint under the Enterprise Act 2002. The OFT has been considering the issue since then and I understand that it is due to report early in the new year. Legislation on the matter exists in the form of the Consumer Protection (Cancellation of Contracts Concluded away from Business Premises) Regulations 1987, which are commonly known as the doorstep selling regulations.
      Additionally, the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982 contains provisions on cooling-off periods so that people who have bought goods from people selling door-to-door have a chance to get out of onerous contracts into which they have entered. Although legislation is in place, it is right for the OFT to consider whether further legislation is required and whether there should be closer work with the police service to tackle the problems.
      Dr. Lewis: I appreciate the Minister's comments. What is her view of the specific idea of criminalising cold calling by people with criminal records?
      Ms Blears: That issue was raised by the Trading Standards Institute, which produced a report on cold calling this year that especially examined property repair and maintenance, which the hon. Gentleman mentioned. The institute said that the statutory control of such cold calling was long overdue, and recommended criminalising people in such circumstances, and the OFT is considering those recommendations and taking them fully into account. I should tell the hon. Gentleman that it might be difficult to define the offences that would lead to a person being prohibited from doorstep selling. For example, offences such as a driving offence might not be relevant to a person's subsequent activities. However, it is legitimate for the OFT to consider the matter.
      The hon. Member for New Forest, East said that outlawing the whole business of doorstep selling would be perhaps a step too far. Doorstep selling represents a substantial business and there is only a small proportion of rogue traders, but the OFT will consider whether such action would be appropriate.
      Mr. Truswell: Does the Minister accept, nevertheless, that no reputable tradesperson really needs to use cold calling? I am heartened by the fact that the Federation of Master Builders takes no exception to the idea of outlawing cold calling for the specific purpose of property repair, maintenance and improvement.
      Ms Blears: I am sure that my hon. Friend will forgive me if I do not trespass on the domain of the Department of Trade and Industry in that respect. He has made his representations extremely robustly for a long time, and I am sure that the DTI will take on board his extensive personal experience, knowledge and expertise on the matter, as will the OFT when it considers its final report.

      1299
      I want quickly to make a point about action being taken to protect the bank accounts of vulnerable people. The hon. Member for New Forest, East made a compelling point about significant, high-value transactions taking place in a short period, and I am delighted to be able to tell him that representatives of the Trading Standards Institute and the British Bankers Association, who are on the distraction burglary taskforce, are working together on that very issue. They have a pilot scheme in Kent that asks bank and building society staff to be on the lookout for requests for unusually large cash withdrawals for building work, and to take action to safeguard their clients.
      The institute is producing videos and other training materials for use with banking, call centre and enforcement staff—everybody who deals with victims of such crime. That is an important pilot project, and we will be learning lessons from that about how we might implement it across the piece. Increasingly, banks and financial institutions are carrying out fraud checks when significant numbers of payments are made in a short period. That is an excellent way to help to protect elderly people who are particularly vulnerable.
      I want to say a little about how Departments are working together to try to tackle distraction burglary and bogus callers. It is increasingly obvious that many elderly people are in touch with social services, and they can get valuable information from their carers, home helps and other people with whom they are in contact. Many elderly people are influenced by their family, so we must get the message out to families that much of this burglary and deception can be prevented if people take simple precautions, such as checking callers and asking for proof of their identity.
      1300
      There is now a national crime protocol, which has been signed by many energy companies and those who have traditionally needed access. It requires callers to submit their identity and to provide a telephone number so that the resident can confirm it. Simple, practical steps such as those can help to reduce distraction burglary, which causes people huge distress and trauma. Through crime and disorder reduction partnerships we are trying to engage everybody in these issues as part of their mainstream business. Then, when people are going about their daily work, they are thinking about how they can help to protect elderly people.
      This is a difficult issue, because we are asking many elderly people to change the habits of a lifetime. They grew up in times when it was, perhaps, safer to be more open, friendly and welcoming and to keep the door open. These days, sadly, that is not the case, so we have to ask people to put the chain on the door, stop and check the identity of callers, and think very carefully about what is happening. It is not about being unfriendly; it is about being in control. We want to empower people so that they can rebuff approaches from rogue traders.
      I am delighted that this issue has been highlighted in the House. There is a great deal of work going on throughout the country to ensure that we protect people from such despicable activity. The more we can do to work together on crime prevention in the Home Office and the Department of Trade and Industry, the better for everybody. I certainly undertake to ensure that we have an input and work closely with the DTI before the OFT report comes out early next year.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Adjourned accordingly at twenty-seven minutes to Seven o'clock.

Preamble
[SIR NICHOLAS WINTERTON in the Chair]

HIV/AIDS
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Joan Ryan.]
2.30 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development (Mr. Gareth Thomas): Thank you, Sir Nicholas, for finding time for what the whole House will agree is an important debate. I thank the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) for taking the initiative and seeking an Adjournment debate about world AIDS day. I hope that today's three-hour debate will enable Government and Opposition Members to reflect on the Government's "UK's Call for Action on HIV/AIDS", which we published on 1 December, and to consider what is needed for us to get our response right to the horrifying HIV/AIDS epidemic.
"Call for Action" makes it clear that we are thinking seriously about the next steps. We want to hear the views of hon. Members and their constituents, non-governmental organisations, partner Governments and partners in the donor community. A series of significant recent developments in the UK and overseas has signalled an increased focus on the epidemic.
The UK media were helpful with regard to 1 December. The Guardian and The Observer both printed thoughtful supplements. I also congratulate The Sun on its thoughtful and helpful analysis of the importance of the HIV/AIDS epidemic. World AIDS day marked a significant point in the UK's political approach to HIV/ AIDS, and we are beginning to scale up our response in terms of both policy and finance.
All Members will know that the epidemic's scale is staggering. Some 60 million people have been infected since the late 1970s. There have already been 20 million deaths, and 40 million people currently live with the virus. By the end of this year, there will have been an estimated 5 million new infections—nine a minute. Sadly, we expect 3 million people to die of AIDS this year—five a minute. More than half the new infections are among 15 to-year-olds, and we know that women and girls have a heightened risk of infection.
HIV/AIDS has had its greatest impact on sub-Saharan Africa. Southern Africa has 30 per cent. of HIV/AIDS infections, but only 2 per cent. of the global population. Although much of the attention on world AIDS day was on sub-Saharan Africa, it is important to note the seriousness of the epidemic in other parts of the world. In Asia and the Pacific regions, 7.4 million people are infected, 4.5 million of whom are in India. In eastern Europe and central Asia, 1.5 million people are infected, which is a relatively low number in comparison with both Asia and sub-Saharan Africa, but HIV/AIDS is growing faster there than anywhere else in the world.
In the worst affected countries, HIV/AIDS has reversed 50 years of development gains. By 2010, life expectancy in many African countries will fall to around
140WH
30 years of age. Botswana is probably the worst affected country. It is currently an upper-middle income country, but it faces a decline in life expectancy from 65 between 1990 and 1995 to 40 now and, we think, to 27 by 2010. The epidemic's impact on the whole country might mean that it drops from being a middle-income country to a low-income country.
In the face of the greater demands, public services across Africa have to cope with significantly depleted resources. Education and health services are hardest hit and teacher absenteeism has dramatically cut the number of teaching hours across southern Africa. As we debated on 1 December, in Malawi, the number of teachers dying is outstripping the number of new graduate teachers. Inevitably, in such circumstances, morale is evaporating too, and that adds to the pressures.
In Botswana, evidence suggests that up to one third of health workers may have been infected with HIV/AIDS in 1999, and up to 40 per cent. could be infected by 2005. That will place massive pressure on its health care system.
HIV/AIDS also has a significant impact on economic growth and on the engine of economic growth, the private business sector. In terms of countries' labour forces, the International Labour Organisation estimates that nine out of 10 people infected with HIV/AIDS worldwide are adults in their productive and reproductive prime. Inevitably, AIDS leads to increasing costs for businesses because of reduced productivity as employees become sick or have to care for family members. It also leads to lower morale and to the loss of skills and knowledge.
In Chennai in India, a study revealed that absenteeism in large industries is expected to double in the next two years, mainly because of AIDS-related illnesses and sexually transmitted diseases. At a micro-level, one agro-estate in Kenya has seen its medical costs soar by 600 per cent. over six years because of HIV/AIDS.
It is not surprising therefore that HIV/AIDS has had such a significant impact in slowing down economic growth. In sub-Saharan Africa, we think that growth rates will have been cut by at best 0.3 percentage points, and at worst, by two percentage points per year by 2015-a massive impact considering the numbers that will continue to live in poverty. As adults become sick and are unable to work and money has to be spent on medical care and funerals, there is a considerable impact on household incomes.
The coping strategies that families use when one of their members has HIV/AIDS sadly, too often, gradually exacerbate the problems for household incomes. For example, they may stop producing high-value crops such as coffee and start producing lower-value root crops such as cassava, which are easier to grow but are of poor nutritional value. We know from the work of the Select Committee on International Development, among others, that the impact of HIV/AIDS on food security was demonstrated all too clearly during the recent food crisis in southern Africa.
Parents are unable to transfer skills to their children before they die; some households are forced to sell assets and take children out of school in order for them to provide care and a living for the family. Perhaps the

141WH
most shocking impact of the epidemic is the creation of many orphans. Many children are much more vulnerable because of it.
There are currently about 14 million AIDS orphans, and we think that that figure will rise to about 25 million by 2010. Such statistics can never do justice to the trauma and misery that many young people will experience because of HIV/AIDS. Orphans are less likely to attend school; they are more likely to suffer poor health and malnutrition; and they are more vulnerable to physical and sexual abuse. As I mentioned, the impact is felt long before their parents die. Children, especially girls, have to drop out of school to become carers and to take responsibility for the farm and household chores.
The social consequences of HIV/AIDS could be enormous. Children who have suffered profound distress with little adult guidance and support face very uncertain futures, often in the wake of widespread stigma and discrimination. Such discrimination may inhibit them from accessing the care and treatment to which they are entitled. A survey conducted in 2002 among 1,000 medical staff in four Nigerian states found that 10 per cent. of doctors and nurses admitted having refused to care for an HIV/AIDS patient or having denied HIV/AIDS patients admission to hospital.
We know, too, that people with HIV/AIDS suffer discrimination in the workplace. They may be removed from their jobs, or have to experience the withdrawal of health and insurance benefits.
HIV/AIDS reinforces inequality and poverty. Women, for example, shoulder the burden of caring and are less likely to be cared for themselves. They suffer greater discrimination and poverty. Equal inheritance and land rights laws fuel poverty and the risk of HIV/AIDS in many countries.
There are clear links between conflict and the spread of HIV/AIDS. HIV rates are estimated to be rising in Angola, Burundi, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Liberia, Sierra Leone and Sudan. Lack of access to information and the breakdown of services in those conflict zones create an environment in which HIV/AIDS is only too easily spread. Sexual relations and behaviour can change as a result of conflict. In many countries affected by armed conflict, there are even fewer sexual and reproductive health services and that seriously undermines the prevention and care efforts that we would otherwise wish to see.
The scale and the breadth—the severity—of the HIV/AIDS epidemic demand a more powerful response from the Government and the international community. The UK is increasing the priority given to tackling HIV/AIDS in the developing world. The "Call for Action" that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development published on 1 December calls on the international community to intensify its efforts to tackle HIV/AIDS, and to achieve progress towards some of the key international targets for HIV/AIDS that the special session of the UN General Assembly in 2001 set out.
That special session stipulated that the international community should work towards ensuring that 25 per cent. fewer young people are infected with HIV/AIDS
142WH
by 2005, and some 3 million people—2 million of whom are in Africa—should be receiving treatment by the end of 2005. We need one national strategy, one national AIDS commission and one way of monitoring and reporting on progress in every country affected by HIV in order to be on track to slow the progress of HIV/AIDS by 2015, the key millennium development goal in this area.
There are four key elements to the response that the UK wants to generate within the international community. First, we want much stronger political direction in the fight against HIV/AIDS. We will make AIDS and Africa a centrepiece of our presidencies in 2005 of the G8 and the European Union. We will work with the New Partnership for Africa's Development and the Africa partners forum to focus on HIV/AIDS. We shall push for a special session on HIV/AIDS at the UN Security Council in early 2004.
The second element of the strategy is to recognise that we need to make HIV/AIDS a priority for extra funding. The Secretary of State has made it clear that we remain committed to ensuring that £1 billion of development assistance goes to Africa by 2006. We will make HIV/AIDS a priority for the extra £320 million of the figure that we shall be devoting to Africa by that point. We shall also press for support for the international finance facility to help meet the funding gap for HIV/AIDS that we all know exists, as well as for the other millennium development goals. We shall continue to work with the global fund to enable it to disburse funds quickly and effectively.
The third element of the strategy is to achieve better donor co-ordination. We shall start by stepping up our co-ordination with the Americans and other donors in Ethiopia, Kenya, Nigeria, Uganda and Zambia—a taskforce was announced during the visit of President Bush two or three weeks ago. As I confirmed in a response to the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington, we are doubling our core funding of the Joint UN Programme on HIV/AIDS—UNAIDS—to help it to strengthen its co-ordination role in countries and also to establish an annual forum on donor coordination.
The fourth element that was highlighted by the call for action was the need to see better HIV/AIDS programmes in country. We shall work with developing countries and other partners to strengthen their generic health systems. We will produce a new UK Government strategy on AIDS next year, which will define how the whole Government, not just the Department for International Development, will work with countries to establish a stronger response in country. We shall issue policy guidance on the role of HIV treatment and care, and we intend significantly to increase our funding to developing countries through working with non-governmental, private and multilateral partners to improve prevention, as well as treatment and care programmes.
UNAIDS says that the UK is the world's second largest bilateral donor when it comes to HIV/AIDS. It is certainly true that our funding has increased sevenfold over the past six years from £38 million in 1997–98 to more than £270 million over the past financial year. We are working on HIV/AIDS in some 40 countries. Bilateral funding supports the national HIV/AIDS strategies of developing country partners such as

143WH
Kenya, where the main focus has been working with non-governmental organisations to provide services to marginal groups, such as commercial sex workers and users who inject drugs. In Kenya, we are funding an 18-month impact study of an existing programme that teaches teachers to teach HIV prevention in primary schools with a view to rolling out a more effective national prevention campaign; and, through a joint programme with the United States Agency for International Development, we have increased our support for the social marketing of condoms, using a distribution system that currently exists for insecticide-treated nets to expand the distribution of condoms in rural areas.
In recent months, partly because of the increasing affordability of treatment, growing attention has been paid to its importance as an essential part of a revised stepping-up of our response to the epidemic. The UK's early efforts were concentrated primarily on prevention, but in the past two years there has been an increasing focus on treatment, care and impact mitigation. Treatment needs to be delivered as part of a comprehensive approach to care that would include services such as voluntary counselling and testing, prevention of mother-to-child transmission, diagnosis and treatment of opportunist infections, psychosocial support, proper nutrition advice, proper palliative care, social support and a whole range of other services relating to community mobilisation.
Treatment needs to be recognised as part of a continuum with impact mitigation and prevention. Those things need to form a virtuous circle; they cannot be considered in isolation. There is evidence from a number of small-scale pilots that treatment can be administered effectively in poorer countries if it is integrated into a strong programme incorporating prevention, counselling, training and community mobilisation. For example, in Brazil, universal access to treatment has reduced HIV-related mortality by 50 per cent. since 1996.
Coverage of treatment is currently low in low-income countries. In Africa, only 1 per cent. of the people with HIV/AIDS who are in need receive anti-retroviral drugs. Sadly, it is predominantly the better-off who receive the drugs. We know that treatment is becoming more affordable as the price of anti-retroviral drugs continues to drop. In some cases, the price has dropped by up to 95 per cent. in the past three years. That has been helped by various initiatives by the UN and the Clinton Foundation, and by the efforts of the drug industry. There is no reason to think that further reductions in the price of drugs cannot be achieved, and we should certainly work for reductions by seeking further production efficiencies from companies, through economies of scale and through competition from generic producers.
We work extensively through multilateral organisations, including UNAIDS, the World Health Organisation and the World Bank. We also support worldwide research initiatives on HIV, sexually transmitted infections, vaccines and microbicides. We were a prime mover in setting up the global fund to fight AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria, and we have committed some $280 million over seven years to contribute to the long-term stability of its funding. We also contribute to the global fund through the European
144WH
Commission and, together with EU member states, the European Commission has provided more than 50 per cent. of the funding for the global fund. That is in line with the call from our Prime Minister and President Chirac for Europe to play its part in making the global fund effective.
Countering the devastating impact of HIV/AIDS on developing countries also requires improved access to affordable medicines and good health care services. That has been a priority for the United Kingdom since we came to power in 1997 and we have provided £1.5 billion, which is significant and substantial support, since 1997 to strengthen the health systems of developing countries. We shall try to do more in the coming years.
Given the scale of the epidemic and the sense of gloom that too often descends on people who study the problem, it is important to note that a number of countries have been successful in reducing significantly the prevalence of HIV/AIDS. Uganda, Senegal, Thailand and Brazil are cited as the countries that have made most progress and it is important to mention the reasons for their success. Strong political commitment and leadership is fundamental, as we recognised in our call for action. President Museveni played a key role in leading the Ugandan effort in Kenya. Early and decisive action is crucial to getting the right response. Countries that in 1990 were in a similar position as Uganda, such as Thailand and South Africa, are in a very different position now compared with Uganda. It is also crucial that those countries have engaged a broad range of stakeholders in mounting an effective response to HIV/AIDS, including civil society, local leaders, religious groups, and people living with HIV/AIDS, as well as the public and private sectors. Those countries have often involved people who are affected by HIV/AIDS in the design of their programmes, in their response to the epidemic and in achieving effective support from international donors for support of national efforts. That is another key part of the effective response.
The "Call for Action" published on 1 December is the start of a process that will take us beyond our presidency of the European Union in 2005. We want to produce a revised strategy for our work on HIV/AIDS in developing countries at some point next year and we want to engage in consultations not only with parliamentarians, but with constituents and NGOs.
I welcome the opportunity in this debate to hear the initial response of parliamentarians with expertise in the matter to the call for action and I look forward to meeting the challenge of HIV/AIDS in the coming months and years.
Several hon. Members rose—
Sir Nicholas Winterton: Order. The House is grateful to the Minister for his opening comments. I want to be helpful, so I shall not counsel brevity today. All those who wish to speak should be able to do so. I shall call the spokesman for the Opposition, and then I shall return to the Government Benches before calling the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake). Other hon. Members can be confident that they will catch my eye.
2.52 pm
Mr. Julian Brazier: I welcome the opportunity to speak in this debate and many of the Minister's comments. As this is the first time that I have had the opportunity to speak in my new capacity as shadow Minister for International Development, Sir Nicholas, I hope that it is in order to say that I feel particularly strongly about the matter. My father-in-law worked with the United Nations, as did one of my cousins, and their work often took them to sub-Saharan Africa, which, as the Minister said, is the worst focus of HIV/AIDS. Many members of earlier generations of my mother's family worked in civil administration there and I still have relatives and friends in a number of sub-Saharan countries who report back to me the sheer horror of the problem.
Much of the Minister's speech concentrated, inevitably, on the sheer magnitude of the horror that AIDS represents in many parts of the world, not just in sub-Saharan Africa. I shall repeat some of the statistics. We believe that 42 million people in the world today have HIV/AIDS and that it kills about 6,000 people each day. There are an estimated 13 million AIDS orphans in Africa alone—the Minister's figure is 14 million—and it is expected that by 2010 the total number will have almost doubled.
Many people in the prosperous west think of HIV/AIDS as someone else's problem, affecting those who are nameless, faceless and far away. That simply is not true. It was estimated that 50,000 people in this country were living with HIV by the end of 2002. Last year alone, 6,600 new cases were diagnosed. Nine out of 10 of the heterosexual cases of HIV/AIDS diagnosed last year were acquired overseas. The problem is very real, but it is our problem, too—it is coming here.
Another common misconception is that AIDS is merely a health issue. However, it affects not only the individuals concerned but, as the Minister said, it shatters families, whole communities and even in one or two cases entire countries' infrastructure. Beyond the great personal loss of losing a loved one to AIDS is the huge economic loss to the country of the growing problem. In some parts of the world, HIV/AIDS wipes out complete sectors of the work force, and not only in the health care set-up. Whole societies are affected and undermined as key groups-the Minister mentioned health care workers and teachers. I understand that in Ivory Coast 70 per cent. of deaths in service of teachers is due to AIDS. Whole generations who could be fuelling the development that, after all, the Minister's Department exists to promote are simply lost to the epidemic. UNICEF has stated:
"Today's youth have inherited a lethal legacy that is killing them and their friends, their brothers and sisters, parents, teachers and role models."
So whose responsibility is it to tackle the global spread of HIV/AIDS? If we are to make any concrete headway in the fight, there must be serious political will in developed and developing nations. The Government are to be commended for the extra money that they have committed and for shifting overseas development funding towards AIDS. However, I suggest to the Minister that, as well as extra money, we must think a little harder about the strategy.
146WH
What would Conservatives in office do to tackle the problem? We believe that the focus must be where the need is greatest: in the developing world. We have set out five key, practical proposals for tackling the AIDS epidemic.
First, we must have a more integrated approach. We need a strong partnership between non-governmental organisations and pharmaceutical companies, as well as the World Health Organisation and other international institutions. There must be a more co-ordinated response that combines the scientific expertise in pharmaceutical companies with the practical experience of NGOs, which work on the ground. The global health fund must adopt a co-ordinated strategy when disbursing funds rather than simply funding large numbers of ad hoc projects. All sides must work with the Governments of developing countries to produce an effective strategy. I wish to focus briefly on one of the Minister's examples. The Minister was right to pick Uganda from the list of the relatively few success stories. I shall be slightly more specific about the campaign there. The Ugandan Government took the lead and, as the Minister said, did so early on. They went for what one might call a blunt HIV prevention campaign. As early as 1987, they recognised the magnitude and impact of the disease and by 1992 had established the Uganda Aids Commission.
They adopted the A, B, C approach. A stands for abstinence, which is not a popular word today. B stands for being faithful to one's partner, and C for the use of condoms—an interesting hierarchy. The national strategic planning exercise mobilised Government Ministries, NGOs, faith-based organisations, the business sector, the media and cultural institutions, as well as all available assistance from the UN. The impressive result was a reduction by more than half in HIV seroprevalence in just four years. Surely, we should encourage other countries with AIDS problems, not just in sub-Saharan Africa but throughout the world, to look at that model. It is particularly impressive because Uganda is a very poor country.
Secondly, we believe that it is vital to build up the infrastructure necessary to administer medical care. Most countries in the developing world do not have the infrastructure to deal with the HIV/AIDS crisis. If people do not have the benefit of anti-retroviral treatment for HIV/AIDS, they must have access to proper medical care. For that, we need to strengthen primary health care systems and take really basic action such as improving access to clean water, sanitation and basic services. Coming from a long line of engineers, I always like to trumpet the great claim of the engineering community: that the Victorian introduction of drainage did more for health care in this country than the entire medical profession. Tackling HIV/AIDS also requires more education in developing countries to enable people to understand how AIDS is spread and treated.
Thirdly, we would like to ensure that a significant proportion of the UN global health fund is spent on purchasing the anti-retroviral drugs needed to treat people with HIV/AIDS. I welcome the Minister's

147WH
comments on providing more on that. Bernard Pecoul, director of Médecins sans Frontières, has expressed concern in the British Medical Journal that
"because donors and some in the international health community traditionally favour prevention at the expense of treatment, patients already infected will be written off as not sufficiently cost effective to treat".
That is a chilling thought.
Many countries cannot afford the necessary drugs to treat their populations. The global health fund should help poor countries to purchase those drugs. Already pharmaceutical companies are selling their drugs far more cheaply in Africa than in Europe. For example, all six of GlaxoSmithKline's HIV and AIDS medicines are available in certain poor countries at discounts of up to 90 per cent. compared with the amounts charged in rich countries—less than one tenth of the price. I hope that the Minister will take the opportunity in his winding-up speech to congratulate that company on setting a remarkable example in corporate social responsibility. It is not alone, but it has set a remarkable example.
Fourthly, we believe that the global health fund should purchase anti-retroviral drugs to be administered to pregnant women. More than 600,000 infants worldwide are infected with HIV from their mothers each year. Transmission rates are as high as 35 per cent. when there is no intervention but below 5 per cent. when anti-retroviral treatment and appropriate care are available. According to the World Bank, the cost of drugs to prevent maternal transmission of the virus could be as little as 8 cents per capita for drugs and replacement feeds, which is a tiny, tiny fraction of the cost of trying to do something for that baby after it is born.
Fifthly, we propose that the global health fund encourage research and development by pharmaceutical companies into diseases in the third world. The Minister mentioned that. The global health fund must pledge to respect the intellectual property rights of manufacturers. Pharmaceutical companies invest hundreds of millions of pounds in drugs. One of the world's largest is Fisons, just outside my constituency. Many hundreds of my constituents work there. It is an excellent company, which also has a very good record of corporate responsibility in our own local community, not least in the local health care and education systems.
Most drugs produce no return, and most projects that start in a pharmaceutical company—often expensive ones—do not produce any payback at all. Those least likely to make a return on their investment are those in developing countries. Unless the global health fund is willing to guarantee that it will uphold intellectual property rights—we can discuss afterwards how to make the drugs affordable for the people who most need them—the required investment simply will not happen in many cases. If the global health fund pledged to buy effective vaccines, that would encourage companies to invest in vital research programmes. The fact is that most of the research and development that needs to be done will be done in the private sector if it is done at all. Thinking that through—having joined-up government, to borrow the phrase—is important.
Investment in effective drugs and vaccines is the only long-term solution to the diseases of the developing world. An affordable and effective HIV vaccine could be
148WH
developed within seven to 10 years if rich and poor countries co-operated on research and development. Improvements in drugs to treat influenza, which killed about 20 million people in the winter following the first world war—some countries lost more people in the epidemic than they did in the war itself—have ensured that the number of fatalities from influenza is now very small, except among the most vulnerable people, despite NHS overstrain most winters. Other diseases, such as measles, whooping cough, rubella, diphtheria, tetanus and tuberculosis, have been curbed by vaccines and in some instances have virtually disappeared in the developed world and even parts of the undeveloped world.
To conclude, if we are to reverse the spread of HIV, there must be serious political will in both developed and developing nations. We must break down the stigma and discrimination that is fuelling the global HIV epidemic. All Governments must use their voices to educate and enlighten people about the realities, dangers and consequences of AIDS
3.6 pm
Tony Worthington: I welcome the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) to his post and thank him for what he said.
I welcome this debate in Government time. When I look back, I find that one of the great weaknesses of this place is how little we discuss big events in world; somehow, we do not find time. I welcome the Government's new document on AIDS and the declaration that we have become the second largest bilateral donor in the world. The world seems gradually to be ratcheting up its response to AIDS. That has taken a long time, but it is important.
I want to devote my remarks to the policy aspects of our approach to AIDS. The document is not really about what we do; rather, it states what the problem is and how much money we give. I am pleased to hear that another document on how we tackle the problem is on the way, which is crucial. If the Minister cannot respond to my points at the end of the debate, perhaps he could do so by letter.
Sir Nicholas Winterton: Order. If there is sufficient time, with the permission of the House, I shall certainly call the Minister to wind up the debate.
Tony Worthington: There can be no doubt that the world community's policy to date on Africa has been a dismal failure. One cannot look at the figures and disagree with that. Unless we make policy changes, we will be incapable of facing what is on the way in China, India, Russia and eastern Europe. It is said that within two to three years there may be tens of millions of sufferers in India alone. We will not stop that with what we have done so far. We must remember that Africa is a sparsely populated continent and the numbers are relatively small compared with Asia.
In some respects, we have been unbelievably amateurish and even malign. Unprotected sex has had a serious impact, yet the only protection against the virus is the condom. I have no quarrel with what the hon. Member for Canterbury said about ABC—abstinence, being faithful and the condom—but we must remember

149WH
that the condom is essential. However, the supply of condoms is not mentioned in the report, and I was disappointed that the Minister did not go into the subject. He talked about social marketing, but not about the supply of condoms to the developing world. Surely the first action should be to ensure a plentiful supply of condoms. After all, the price of a condom supplied by the United Nations Population Fund is a mere 2p, which is what we spend each year on condoms for each man in Botswana, the most infected country in the world. The average man in Botswana is supplied with one condom a year, yet an estimated 40 per cent. of the country is infected. That is shattering and must be put right. We spend billions of dollars on the valuable pursuit of developing anti-retroviral drugs, but we are not willing to spend a pittance on the only proven protection for people who would otherwise have unprotected sex.
The refusal to supply condoms kills thousands of people through both AIDS-related deaths and pregnancy-related deaths. The US has stopped providing condoms to 29 countries since 2000. The refusal to supply condoms is, in some cases, not just stupid and mean in the fight against AIDS, but malign as well. The first President Bush supplied 800 million condoms a year to Africa. The second President Bush is supplying 300 million condoms a year to Africa despite the explosion of AIDS throughout that continent. That is a result of him withdrawing funding from the UNFPA on the spurious ground that it is involved in enforced birth control in China, despite the fact that countless investigators, including representatives from this House, have gone there and have found no evidence of that practice whatsoever. However, although he has withdrawn about £28 million a year from the UNFPA, that does not relieve the rest of the world of the obligation to ensure that all poor people have access to condoms to protect them from HIV/AIDS.
I take my spiritual advice from the bishops of Mozambique. I have quoted this before, but it is a splendid statement, so I shall quote it again. They said:
"if you are HIV and you have unprotected sex and you infect someone you have in the eyes of God committed murder. If you are HIV negative and you have unprotected sex with someone who is infected and they infect you, you have in the eyes of God committed suicide. So my children wearing a condom is not a sin … but not wearing one is."
That is my kind of pro-life bishop, and I wish that there were more of them.
President Bush, in his proposed anti-AIDS programme, is obsessively funding programmes that emphasise abstinence and exclude contraception. I do not disagree that abstinence and behaviour change are crucial, but we should remember what the hon. Member for Canterbury told us about Uganda, where a Government-backed information campaign promoting condom use saw the incidence of HIV among 15 to 49-year-olds drop from 21 to 10 per cent. in just four years.
Given the dire situation with regard to condom supply, it is strange that the document does not mention how important it is. I hope that that will be put right. It beggars belief that Africa, with such a high percentage of AIDS victims, is being supplied with fewer condoms than it was at the beginning of the 1990s. That one condom in Botswana is nearly worn out.
150WH
I congratulate the Department for International Development on its contribution to microbicide research. Like the condom, microbicides act as a barrier to stop infection. Crucially, however, that barrier method is under the control of women. One of the wretched features of the AIDS pandemic is that it has made clear the extent to which women in Africa are not in control of their destinies in sexual matters and how they are so often the victims of the power relationships between men and women. Most women are infected by their husbands.
It is an interesting reflection of our values that, faced with this crisis, the major pharmaceutical companies invested huge sums in finding drugs to manage the disease in the prosperous world, which is where the profit lies. Huge congratulations must go to countries such as Brazil and South Africa for cracking the power of the big pharmaceutical companies. They did not give up their power voluntarily. They would have clung to their profits while millions died if they had not faced the new power of the poorer countries and worldwide condemnation had their control of the drugs not been broken. It is astonishing how prices have tumbled since the power of those companies was cracked in the weeks leading up to Cancun. The pharmaceutical companies invested much less in the search for a vaccine to cure the disease. Next to nothing has been invested in finding a barrier method for women. That is where DFID, the Rockefeller Foundation and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation have stepped in, and all credit to them.
I would welcome the Minister's comments, either now or in writing, on a Financial Times article of 28 November entitled, "Microbicides: Big advances in low-tech treatments", on the progress that is being made in microbicide research. Is that claim true? The article did not back up the headline with much substance. If progress is being made, it will be enormously important.
There must be a co-ordinated effort between donors. How will that be achieved? The document says that DFID will step up its co-ordination with the United States and other donors, starting with Ethiopia, Kenya, Nigeria, Uganda and Zambia. The United States programme has promised an extra $10 billion dollars to twelve sub-Saharan African countries and two countries in the Caribbean. When that money eventually turns up, those countries will receive a large sum. The five countries that DFID lists are also on the United States list. Co-ordination is good, but about 40 other sub-Saharan African countries are not mentioned by either the United States or us. How will they be dealt with?
Another strange aspect of the document is the lack of a complete commitment to the global health fund, which was founded just two years ago with our enthusiastic support. It was to have a major catalytic and coordinating role in tackling AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria, as the hon. Member for Canterbury wants it to. It is difficult to understand DFID's reticence on that issue. I expected the global health fund to be right at the centre of the document.
Through the auspices of the all-party group on AIDS, and my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard), I have met the head of the global health fund, Dr. Richard Feachem, several times, and I find him very

151WH
impressive. The global health fund's performance is getting better, but it desperately needs funding for the next round. The document's statement,
"We will continue to work with the Global Health Fund to enable it to disburse funds quickly and effectively",
is ambiguous. I would have thought that more could be said about the role of the global health fund.
On other policy areas, such as working with young people, the international community has been relatively slow to recognise the scale of the problem. The hon. Member for Canterbury mentioned the devastating number of orphans, many of whom members of the Select Committee on International Development see when we go about our work.
We have the largest generation of young people in history. All over the world—the problem is not confined to this country—people are squeamish about talking to the young about sex. We have an extraordinary belief in education, education, education, except when it comes to sex, for which we hold the strange belief that ignorance is bliss. That ignorance is killing thousands and thousands of people. We must find different ways of working with young people. We must focus on the young, however young they might be—they almost cannot be young enough. A few weeks ago, a South African group gave a presentation. When one considers the age at which people are being infected, information about altering behaviour must get to them when they are very young.
We also hope that the extended families of orphans can be helped to cope, but we need bold new programmes that make older children leaders in self-run communities. The Secretary of State and I were privileged recently to meet a group of young people from all over the world. The event was organised by Plan International, a non-governmental organisation, which urged us to stop considering children and young people simply as recipients of development aid. In some circumstances, older children must be seen as leaders. They will have to run their own businesses, farms and activities, and should be assisted in doing so. We have not focused enough on that. I want NGOs, such as Plan International, to advance such proposals.
The Minister mentioned palliative care. Many of us, including my hon. Friends the Members for Putney (Mr. Colman) and for the City of York (Hugh Bayley), have had the dismal experience of visiting African hospitals that are overrun with AIDS victims. The wards are dingy and dirty, with several people to a bed and relatives all around trying to give what support they can. Those hospitals have nothing to give to those people. They do not have the drugs or the expertise. Palliative care is needed.
I have also seen work carried out in the back streets of Nairobi by a group of volunteers, led by an inspirational nun from the west country in Britain, which was achieving miracles in supporting people in their homes. The other side of the problem is, of course, that the hospitals cannot get on with the rest of their work because of the presence of AIDS victims. They are unable to help the people whom they could otherwise have assisted.
My final point is my main one: we continue to make a great mistake in our approach to the prevention and treatment of AIDS. When AIDS first appeared, the
152WH
stereotype of the AIDS sufferer was of a reasonably well off, white, gay male or an intravenous drug user. Now, the stereotypical AIDS sufferer is a desperately poor black, heterosexual woman. Our approach to AIDS has not changed to reflect that. If the disease had been seen as starting with poor, black, heterosexual women, we would have seen AIDS as it is—a reproductive health issue. Overwhelmingly, AIDS is a heterosexual sexually transmitted disease. That was recognised at the 1994 Cairo conference on reproductive health, at a conference that I attended in Ottawa last year, and by the World Bank, which says:
"Integrating HIV prevention into mother and child health and family planning programmes addresses missed opportunities to curb the HIV epidemic."
If we had conceptualised HIV as something to which women in poor countries were particularly vulnerable, we would have taken a dramatically different approach to AIDS. We would not have been so obsessed with anti-retroviral drugs. At whatever price, anti-retroviral drugs will not be sufficiently cheap or sustainable in many African situations. We should put far more resources into reproductive health and preventive work because behaviour change is required, and clinics would be better equipped to cope with the huge problem of mother-child transmission. There are no symptoms to indicate that a person is HIV-positive. That can only be found out by testing. In many cases, people find out too late that they are HIV-positive, and, as the hon. Member for Canterbury said, that is disastrous for a child on the way.
We could have ensured that enough condoms were available, the drug companies could have shown more interest in vaccines and microbicides, and we could certainly have concentrated on women's gender empowerment. However, we initially saw AIDS as affecting mainly affluent gay males in the developed world, which distorted our approach to the problem. I hope that the forthcoming DFID paper addresses that and considers how changing the AIDS paradigm could introduce new and helpful approaches.
3.25 pm
Tom Brake: I congratulate the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) on his maiden speech in his new role. I also congratulate the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Tony Worthington) on raising the important issue of condoms and the position adopted by the US. I find its attitude less than helpful. He could have mentioned also the position that the Vatican has adopted, which is equally unconstructive, if not destructive.
I thank the Minister for referring to the debate that took place on 1 December; I will try not to go over too much of the same ground. A half-hour Adjournment debate is not sufficient to discuss the matter, and it is therefore entirely appropriate that the Government have made more time available. I hope that we will return to the matter on a regular basis.
I will touch on five or six key areas: funding, to which the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie referred in relation to the global fund; the issue of overlapping initiatives that I raised in the debate 10 days ago, which concerns Government policy in the Department for

153WH
International Development that is undermined by policy in other Departments; orphans, to which several Members have referred; questions that were still up in the air after the Adjournment debate on 1 December; and the critical issue of the leadership that the Government and others will provide.
On funding, many Members are members of the all-party group on AIDS, or receive its excellent briefings. One briefing confirmed that, if one were to consider UK wealth, the contribution that the UK would be expected to make to the global fund in 2004 is about £107 million. It would be interesting to know whether the Minister agrees with that figure and whether there are any negotiations within the Government about the level of funding for the global fund. Clearly, there was an opportunity yesterday in the pre-Budget statement to make an announcement, but I am not aware of any having been made.
The overstating of funding is another issue, particularly in relation to condoms. Depending on the circumstances, the spending on condoms is accounted for in relation to initiatives related to birth spacing and as funding in relation to HIV/AIDS. There may be some double counting on which the Minister could comment; or he could guarantee that it is not taking place and that the funds are clearly allocated to one fund or to the other. It may be that he would like to state the circumstances where it is appropriate for the condom to be used in both cases. I cannot foresee circumstances in which it would be appropriate for it to be used in both cases. Perhaps the Minister could comment on that.
As for solutions, it is one thing to identify a funding issue, but hon. Members will have followed yesterday's Prime Minister's questions in relation to the Liberal Democrats' funding pledges. My role in the party is to fight for additional AIDS funding, and the global fund is a priority. I hope to bring forward good news on that front. However, one source of funding is already available, and I would like the Minister to say what the Government are doing about funds from the European Union. I understand that about $2 billion of unspent funds are available from the EU. The problem is that the developing countries have to apply for those funds. Will the Minister confirm that the Government are working with developing nations to help them gain access to that money, which could increase the funding for HIV/AIDS initiatives?
The Government see the international finance facility as a mechanism for bringing forward investment to tackle HIV/AIDS. We support that concept, but can the Minister tell us something about the reality of it? Is there a target for the funding that is to be raised through that mechanism? What has been the response from other countries to the initiative? Have any of them signed up to it? Is there a deadline by which contributions have to be made for that facility?
I spoke about overlapping initiatives at some length in the Adjournment debate on 1 December and I do not intend to dwell on the issue to the same degree today. Suffice it to say that the Government support the idea of the "three ones"—one commission, one strategy and one method of reporting. I wonder whether that is sufficient, and whet her we need an individual organisation to take the lead within a country. Clearly,
154WH
having one commission and one strategy is good, but if two major organisations are active in a country, the risk is that initiatives will overlap. I hope that the Minister can say more about that.
I wonder whether the Minister believes that the "three ones" will be able to resolve some of the problems that I understand from today's Financial Times have been experienced in Nigeria. They seem to have the funding, but there has been a problem in the supply chain. As a result, people have started anti-retroviral treatment but the supply of drugs has been held up somewhere, thereby putting the programme at risk.
On the question of initiatives being undermined by activities of other Government Departments, it is worth dwelling briefly on the situation in Ethiopia. Ethiopia's epidemic started in the early 1980s; it now has the 16th highest prevalence rate globally, with an estimated 5,000 people being infected every week. Nearly 3 million people are infected, and nearly 1 million children have been orphaned. However, one should look at the activities of the Department of Trade and Industry in relation to Ethiopia.
Notwithstanding the Prime Minister's comment on 9 December that we already prevent the sale of small arms in Africa, the arms export licences that have been granted by the Government to Ethiopia include licences for chemicals that could be used as precursors for toxic chemical agents, for aircraft and air equipment, for imaging equipment such as radar and infrared, and perhaps more alarmingly, for production equipment to manufacture arms. The Minister said in the debate on 1 December that he would talk to other Government Departments as part of the consultation process, which was very welcome. He should be discussing quickly and seriously with the DTI whether providing arms export licences to Ethiopia, a country where there is a conflict with Eritrea, is appropriate. I hope that he will report back on those discussions in the near future so that hon. Members can be reassured that the discussions between the Department for International Development and other Government Departments such as the DTI are meaningful.
The Minister will no doubt be aware that Save the Children issued a statement after the call for action on HIV/AIDS was published, which said:
"The absence of a priority focus on orphans and other children made vulnerable by HIV/AIDS is alarming, given the scale of the impending crisis".
It went on to congratulate the US Administration as
"the only Government to specifically allocate funding to AIDS affected children."
I invite the Minister to comment on that. Does he believe that there is an issue there and that it would be appropriate to identify separate funding for children and orphans, specifically for priorities such as education, food and protection? I would welcome his comments on that.
In the Adjournment debate on 1 December, I mentioned Canada's patent laws. The Minister did not respond to that, but he is going to today. He had an opportunity to do that on 1 December in that the Government had already written to me confirming that they were actively pursuing that idea, but the letter was

155WH
unfortunately lost in the mail. I hope that the Minister will set out how he sees the idea being taken forward. Is there a need for primary or secondary legislation?
Mr. Gareth Thomas: Let me try to put the hon. Gentleman out of his misery now. I apologise for not having covered the point in my response to him on 1 December. Our colleagues in the Department of Health are examining that system and the legislative change needed to effect it in the UK at the moment. It is an issue of shared competence, so we are also discussing with the European Commission what changes are necessary in European directives. Work is under way to sort out the issue
Tom Brake: I thank the Minister for his extremely useful clarification. That is good news, although anything involving the European Commission may take rather a long time to get resolved, and clearly we do not have time. I am sure that the Minister will throw his weight around as much as he can to try to get that sorted out as quickly as possible.
On leadership, there is an issue on which the Minister might not be able to comment unless he does so with help from his officials, discreetly or through thought transfer. Has the internal reorganisation in the Department for International Development helped to provide leadership on HIV/AIDS or has it in some respects made that harder to tackle? I understand that a small core of people have taken over all responsibility for the issue and are now examining it. It may be that other people who previously had some involvement now do not see it as their role to be involved. Perhaps the Minister could comment on that, or if anyone wants to write to me anonymously, that is fine.
Mr. Thomas: Ultimately, it is the responsibility of Ministers to make decisions on how one responds to particular development challenges. I know that there has been concern about reproductive health. One of the groups of officials in the Department is tasked to work on the millennium development goals and on reproductive health. Our internal reorganisation is helping us to generate a more effective response, and I hope that hon. Members will accept that in the light of the call for action that we have published and in the light of the recognition that we need to do more work to get our strategy right. Ultimately, however, that is the responsibility of Ministers, not officials.
Tom Brake: Clearly, I understand that, but it would be useful for hon. Members if stated objectives for that reorganisation were placed in the public domain so that we could assess whether they had been met.
Returning to the issue of leadership, the call for action document says:
"We will engage directly with leaders for example at the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting."
I hope that the Minister will be able to set out exactly what—apart from the Mugabe incident—happened in relation to HIV/AIDS at the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting. Was it discussed, and if so, what was the outcome of the discussions?
The document also refers to the annual forum on donor co-ordination, as have other hon. Members and the Minister. The first meeting is planned for early 2004,
156WH
and I wonder whether the Minister will tell us when the meeting will take place, who is likely to attend, and what sort of items will be on the agenda. In the debate on 1 December, I referred to the priority that the Government have stated will be given to HIV/AIDS when they take over the G8 and the European Union presidencies. That is something I welcome. However, at the time I said that the Government had also decided that trade was to be a priority of the G8 and EU presidencies, and a couple of days ago, the Prime Minister said that climate change was going to be a priority of the G8 and EU presidencies. There is a point where everything cannot be a priority. I do not know whether there is a hierarchy of priorities that will be discussed under those presidencies, but I hope that the Minister will do all he can to ensure that the issue of HIV/AIDS is not lost because of the other priorities that will be discussed while the UK holds the presidency of those two groupings.
There is clearly a crisis in Africa with HIV/AIDS. The infection trend in the UK is worrying. There is the threat of a pandemic in Asia, which has not really kicked off yet. The Government's call for action is a strong start to the process. but there is still more room for consistency in relation to interdepartmental Government policy. We shall need to return to this subject again and again, because if we allow our attention to be diverted, millions more will die and millions more will be orphaned.
3.43 pm
Hugh Bayley: I congratulate the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) on proposing and securing the debate.
HIV/AIDS is clearly the greatest humanitarian challenge facing the world today. It is killing more people than wars or famine, and many, many more people than terrorism. In the west, because of medication, it is mainly now a chronic illness. In developing countries, HIV is a death sentence. In developing countries, its victims are so weakened by the disease, so poor, so often stigmatised, ostracised and isolated, and so widely dispersed around the world that they have not attracted the attention of television cameras in the same way as wars or famines. As a result, their plight has been overlooked for far too long.
I warmly welcome the Government's publication of their "Call for Action" on HIV/AIDS. It sets out important objectives, reminds us that the UK is the second biggest bilateral donor—after the United States of America—and it commits the UK to formulate a new Government HIV/AIDS strategy in 2004. I know that many Members, including those here today, will want to make a contribution to that strategy.
In the new year, the Africa all-party parliamentary group will hold an inquiry into HIV/AIDS. It will examine the social, economic and political consequences of this unprecedented epidemic, which in some countries is likely to kill at least a quarter of the adult population. It will address the actions that could mitigate those dire consequences and the preparations that need to be made now to deal with the social and economic consequences in 10 years.
The group has already put out a call for written evidence, and I hope that the Government will submit a draft of evidence. It intends to hold oral hearings in the

157WH
spring, and we have invited the Secretary of State for International Development to appear before our group. We intend to produce a report and conclusions, which we will forward to the Government, and which we hope will contribute to the policy development process for their new strategy. We also hope that the report will provoke questions and debate in both Houses of Parliament. As the chair of the all-party group, I should declare an interest. The group receives from the Royal African Society the benefit of the work of a part-time researcher.
I will now offer my initial comments on the Government's work on their new strategy: I should emphasise that they are my comments, not those of the group. The strategy must relate the initiatives funded by the Department for International Development and the multilateral agencies that we support more closely to the outcomes that the Government wish to achieve than does the "Call for Action" document. We need to estimate the impact that each initiative is likely to have on those outcomes and regularly to audit the progress towards them.
The global fund annual report for 2002–03 projects that its current funded programmes will increase over the next five years the number of Africans receiving anti-retroviral drugs from 50,000 at present to 400,000, and the number of people in the world receiving voluntary counselling and testing will rise from 3 million to 31 million. The United States also sets out explicit goals in its strategy: its funding is intended to prevent 7 million new infections and to care for 10 million HIV-affected persons and orphans.
The biggest change in UK policy, which is highlighted in the excellent "Call for Action" document, is the Government's decision to commit resources to treatment. I welcome that. I used to be a sceptic: I thought that the cost of anti-retroviral treatment in developing countries was too high and that the same amount of money spent on prevention would save more lives. I changed my mind at about this time last year when, as a member of the International Development Committee, I visited Malawi during the famine that that country was experiencing. That famine was greatly intensified by the HIV/AIDS epidemic. We discovered that drugs that cost £10,000 per person per year in Europe were available to a very small number of people in Lilongwe for £360 per person per year.
In the 12 months since that visit, the cost of anti-retroviral drugs has fallen further. The Clinton Foundation has negotiated contracts with suppliers to produce anti-retroviral drugs for 38 cents per day, or something like $140 a year. That is still an enormously high sum for most developing countries-the average health spend in sub-Saharan African countries is $20 per person per year—but it is not the unimaginable figure that $10,000 per person per year, the western cost of those medicines, would be. When one considers that $140 per year is less than the cost of providing insulin for a diabetic in Africa, the figure becomes affordable and feasible. One would not suggest that diabetics in Africa should receive no treatment and be allowed to die.
In Malawi too, members of the International Development Committee saw the devastating effect of AIDS on the number of teachers, nurses and civil
158WH
servants. We were told that 6 to 8 per cent. of all the teachers in Malawi die each year, and that the cost of returning their bodies to their home villages and of their funerals absorbs a major slice of the education budget. One third of the top officials whom we met at the Ministry of Agriculture and Irrigation—the people responsible for leading the country's response to the famine—were HIV-positive. Some will have died in the past year. The rest, without treatment, will die in the next two or three years.
That raises a question; what will Malawi do if it faces another famine in two or three years' time but has lost a third—maybe more—of its top agricultural experts? If some of those people could be kept alive to use their expertise and knowledge and to pass that knowledge on to other people, that would be worth $140 per year. Although this should not be merely an economic matter, that is also far less than the cost of retraining other people to take their place.
I warmly support the Government's decision to spend money on anti-retroviral drugs in Africa. The "Call for Action" document envisages that, by 2005, some 2 million out of the 29 million people who are HIV-positive in sub-Saharan Africa will be receiving anti-retroviral drugs, which raises a difficult ethical question. How does one choose whom to treat? I urge the Government—better still donors and recipient countries working together—to establish and take advice from a medical ethics committee that consists of doctors who specialise in the disease, ethicists and health economists.
A number of criteria need to be assessed to ensure that the allocation of anti-retroviral treatment is not arbitrary and does not merely favour the richer urban elites. The committee should examine the clinical impact—for instance, it might make a decision to treat people at a later stage of HIV, when their immune system is depleted and when people are at the greatest risk of opportunistic infection, and to set that as a criterion. It should also consider the social impact. Perhaps it might decide to protect carers—for instance, a surviving parent of dependent children after the other parent dies. It would need to consider the economic impact, and the argument for preserving key workers such as teachers, nurses and agricultural specialists. The committee might also consider the epidemiological impact. For example, it could intervene in areas of highest prevalence, if it can be shown that treatment encourages others to come forward for voluntary testing and counselling, and if that voluntary testing and counselling changes behaviour about safe sex.
Finally, the committee could possibly look at the risk and danger of creating a drug-resistant strain of HIV/AIDS. That could occur if people who were allocated drugs did not stick rigidly to their drug-taking programme. There are many reasons why people might not do so. Their supply of drugs could be disrupted. The side effects might influence their decision. They are not pleasant drugs to take, and the temptation if one feels that one's HIV status is under control is to miss some of the drugs. They might not take them because of generosity to friends, giving the drugs to those who were not chosen to receive drugs, or possibly because they were so poor that they were selling their drugs on the street corner. If such things were to occur, that could lead to the development of drug-resistant strains of HIV

159WH
infection, so it might make sense to limit the provision of the drugs to areas with health infrastructures that are adequate to supervise the drug regime.
Medécins sans Frontières is currently testing that theory in rural parts of the Democratic Republic of the Congo. It is seeing whether effective anti-retroviral treatment can be provided in areas without that health infrastructure. If Médecins sans Frontières proves that such treatment can be provided, my worries would be unfounded. These are not issues for politicians to determine; it is for a medical ethical committee to draw up clear guidelines so that the allocation of drugs is rational and fair, and not arbitrary and skewed towards those who are more powerful.
The new emphasis on anti-retroviral treatment should not divert attention or resources from less heroic, lower-tech, but possibly more effective, medical therapies such as vitamin A supplements. When the Select Committee visited the Kintampo health research centre in Ghana, we learned about work supported by the Department for International Development and carried out in partnership with the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, the John Hopkins university in the United States and other clinical centres. It had been discovered that six-monthly supplements of vitamin A given to infants between the age of six months and five years reduced child mortality by 23 per cent. If we are concerned about saving lives, that is a highly effective intervention that costs about 1 cent per dose—1 cent every six months. The same centre is carrying out randomised controlled trials with pregnant women following a study in 1999 in Nepal that showed that a slightly different regime of vitamin A supplements produced a 43 per cent. reduction in maternal mortality.
We need to continue research to find a safe and effective microbicide, as my hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Tony Worthington) suggested. It was reported in the Financial Times last week that even a partially effective microbicide could prevent 2.5 million infections over three years. DFID is funding microbicides and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has made an extremely generous $60 million donation to the International Partnership for Microbicides. As my hon. Friend so rightly said, that sort of intervention would bring particular benefits to women, who often find it difficult to negotiate safe sex in Africa. We should remember that 60 per cent. of all new infections in Africa are among women.
We need to consider the benefits of using anti-retroviral drugs not to control HIV infection, but to reduce mother-to-child transmission, as the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) pointed out. Some 600,000 African children each year are infected with the HIV virus by their mothers. They have a very short life expectancy—on average less than two years. The South African Treatment and Action Campaign believes that the use of anti-retroviral drugs to control mother-to-child transmission could save 20,000 South African children a year from acquiring HIV-positive status.
We also need to increase funding for the supply of simpler drugs, including antibiotics, to deal with the opportunist infections that those with HIV/AIDS face. When the Select Committee was in Malawi a year ago, we saw that Lilongwe Central hospital was under acute stress. It had fewer staff, because so many had died from
160WH
the epidemic, and many more patients to care for. The hospital estimated that a vulnerable person who in the past might have been admitted once a year with pneumonia could be admitted six or seven times if they were HIV-positive. That has had a devastating effect on the hospital's drug budget and the availability of drugs for treatment. We need to focus on the need to treat sexually transmitted diseases other than HIV, because of the increased risk of HIV transmission from unprotected sex to those who suffer from such diseases. Possibly most important, we need to look at the availability of food, because a healthy diet is the first line of defence against HIV infection.
I have an administrative point for the Minister. The United States has appointed a top executive to lead its programmes to combat AIDS globally, Randall Tobias, who is a former chief executive of the pharmaceutical company, Eli Lilly. The UK is the second biggest bilateral donor. According to "Call for Action", we provided 28 per cent. of world bilateral aid to fight HIV/AIDS globally this year, compared with the 35 per cent. that the United States provided. Although we provide a little less than the USA, our expenditure is in the same league. Perhaps we also need to appoint a high-powered executive to carry forward our programmes.
In the debate on Africa in the House a month or so ago, I said that even if we had a magic wand and could tomorrow prevent all further HIV infection, the death toll among those already infected would continue to rise, at least until the end of this decade, with enormous social, political, economic and security consequences for Africa. That is the issue that we in the all-party Africa group wish to address in our report. If we—the donor countries and Governments in Africa—do not address those consequences now, how will we care for the millions of orphans in 10 years' time? How will we educate them? How will we create a viable economy and an effective public sector? How will we stop failed states that become refuges for terrorists? How will we address all those problems? The simple answer is that unless we address them now, by 2010 it will be too late.
4.2 pm
Mr. Neil Gerrard: I am pleased that we are having this debate, and I welcome the Government's document, "Call for Action". I do not propose to repeat all that has been said about that already, but I am sure that we would all support the points that the Minister highlighted about funding, better co-ordination and better programmes. Having read the document and listened to the Minister and the Secretary of State, I am also glad that we are not going to promote the simplistic message that abstinence is the only way of tackling HIV. Given what my hon. Friend the Member for City of York (Hugh Bayley) said about the American attitude, that is important.
It is pleasing to see that over the last two or three years, HIV/AIDS has moved up the international development agenda not just in the UK, but across the world. Five or six years ago it was not there, and was not given the priority that attaches to it now. That is essential, because we know—we do not have to guess—that political leadership is necessary to intervene and make a difference. We know from Uganda, Senegal and other countries that have been successful, that political leadership at the country level is important. We know

161WH
that it made a difference here too, and we should give credit to the Ministers who were responsible for health in the UK in the 1980s. They responded quickly to an emerging epidemic and ma de a big difference. It is important that that happens internationally as well. Although, as will always be the case in such debates, much has been said about the massive scale of the problem, and the fact that we have never seen an epidemic on this scale before, some current developments can give us encouragement and provide real opportunities.
My hon. Friend the Member for City of York has referred to changes in treatment, and it is true that two, three or four years ago many people were saying that drugs could not be delivered in poor countries. Things have changed—and it is not only people's attitudes that have changed; there have been important changes on the ground, for example in the price and in the sort of drug regime available. There are simpler drugs and treatments, perhaps requiring just one or two tablets a day, rather than some of the complicated regimes that we are more familiar with. The pharmaceutical companies, perhaps because of some of the pressures that they have been under, are seeing the need to do something to change their policies. I agree with what my hon. Friend said towards the end of his remarks: this is not just about drugs and treatment, and there is no one simple answer telling us what we have to do.
The main issue that I want to concentrate on is resources and the mobilisation of resources. "Call for Action" refers to the United Nations General Assembly special session. I was privileged to be a member of the UK delegation to UNGASS, and before this debate I looked back at the UNGASS declaration. It was there that the vital decision to establish the global fund was taken. We can discuss what ought to be done on treatment, what ought to be done on care and what ought to be done on the provision of drugs, but the root of all those is the provision of resources. It does not matter what policies there are; if there are not the resources to implement them, action will not be taken.
We know a great deal about what needs to be done. We know that we do not have a cure, that we are some way off a working vaccine and that a lot more needs to be done on protection methods such as microbicides, but we also know much that will work, both in treatment and prevention. It is not difficult to find projects to put money into that we know will make a difference. We have seen such things and we know that they can work.
I shall quote what my right hon. Friend the Chancellor had to say about resources, which related to the international finance facility and went a little wider than just HIV. In evidence to the Select Committee on International Development, he said that
"we would not meet the millennium development targets on primary education for Sub-Saharan Africa, given the current rate of progress, until 2129 and we would not meet the millennium development targets on extreme poverty until 2147 and on child mortality until 2165."
He went on to say that
"the need for extra resources is obvious."
Those comments in themselves demonstrate what needs to be done on resources.
162WH
I have heard what hon. Members have said about the global fund, but I am not sure whether the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) was quite clear about what it does and why. He mentioned the need for it to purchase drugs, but the global fund does not purchase drugs; it does not purchase anything. It is a financing mechanism, as it was set up to be. It does not take action itself, but finances other people to do so. The key feature of the global fund is that it does not try to dictate to people in individual countries what they should do. It looks at projects and programmes that are put forward, carries out assessments to see whether those programmes look as if they will succeed technically, and then decides whether to finance them.
When we consider all that has happened, we must remember that the global fund came into existence only in January 2002, since when we have had three rounds of grant approvals, with #2 billion approved for 224 programmes in 121 countries. The money is now being distributed: #155 million has been disbursed so far, and the speed of disbursal is increasing.
When I compare that rate of progress in less than two years with the normal rate of progress of Governments and large institutions, it strikes me as pretty good that things are happening at that speed. The resources are being disbursed to the right places: so far 60 per cent. of the approvals have gone to Africa, 20 per cent. to Asia, the middle east and north Africa, and 20 per cent. to Latin America. HIV/AIDS has received 20 per cent., 23 per cent. has gone to malaria and 17 per cent. to tuberculosis.
We could argue about the exact balance and whether a particular initiative should or should not have been funded, but I would not argue with the fact that the fund is making real progress and starting to target money in the right areas. My hon. Friend the Member for City of York pointed out some of what is expected from those first three rounds after five years.
The pledges that have been put in place for the global fund since 2002 include $1.6 billion from the US, $627 million from France, $428 million from Italy and $340 million from Germany. For 2004, just over $1 billion has been pledged so far; the fund needs $3.3 billion to do what it would really like, and it would like two rounds of funding in 2004. It is $300 million short for the first round, although it will almost certainly obtain that. The question is: will it get the extra money to meet the $3.3 billion that it would like to spend in 2004? In 2005 the fund will certainly need $3 billion, because by then, as well as there being new projects to fund, some of the first grants will be up for renewal. What will we do to ensure that it hits that target?
It is important to remember how the fund obtains its money. The US is obviously the biggest donor, but the US Congress has required that contributions be no more than 33 per cent. of the total global fund. The US is putting in money but it is asking others to put in money as well. There is a danger that if we do not obtain matching funding from the rest of the world, the global fund will not get all that the US has been prepared to put in. Given the points that my hon. Friend the Member for City of York made about the attitude of the US to some bilateral funding, and the fact that it may withhold funding from a particular country because it does not

163WH
like its birth control policy, for example, the more we encourage the US into adopting multilateral funding, the better.
I hope that we shall consider the contributions that we, too, make multilaterally as well as as an individual country. The point has been made about the European Union and our presidency in 2005, and we know that there is money sitting in the European development fund that is not being spent. We should consider whether we could get our hands on that and disburse it to the global fund or other initiatives.
On the question of the international finance facility, the Chancellor said that, as we would all accept, there was a need to obtain more money to meet the internationally agreed millennium development goals. The aim of the international finance facility is to increase the amount of development aid from $50 billion to $100 billion over 10 years, to double the amount of international finance aid. The money will be raised not only by countries donating money, but through the international capital markets. The intention is that 80 per cent. of the IFF will be raised through market borrowing. That is a shift in the way in which money is raised, which means that significant amounts of debt will be incurred. That raises several questions about how the IFF is intended to operate, to which I hope that the Minister will provide answers. If he believes that it is the Treasury's responsibility, perhaps he will draw it to the attention of Treasury Ministers. If large amounts of debt will be incurred over the next 10 years through the international capital markets, how will that debt be repaid after 2015?
I am still unclear about other aspects of the IFF. The other significant issue is how the money will be disbursed. Who will decide where the money raised through the IFF will go, and what the systems of accountability will be? We more or less know what is happening with the global fund and the systems of accountability and monitoring that are being set up. We will be able to see the effects of those, and obviously we want to see the effects of our own bilateral aid. If, however, the IFF raises a great deal of money, how will it be disbursed and who will monitor the process? Who will be accountable? Will the money be distributed only through the Government, or will it be distributed to non-governmental organisations or to civil societies?
Many questions remain that are still unclear. A question that has been asked several times is how the distribution of the money will be co-ordinated. How does the IFF fit in and co-ordinate with other significant initiatives such as the global fund and multilateral initiatives organised by the World Health Organisation and UNAIDS? We want more money, but we also want to ensure that we know how and where it will be spent.
There are many other initiatives, but I will not dwell on them as they are not the direct responsibility of the Department for International Development. We should support the WHO's initiative to improve access to treatment, to establish drugs and diagnostic facilities and to advocate funding. We should also support the work done by the Clinton Foundation, and support the bilateral aid donated under the US emergency fund and the World Bank. Many initiatives make me optimistic that we are starting to push HIV/AIDS further up the international agenda, which we have not managed to do before.
164WH
Since DFID produced "Call for Action", many more people are taking an interest in the issue and are seeing the importance of it, which is to be welcomed. DFID produced a strategy some three or four years ago, but we should see its new updated strategy early next year, which is also very welcome.
I want to make two final points. First, this is not a short-term problem. My hon. Friend the Member for City of York made that point, as have other hon. Members. There is no quick fix for HIV/AIDS. Politicians are pretty useless at long-term commitments. We tend to look for quick fixes and quick answers, but there is no quick fix or easy answer for this problem. When we commit resources, we need to commit them not only for 2004 or 2005, but for years and years to come. Long-term commitment is necessary. Now there is increased interest and HIV/AIDS is further up the international agenda, we must ensure that in two or three years' time it does not slip back to where it used to be.
Then there is the question of what we can afford, both as individual countries and through the international institutions. My hon. Friend the Member for City of York said that in the UK, HIV/AIDS had become a chronic illness. I am a little wary of being that confident. People are still dying of AIDS in the UK; somebody with whom I worked through the all-party group died of an AIDS-related illness just a few weeks ago. We have only had anti-retrovirals for a few years. Although we can be hopeful, none of us can be sure that in 20 years' time the drugs will still work for the people who are taking them now. The drugs do not work for everybody, either, and we know that drug resistance can occur—there have been examples of that in the UK. Therefore, we should be cautious about assuming that we have cracked AIDS in the UK, and we no longer have a problem.
On the subject of resources, I looked at some of the figures in the Chancellor's pre-Budget report yesterday. It says that by 2006, the UK alone will be spending £15 billion a year more than we do now on education, and by 2008 we shall be spending £41 billion more on health. Yet we are arguing about whether we should put £40 million or £107 million a year into the global fund. When we think about international development issues, we should put things in perspective. This Government have done more than any Government have done for many years in increasing our contributions to international development. We can be proud that we have increased the aid budget significantly. However, when we compare £40 million or £107 million with an extra £41 billion for health in the UK alone by 2008, can we really say that we cannot afford more resources? The truth is that we cannot afford not to find more resources, because if we do not, the impact will not be just in Africa or Asia, but here, too.
4.22 pm
Mr. David Borrow: I am pleased that the debate is taking place this afternoon. Four years ago, I made my first visit to sub-Saharan Africa, when I was part of a delegation that visited Botswana. I remember meeting its then Minister of Health and raising the question of HIV/AIDS. I was told that it was not a major problem, and that people who became ill were looked after at home. Several days later, we visited

165WH
a diamond mine and the company township. I asked the general manager about HIV/AIDS. The company had just completed an anonymous survey of its work force, which had revealed an infection rate of some 30 per cent. That led the company to review its entire recruitment and staffing policy and the resources that would have to be put into health care for the work force. Twelve months later, some colleagues from this House went to Botswana, and found that the whole approach had changed. The Government had become very proactive, and that has been the case ever since.
In 2000, I visited Uganda, the country that had been affected first and had taken a proactive approach. Even so, the infection rate was nearly 20 per cent. Lots of people were dying and ill, a lot of foreign and non-governmental organisation money was going in, and many workers from outside Uganda assisted in dealing with the epidemic. However, despite all that good work, the epidemic was still progressing—although the infection rates were beginning to fall.
If I were asked then, or even 12 months ago, what our priority should be I would have said that we should do what we could to assist with the basic health care. I agree with what my hon. Friend the Member for City of York (Hugh Bayley) said about that. However, our priority now should be the development of a vaccine. Two or three years ago, we were told that vaccine development was about five or 10 years away. It is still five or 10 years away—and in another five or 10 years it will probably still be the same. At that point, it seemed that the key priority in the international response was putting money into the development of a vaccine. The pharmaceutical companies had developed anti-retrovirals, which were generally available in the developing world, and also in Uganda, if people were prepared to pay for them. There was a weekly clinic at the Mildniay hospital in Kampala, which shows that those were available to people who could afford to pay. At that time, however, they were not regarded as something that should be made generally available throughout iub-Saharan Africa.
My view changed after a meeting towards the end of last year, at which Botswana was discussed. Botswana is a country of just over 1.5 million people. but it has a 39 to 40 per cent. infection rate and within the next few years it faces the prospect of the whole of its middle-range population being wiped out and a whole generation of children being left without parents. There is no way that a society facing that can survive, because there will be no role models, no parents, and the whole family structure will fall apart. Even if drug therapy can keep parents alive for only 10 or 20 years to allow those children to be brought up to adulthood in a different environment, that is a price worth paying. The alternative is too horrible to think about. However, that is not the long-term answer. I shall return to that later on.
Two or three years ago I was invited to a UNAIDS and Inter-Parliamentary Union meeting in Geneva, where a handbook on the human rights approach to HIV/AIDS was developed for parliamentarians. I had many discussions with parliamentarians from the developing world. It came home to me that we will tackle HIV/AIDS only if we face up to what is happening in our societies. HIV strips away the pretence
166WH
in societies. We pretend that we are living smug, 2.2-children family lives, but the reality of relationships is different. Unless people face up to those differences, there will be no chance of dealing with HIV/AIDS.
Earlier this year I was invited on a study tour. I visited Peru, New Zealand and Ethiopia—three very different countries—to study HIV/AIDS. I had an interesting meeting with the New Zealand human rights commission and the New Zealand AIDS Foundation in Auckland. We discussed how New Zealand had tackled its HIV problem in the 1980s. The country realised that the groups most at risk were gay men, intravenous drug users and sex workers and it had to do something to enable proper prevention work with all those groups. Gay sex had to be decriminalised and equal rights had to be brought in for gay men in New Zealand. New Zealand had to allow needle exchanges and recognise all the political and legal difficulties of such a measure and tackle them. Earlier this year, as part of a human rights approach that recognised the reality of what was going on in society, it passed legislation to make prostitution legal.
It was interesting that in New Zealand the prevention budgets went to organisations set up to work with client groups. The New Zealand Aids Foundation is run by and for gay men in New Zealand and is the delivery arm of the prevention services in New Zealand. Similar organisations operate for drug users and prostitutes. New Zealand may be atypical, but that was its approach.
We also visited Peru where the infection pattern is very similar to that in most western countries and arises among men who have sex with men. The approach of the Peruvian Government during the 1980s and 1990s was progressive. They worked with a gay rights group based in Lima to implement much of their prevention work, involving the use of condoms and recognition of the problem. The legal issues concerning the age of consent and criminality had already been removed. Two and a half years ago, the Government appointed a new Health Minister who was a member of Opus Dei. He reversed the prevention approach involving condoms and so on and advocated abstinence instead of providing the tools to deal with prevention in the real world. HIV prevention took a big step backwards. However, a few weeks before I visited Peru, a new Health Minister, who was a health professional, was appointed. I met him and he was in the process of changing and reviewing that policy because he recognised the difficulties and what had gone wrong. The human rights approach, which recognises the realities of what happens in the community, is essential, but that is sometimes uncomfortable and in parts of Africa it is often uncomfortable.
I was in Ethiopia in December last year and spoke to a number of people there about marriage, how women and men meet and the age difference. Women in Ethiopia are married very young, but if a woman says no and does not want to marry a man, it is not uncommon for that woman to be raped because the man knows that no other man would marry her after that. The law in Ethiopia is progressive and there has been a lot of good work. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Redcar (Vera Baird) visited Ethiopia twice doing human rights and women's issues work with the judicial

167WH
police there. The legal framework is progressive, but the reality on the ground is that its society is regressive, anti-women and male-dominated.
I have some figures from a survey by Voluntary Service Overseas in South Africa in 2000. It covered 37,000 young men and found that one in four had had forced sex with a woman by the age of 18. Such gender issues are uncomfortable for society, but their role in the way which the disease is transmitted is central to tackling the spread of the disease.
Mention was made of the fact that most women who become infected are infected by their husbands. A survey by the Positive Women's Network in India estimated that 75 per cent. of women in India with HIV/AIDS were infected by their husbands, who were their only sexual partner. We must recognise the reality of what happens and the difficulties that must be faced. Drugs are important, but it is also important that, under the Government's initiative, we work with our partner Governments in the developing world to face up to some of the issues concerning the spread of the epidemic which are uncomfortable and worry me.
In western Europe, north America, Australia and New Zealand we think of men who have sex with men as being the main group at risk, and most—if not all—of those men would consider themselves to be gay. I asked questions about transmission in Peru, and was told that 30 per cent. of young men under 25 in Peru had a bisexual lifestyle. In India, despite the denial that men have sex with men, it is not uncommon, but those men do not regard themselves as being gay. They are married and have children, but have relationships with other men. In India, a lot of the work being done on prevention is done with female sex workers. It is not uncommon for those in India to believe that one can get HIV from a female sex worker, but not from a man.
Those are uncomfortable issues that have to be faced. In India, out of 1,000 million people, a million people are already infected. In cultures in south America, there is much more ambiguity concerning sexuality. However uncomfortable those issues are, AIDS strips things down and reveals the reality of the relationship. What we think is happening is not necessarily what is happening. Societies have to go through some trauma in introducing legislation and practice that recognises the reality of sexual relationships in their communities. That will be the challenge in much of the developing world if the disease is to be beaten.
I want to touch on one or two other issues briefly. One issue raised in the last year is the question of transmission through medical procedures. There was some controversy about the suggestion that a large part of the HIV infection in sub-Saharan Africa resulted from hospital treatment. When in Ethiopia, I examined some of the figures on infection rates. In the figures relating to children aged from one to four, up to the age of 14 or 15, there is no point in the middle age range where there is no infection rate. Therefore, there are youngsters too old to have got the disease from their mothers and too young to have got it through sexual activity, who are still picking up the infection. Having visited some of the hospitals, I recognise some of the risks surrounding the use of syringes and various other instruments—or their improper use. I think that there is a problem of transmission taking place between patients
168WH
in medical facilities. If we can help to improve the cleanliness and proper procedures of medical facilities, that will have some effect.
I visited the Mother Teresa AIDS orphanage in Ethiopia. There were 250 youngsters in that orphanage up to the age of 11 or 12. Every child was infected. When we went round the facility, I saw many who were quite seriously ill. That brought home to me the fact that those youngsters did not all get the disease from their mothers—they must have picked it up somewhere else. That is a real issue.
Mr. Brazier: I have been listening very carefully to everything that the hon. Gentleman has said, and he has made some telling points However, the point that he makes about recognising the world as it is somehow carries an implication that he does not want to see a change in behaviour. If there is a country where a quarter of the young men committed rape, there has to be a change in behaviour. He gave the example of children getting infected. In many of those countries, child prostitution is the reality, and it is a reality that we have to work to change, not just accept.
Mr. Borrow: I hope that the hon. Gentleman has not misinterpreted the gist of what I am trying to say. There is evidence that transmission can take place without sexual activity. Obviously, child rape and child prostitution is a significant matter. Sex at a very young age is not common, but where it is we must get society to recognise it and do something about it.
My last point may tie in with what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard). Anti-retrovirals are not the solution. Most western societies are now on the sixth, seventh or even eighth drug to be used in the cocktail. After a time, the drug cocktail becomes less and less effective, and other drugs have to be developed to add to the cocktail. Only 80 per cent. of those who are HIV positive respond to the drug treatment, which means that 20 percent. do not respond. Resistance to the drug therapy is inevitable, and we continually depend upon more drugs being developed. However, we cannot assume that the new drugs will be as effective.
I saw some interesting statistics when I was in New Zealand, which reflect what is beginning to happen in many western societies. Effective prevention programmes—condom use, safe sex and so on—can bring down the rate of new infection within at-risk groups. However, over the past four or five years, even with ARVs being available, the group of people who are infected is growing because, every year, more people become infected. Whereas five or six years ago, a certain number would die, the cohort of infected people in the community continues to expand. The time will come when the prevention work that reduces the number of deaths will be defeated by the fact that we have a bigger pool of infected people.
Infection rates here, in the United States and in western Europe—and in Africa once ARVs are used more often—will dip and then go up again. Not only we but millions of people throughout the world will then be dependent upon an expensive drug treatment that needs to be changed regularly to respond to the changes in the disease. The only long-term solution is to invest in the

169WH
development of vaccines. The drug treatments merely give us breathing space. In Africa, it is crucial to help keep those societies together.
Mr. Kerry Pollard: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. However, we should accept that some simple things can be done. I was recently in Zambia, and went to Chirundu on the border between Zambia and Zimbabwe, where there is much cross-border traffic. Lorries can take three days to get across the Zambezi river, because they are held up by bureaucracy. During that time, lorry drivers indulge in sex day after day. We should speed the process up by getting them across in five minutes; it could be done if the drivers and lorries were registered on a computer. That would make a singular difference, and it would cost absolutely nothing. It is nothing to do with anti-retroviral drugs; it is a simple matter of bureaucracy.
Mr. Borrow: My hon. Friend is right in recognising that although treatments and drugs are essential, the way in which the disease is spread is important. In eastern and southern Africa, the disease has been spread along the lorry route and, in the early stages, by sex workers at lorry stations on the way. That pattern needs to be recognised, which is uncomfortable for those societies to do, but they have largely done so, and action must be taken to avoid some of those pitfalls.
If the world community got its act together, ARVs could enable Africa to avoid complete disaster. However, a long-term solution to the problem can be achieved only if the rich developed world does something that the pharmaceuticals would be reluctant to do on a profit-and-loss basis: put investment, year after year, into the development of vaccines to deal with the various strains of the disease.
Several hon. Members roseߞ
Sir Nicholas Winterton: Order. We still have plenty of time. Two further hon. Members seek to catch my eye, but we should give the Minister 10 minutes or so to reply to the important points that have been raised in this interesting and important debate.
4.45 pm
Ms Sally Keeble: Thank you, Sir Nicholas.
I am grateful to have the opportunity to take part in this debate. I agree with everything said by previous speakers, particularly my hon. Friends the Members for Clydebank and Milngavie (Tony Worthington) and for City of York (Hugh Bayley) on the gender issue, which we perhaps had not recognised. It was interesting and inspiring to hear my hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Mr. Borrow) talk about human rights, which we may also overlook somewhat.
I will deal with two particular issues: HIV/AIDS in orphans, and anti-retrovirals, which colleagues have also spoken about. First, I welcome the Government's call to action, the announcement of extra money and the support for the provision of ARVs. It is an enormously
170WH
welcome injection of funds and an important recognition of the need for strategies of treatment as well as prevention and education.
However, I am concerned about the lack of attention given to HIV/AIDS orphans. They are one of the biggest challenges of the AIDS epidemic. If we in this country had the equivalent of a city the size of Birmingham consisting entirely of orphans, what would the Government do? How would we ensure that those children were fed, clothed, educated and, perhaps more importantly, socialised and turned into functioning adultsߞor prevented from becoming dysfunctional adults? That is the challenge facing Zimbabwe, which has up to 1 million AIDS orphans. We all know the difficulties that that country has in a whole range of areas, which are overlaid by that particular social dimension.
In other southern African countries, one in five children have been orphaned by AIDS. That figure is due to almost double as the AIDS death toll unfolds. Previous speakers have talked of the profile of the deaths as a result of AIDS. Whatever happens in the future, a generation of orphans already exists. As the founder of a home for orphans in Zimbabwe said to me, "These children are literally a time bomb."
Last month, I went to three of the worst-affected countriesߞto Lesotho and South Africa with World Vision, and also to Zimbabwe. Both World Vision and UNICEF produced excellent reports on the position of AIDS orphans, which I recommend to colleagues.
I found the visit traumatic. People in those countries know what is needed, they have policy frameworks and there are some inspirational examples of child careߞI met outstanding and dedicated professionalsߞbut there is a complete lack of money for any rolling out of services. Of course, there is also a lack of food, which is critical.
The situation is heartbreaking. I spoke to a family of six orphaned boys, who had managed to live together in extraordinary circumstances for several years since their parents' death. The eldest was only in his teens. I met a 68-year-old widow, who was caring for her 15 orphaned grandchildren in a hut in a remote part of Lesotho. I also met a young girl who was living with her baby sister and recently widowed mother. Her mother was still traumatised by her husband's death a week earlier. The mother and baby were both HIV-positive and unwell so the little girl was going to be completely orphaned and lose her sister. There was no money, and they had few possessions: just a tiny stone hut in the middle of nowhere in Lesotho.
I met children who had lived on the streets before being taken into a children's home. Those children came with all the problems associated with the street: glue sniffing, child prostitution and a tendency to antisocial behaviour. The home that they were living in was run by an elderly vicar and it was trashed by some of the boys. Former street children are not dear little orphans but some of the most difficult children that one could find. There was a shortage of money to put right what had happened, quite apart from all the difficulties in feeding and clothing the children.
I gave a detailed report of my visit to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, so I shall just a pick out a few points. First, there is a big difference between

171WH
announcing headline spending and providing front-line services. What the children need are front-line services, and they need them quickly as they will soon be grown up. There is an issue about the length of time that it takes for funding to go through the international system, and we must ensure that money is spent effectively and quickly. The focus needs to be on service delivery and community-based services, which often come in below the radar of the international system. I hope that that will be looked at in developing strategy. From what I saw, there are many ideas at local level about how to achieve that. There is, however, a shortage of money.
Secondly, the services needed are not just health services; indeed, they are mostly not health services. I went to speak to the Zimbabwe National Council for the Welfare of Children, which is a non-governmental organisation that pulls together other NGOsߞI must add that it did not realise that it was talking to a British MP. It said that the priorities for the children are: protection of property rights; access to certificates and legal guardianship because if children cannot prove when they were born, they cannot get access to all kinds of things; protection from abuse, including abuse in care; housing; payment of school fees; purchase of school uniforms; access to food and medicine; and, something that is often neglected by us, counselling and psychological services.
Thirdly, any strategies for orphans must also deal with carers. I met a 68-year-old widow who was a stroke victim and was caring for her orphaned grandchild. When she went out to forage for wild vegetables to supplement their mealie meal, she had to carry the little orphan boy on her back because she could not leave him. One has to ask oneself what the prospects are for that child, the woman and the three other grandchildren that were about to be orphaned by AIDS and who would end up living with her. We should be familiar with that syndrome from our experiences in this country. Vulnerable peopleߞusually womenߞend up being carers for even more vulnerable people.
That brings me to my second point, which relates to any anti-retrovirals. I take on board the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble that those are not cures and should not be seen as any kind of panacea, and that there is still the need to look for vaccines. I welcome the initiative to get 3 million people on to anti-retrovirals by 2005, but I think that that is doing too little and it will not keep pace with what is already unfolding in southern Africa in terms of the scale of the epidemic and, importantly, people's aspiration to live. The professionals whom I met said that anti-retrovirals should be part of any strategy for dealing with AIDs. They also said that any strategy would have to recognise the survival needs of carers, especially of mothers, because, as they put it, the death of the mother predicts the failure of the child.
The specialists at the Baragwanath hospital in Soweto expected the availability of anti-retrovirals to drive improvements in primary health services, not the other way round. Much more is needed, and I echo the comments that have been made about the cost of it all. It does not all have to be desperately expensive. I saw the programme for treating pregnant women in Baragwanath. I was given one of the pills that is provided. I thought that I would bring it back as a souvenir of my visit, and I am holding it up now. When
172WH
I said that I did not want to take away an expensive pill, I was told that the plastic bag that it had been put in was probably more expensive. After a woman has been to the clinic, she takes the pill with herߞit is put in a bag and clipped to her notes. She takes it when she goes into labour, and she gets a second pill when she delivers a baby. That simple programme can, of itself, roughly halve the number of babies who are born HIV-positive, which represents great progress in tackling the epidemic. Although the drugs are cheap, there are issues about delivery: there is not enough money to roll this out nationally, let alone regionally.
We also need to face up to the public response to these drugs. Although anti-retrovirals are not cures, many people regard them as the new miracle drugs. They want them. If we in the affluent part of the world do not fund proper strategies for provision of these drugs, people will find ways to get them by hook or by crook, and then, at some stage in the future, we may have to deal with the consequences of their interrupted use, which some doctors consider to be misuse. My hon. Friend the Member for City of York raised this issue: I do not know whether interrupted treatment will be a great problem in the future, but it certainly can be in the short term for individuals.
Maluti hospital is one of the leading hospitals in Lesotho for dealing with HIV/AIDS. In conjunction with a pharmaceutical company, it was providing six-month courses of anti-retrovirals, because it could provide people with only six months of treatment, which is just enough to stabilise them.
In Lesotho, I met a young girl called Mamphaso who had had one of those six-month courses of anti-retrovirals. She and her mother were HIV-positive, and they had been taken into hospital earlier this year. One morning, she woke up to find that her mother's bed was empty. The community nurse, who is very fond of her, got her a six-month course of anti-retrovirals, which pulled her back literally from the brink of death. When I met her, she was living again in a hut in a remote area with her grandmother. When that course is finished, Mamphaso's health will deteriorate again. There might be some more money in the future for anti-retrovirals, untilߞthe nurse expectsߞat some stage she will have a reaction against them, which I am told is one of the risks of interrupted courses of treatment, and she will die. Of course, without the drugs she will die, too-and probably quite quickly.
I have a daughter of about the same age as this little girl, and I have worked out that the cost of her anti-retrovirals is about the same as the cost to the NHS of treating my child for a simple complaint that she will outgrow. Therefore, I challenge what is said about the cost of the drugs. There are enormous pressures on us to ensure that we can provide these treatments on a proper and consistent basis.
One of the saddest moments on my visit was when I asked the little girl what she thought Governments should do for HIV/AIDS orphans. She was a mature little girl, and she had talked me through all the problems that she had faced with that wisdom that some small children have, so I expected her to say something about money or medicine. However, she spent a little time thinking, and then she said, "I think that the Government should give toys to the children."

173WH
That is a reminder that we are talking about children. If we are going to do justice by them, we need to fund policies and strategies that will meet the developmental needs of children. We are not very good at that in this country. We have just got a Green Paper on children, but that is the first one that we have had since 1997.
The last time that we faced a big challenge of dealing with orphans, we sent some of them off to what is now Zimbabwe. There is art issue about sowing the wind and reaping the whirlwind: with the HIV/AIDS orphans, the legacy will be ferocious if we do not get the strategies in place to meet all the needs of this generation. I urge my hon. Friend to put more emphasis on the strategy that has developed on the needs of orphans, in line with the proposals that have come from UNICEF and World Vision, and to push the international community, because we cannot do everything ourselves. We must push our international partners to ensure that they massively increase the funds for antiretrovirals.
Several hon. Members roseߞ
Sir Nicholas Winterton: I call Tony Colman, and congratulate him on his patience and equanimity in waiting so long.
5 pm
Mr. Tony Colman: It is a privilege and an honour to take part in this debate, to follow so many of my esteemed colleagues and to have heard their words of wisdom. I hope that I will be able to rise to the excellent standard of the debate so far. The debate is supposed to be about accelerating the UK's response to the HIV/AIDS epidemic, and I always believe that before one looks abroad one should perhaps address the situation in one's own country, albeit briefly. In the excellent information pack that we received from the House of Commons Library is an article from The Independent on Sunday, dated 30 November. It says:
"The number of people living with HIV in the United Kingdom rose by 20 per cent. last year to 49,500. So far 15,000 people have died from Aids. The epidemic is accelerating, not declining here. There were 5,711 new diagnoses of HIV to the end of September last year, the highest since records began in 1987. The number of new cases was 15 per cent. up on the 4,982 diagnosed in 2001 and is expected to rise to 6,400 when all reports are received. The rate of infection has more than doubled since 1997."
Clearly, those figures are extremely low compared with those in many countries that we have spoken about today, but it is important that we take on board the need to deal effectively with the situation in our country. I have six children aged between 22 and 37, and I would want them all to use condoms when they have sex. It is extremely important that we do not shy away from that topic with our own children. We must accept that this is a problem not only abroad but here. Great praise is due to the Methodist Church and the United Reformed Church in the United Kingdom for publishing on world AIDS day, for UK consumption, a booklet called "Speaking out about HIV/AIDS". It is important to see what is happening in the UK.
Like other hon. Members, I welcome the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) to his role. When I was doing some research for this debate, I looked up
174WH
the very good article that his colleague the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), the shadow Secretary of State for International Development, wrote for The House Magazine. Like the hon. Member for Canterbury, I shall follow the structure of that article, which is headed, "Escalating the war on AIDS".
The first point raised by both hon. Gentlemen is the need for a strong partnership between NGOs, pharmaceutical companies, the World Health Organisation and national Governments. We have heard from my hon. Friend the Member for St. Albans (Mr. Pollard) about the amazing work that World Vision does in Zambia and elsewhere in southern Africa. I, too, on a separate occasion, visited the Chirundu lorry stop and was appalled to hear that so many of the sex workers there, who were in their early teens, would be infected within two weeks. It is appalling to see that situation. One of the Health Ministers, who is working on the simple idea of speeding up the lorries, accompanied me there.
I have to say that the problem lies more on the Zimbabwean than the Zambian side, but World Vision is doing excellent work on its cross-border initiative and I strongly request the Department for International Development to get involved in funding World Vision to help to open up lorry routes into Angola from the south. Angola is currently largely free of HIV/AIDS compared with other countries in the region, and it is important that that work be done now, rather than our having to pick up the pieces subsequently. There are many other NGOs in this area, but I pay tribute to World Vision in particular.
Secondly, it is important for Governments to deal with the issue. It concerns me that in many countries the campaign to deal with HIV/AIDS has stayed within the president's area, largely, perhaps-I hope-because of the importance of the issue, but perhaps also because of the large amounts of funds that are available. The work should go to the Health Ministries, if possible. I pay particular tribute to Charity Ngilu, who is the Health Minister of Kenya. I know that he finds it difficult to get joined-up government between the President's office and the Health Ministry.
Mr. Pollard: Does my hon. Friend accept that as well as presidents taking an interest in such matters, countries themselves must acknowledge that HIV/AIDS exists? I visited Iraq about 18 months ago and spoke to the Health Minister. I asked him how many HIV/AIDS sufferers there were in Iraq, and he said that there were none. I cannot believe that that is true. Governments themselves must recognise the problem before any progress can be made.
Mr. Colman: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend.
As I said, I was pleased that the Minister was able to accompany me and see with his own eyes what was happening. In opening the debate, he spoke about the shortage of doctors, nurses and teachers caused by HIV/AIDS. I am proud to have the organisation Voluntary Service Overseas in my constituency, and it supplies just those workers on an entirely voluntary basis. It is amazing that in many countries of the world there is a problem in getting work permits for people to go in and do that work. I would be happy to give the Minister

175WH
chapter and verse on that. It seems slightly bizarre that there are shortages, and there are people willing to volunteer and devote one, two, three or four years of their life to countries where there is a great crisis, but they are unable to do so. Work is being done under mode 4 of the general agreement on trade in services of the World Trade Organisation that may help move that situation forward.
The third area of partnerships is the private sector. I worked in the private sector before entering the House, and it is good to see the work being done by companies such as Anglo American and many others, which are committing themselves to providing anti-retroviral treatments not only for their staff and the families of their staff but for the countries in which they work. I strongly applaud that.
My wife raised her eyebrows when she found a condom in my toilet-bag after I returned from Cameroon, but I told her that I had picked it up in the hotel in which I was staying, because I thought that it was such a good example of the private sector coming up with practical ways forward. In this case, a major hotel chain was providing condoms along with the shampoo and the shower caps. I hope that my wife believed me. [Interruption.] In response to that comment from a sedentary position, yes, there was just the one. I asked and was told that it was replaced every day. One can jest about such issues, but that is a good example of real partnership and looking for ways to deal with the epidemic.
The next point in the list is the need to ensure that there is infrastructure for administering medical care. My hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Tony Worthington) rightly said that we have seen many dirty, dingy wards on our journeys as members of the International Development Committee. I was particularly pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Mr. Borrow) mentioned dirty needles, which is something that people find difficult to discuss.
I take the New Scientist, and I was astonished to find in that esteemed periodical on 6 December an interesting article, headlined, "WHO accused of huge HIV blunder". The following edition on 13 December contained no letters correcting the article, and I have not seen it corrected elsewhere. It follows up the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble. Apparently, last week
"the group Physicians for Human Rights based in Washington DC sent an open letter to the WHO and UNAIDS. It calls for more resources to be spent on preventing infection by dirty needles."
It is said that
"Using the WHO's estimate that 7.6 per cent. of infections in 1988 were from dirty needles or blood transfusions… healthcare is to blame for 10 million infected people today. If needles cause closer to half of all infections… tackling the problem would have kept the epidemic confined to high-risk groups".
The article continues:
"UNAIDS drew up a report, which has been seen by the New Scientist… Based on a review of 23 studies, it concludes that in sub-Saharan Africa, 'contaminated injections may cause between 12 and 33 per cent. of new HIV infections'. That is far higher than the accepted 2.5 per cent. figure."
176WH
It is said that
"hundreds of studies have reported significant numbers of children who… have contracted the disease despite having HIV-negative parents or parents with a different HIV strain. A study of nearly 10,000 South Africans released last year, for instance, found that 5.6 per cent. of children aged between 2 and 14 were infected. Most children infected by their mothers die before their second birthday, so the surprisingly high figure points to infection routes other than sex being important."
That backs up what my hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble said.
The issue is important and difficult, but at the end the article says, again quoting Physicians for Human Rights, that,
"compared with trying to promote safe sex… Clearing up the medical system is not such a major task."
If those are the facts, that issue must be dealt with and not swept under the carpet Dealing with it should be a major call on the money available from the UN global health fund.
The third point is that a significant proportion of the UN global health fund's money should be spend on anti-retroviral drugs. As my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) said, the choice on how to spend the money lies with Governmentsߞthe global health fund does not spend it on their behalf. However, it is good that the money is becoming available, and I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie that it is impressive to see the commitment of the senior management of the fund to following the initiative through. I am also pleased to hear that we are a prime mover in the fund.
That brings me on to the fourth point, which is the difficult issue of mother-to-baby transmission of HIV/AIDS. For the last two years I have said a lot about the free availability of the Boehringer Ingelheim drug Nevirapine, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble) referred. Interestingly, the Financial Times surveyed a large number of countries, including the whole of Africa, and found that the only two countries using the drug systemically were Ethiopia and Botswana. I repeat that Nevirapine is free and that there is no reaction to it, so mothers who are HIV-negative as well those who are positive could take it, and it could be administered to all the babies. I understand that the drug has an 85 per cent. efficacy rate, so huge numbers of children without HIV could be born to HIV-infected parents.
We face an extraordinary state of affairs. My hon. Friend the Member for City of York (Hugh Bayley) is due to lead hearings as the chair of the excellent all-party group on Africa. When he does so, I hope that he will ask Governments across the world why they are not taking advantage of Nevirapine, which has been made available free and could stop mother-to-baby transmission. I have attempted to talk about the issue again and again. I hope that the reason is not to do with replacement feeds. That can be a factor, because an HIV-infected mother cannot breastfeed her non-infected child; otherwise the child would be infected. I look forward to the Minister's response on that subject.
We are approaching the moment when the Minister must be allowed time to respond, so I shall make my last few points. The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) mentioned intellectual

177WH
property rights, and it is extremely important that they are supported. If anything, I would like there to be longer licence periods for IPR. The hon. Member for Canterbury touched on that matter. I do not understand why there is as yet no legislation before the House dealing with the agreement of 30 August. Three and a half months have passed, but nothing has happened.
The International Development Committee's very good report was published today, and in it, we back Oxfam's call for action now. I understand the fact that we must work with the European Commission because this is an area of so-called mixed competence. The Department's response, which has already made its way to me, and to the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington, states:
"We are encouraging the EC to move as rapidly as possible."
All I would say is that three and a half months is not as rapidly as possible.
Canada has passed the legislation, but the United States and Switzerland have not$I am talking only about the countries with major pharmaceutical companies. It is extremely important that we be seen to take a lead; those who are suffering this epidemic demand no less.
Sir Nicholas Winterton: With the permission of the House, I call the Minister to reply.
5.16 pm
Mr. Gareth Thomas: I will try to do justice to the interesting and thoughtful contributions of all those who have participated in the debate. I will certainly need to reflect further on them as we work up our strategy for next year. I was particularly interested to hear from my hon. Friend the Member for City of York (Hugh Bayley) that his all-party group will conduct an inquiry into this issue, and I will look with interest at what it has to say.
I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) on his new post. He made a very interesting speech, and I will pick up on three of his points. Perhaps the most important related to the need for an integrated approach to treating HIV/AIDS. Hon. Members have touched on a whole series of different aspects of the HIV/AIDS crisis. The point of an integrated approach is to emphasise that every sector of Government and society must play its part in finding solutions to the problem. That is why, as part of our call for action, we re-emphasise the need for one strategy, which NGOs, civil society, Governments, donor communities and others can take part in formulating—one AIDS commission to deliver that strategy and, crucially, one monitoring and evaluation framework. That integrated framework is central to the response to HIV/AIDS, and it has been at the heart of the strategy in countries where we have been successful in reducing prevalence rates.
The hon. Gentleman asked me for more detail about the vaccine and the wider research effort. My hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Tony Worthington) also raised the issue. We are working through the International Aids Vaccine Initiative, which is a global non-profit making
178WH
organisation that is working to speed the development and distribution of preventative vaccines. We have funded a five-year programme of support for IAVI. It began in January 2000 and is worth £40 million. IAVI has eight vaccines under development for use in the developing world. The candidate vaccines are being developed by the Medical Research Council and by the universities of Oxford and Nairobi. They are aimed at combating the HIV strain that is most common in east Africa. The most significant progress seems to have been made in the Oxford and Nairobi trial. We will all continue to support that work and hope that it leads to a successful vaccine.
My hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie also talked about microbicides and asked how the research effort was progressing. The products that have been developed are entering phase 3 trials, but there has been no breakthrough yet. There will be a bi-annual conference in London on microbicides in March 2004. I hope that researchers on those programmes will be able to give us some good news.
I join the hon. Member for Canterbury in congratulating GlaxoSmithKline on its sense of corporate responsibility. I also congratulate other members of the accelerated access initiative-Merck, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Hoffman-LaRoche and Abbott Laboratories. However, I re-emphasise that we need to work with them further to see whether we can continue to push down the price of drugs and consider other aspects of the pressures such as the inability to secure proper access to medicines for people in rural and urban areas.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie that providing access to condoms must be a fundamental part of our response. The UK already devotes considerable resources to bilateral funding programmes to support the provision of condoms. For example, we give £2 million to Ethiopia and £8.6 million to Kenya. My hon. Friend touched on the work of UNFPA, which estimates that there will be a 50 per cent. increase in demand for condoms. The UK clearly needs to do further work on funding such programmes and convincing the wider international community to get behind the need for greater access to medicines.
My hon. Friend also touched on the issue of co-ordination, to which several hon. Members have referred. The five countries with which—during the visit of President Bush—we and the Americans agreed to work closely on donor co-ordination are just the beginning. We need to learn the lessons of that process and roll them out in order to improve donor co-ordination across the rest of sub-Saharan Africa and the other countries where HIV/AIDS is a particular problem.
I was interested in the idea of a drugs tsar proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for City of York, although the role is best left to UNAIDS. Indeed, one reason why we have extended our funding of UNAIDS is to help it improve donor co-ordination. Every country needs to make its own decisions about how to organise its response. I think that the Department for International Development taking the lead is the right response; we do not need a drugs tsar. However, it is crystal clear that donor co-ordination is nothing like as effective as it needs to be. We will work with UNAIDS to develop that

179WH
further. We are also working with our European partners and have just begun discussions with France. We want to continue to make HIV/AIDS a priority in European Union discussions. It is interesting that each of the next four like-minded presidencies of the European Union—that includes our own—wants to make HIV/AIDS a priority. I hope that that engenders confidence in the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) that there will be a sustained EU focus on HIV/AIDS.
My hon. Friends the Members for Clydebank and Milngavie, for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) and for Putney (Mr. Colman) touched on the issue of the global fund and the UK's attitude to it. Uncharacteristically, my hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie suggested that we are more sceptical about the global fund than is fair. We were a leading supporter of its establishment. Along with President Chirac, the Prime Minister has campaigned for further funding from the European Commission and EU member states. At the moment, Europe provides the majority of funding for the global fund.
However, we have been cautious partly as a result of reports from staff of in- country offices in Africa about the additional bureaucracy generated by the global health fund and increased transaction costs for partner Governments. Those reports have been echoed in our discussions with Government officials in those countries. There have also been problems with consistency and transparency of some of the global fund processes, and with how some of the mechanisms can be harmonised effectively with country procedures.
We have been working closely with the global fund to try to resolve those issues. I share the views of its director, Richard Feachem, who is a very impressive person, as hon. Members will be aware. We have good relations with him and his team. It is the UK Government's responsibility to work closely with the global fund to resolve problems when they are pointed out to us. I alluded to the fact that part of our strategy will involve examining the issue of financing, and the global fund will be considered as part of that. Several funding instruments can be used in our response to AIDS: not only the global fund but bilateral country programmes. HIV/AIDS will be a priority for the further funding that we are committed to spending in Africa, for example, in the run up to 2005–06, as it will in our generic funding of the development of health systems.
The last point that my hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie raised was the importance of involving young people in organising responses to the HIV/AIDS epidemic. The crucial point is that we must ensure that young people are involved at an early stage in the development of a strategy, that they have an input
180WH
into the work of national AIDS commissions and that they are consulted on the effectiveness of in-country responses to HIV/AIDS.
The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington asked whether I agreed that there is a funding problem in the international response to HIV/AIDS—I do. Some $4.7 billion is being generated internationally, but UNAIDS estimates that $10.5 billion is needed by 2005 and $15 billion by 2007. Therefore, the international community needs dramatically to scale up its financial and policy response. I should add one note of caution: as a result of a reduction in drug prices, UNAIDS is re-examining its figures and will be publishing its conclusions in early 2004.
My hon. Friend the Member for City of York also touched on the possibility of a medical ethics committee. That is an interesting idea, but it is a matter for individual countries to address as part of their thinking on how strategies and AIDS commissions will work. Clearly, it is important for countries to examine how they ensure in the fairest way that treatment reaches those who most need it.
Importantly, my hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Mr. Borrow) highlighted the need for a human rights response to HIV/AIDS. He usefully drew attention to the importance of tackling stigma as well as discrimination and the gender dimension to it. That needs to be a fundamental part of countries' responses. If a series of other issues is not tackled, HIV/AIDS will just get worse. That must be at the heart of countries' responses and explains why political leadership is so important. We should examine not just the necessary headline issues and strategic responses, but the wider responses to discrimination, which often prevent people from gaining access to medicine.
My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble) discussed the detailed report on her visit, which I have had a chance to glance through but will read a little more thoroughly. She is right that we must do further work on the problem of orphans. Free primary education and strengthening our support to community-based care for orphans and vulnerable children as part of a broad multi-structural response to HIV/AIDS are fundamental. We have worked with UNICEF and UNAIDS to examine that in more detail.
My hon. Friend the Member for Putney highlighted the issue of Nevirapine and mother-to-child transmission. In the past, he has referred to Botswana, where only 15,000—
Sir Nicholas Winterton: Order. I am afraid that time is up. I am sure that the Minister will reply by letter or by other forms of communication in response to the questions with which he has been unable to deal.
It being half-past Five o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the sitting lapsed, without Question put.

SCOTLAND

  Big Conversation
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what visits(a) he and (b) Ministers in his Department (i) have made and (ii) plan to make using public funds in connection with the Big Conversation; how many civil servants accompanied each Minister in respect of such visits; what the cost to public funds was of visits by (A) each Minister and (B) civil servants in connection with the Big Conversation; and if he will make a statement. [143161]

  Mr. Darling
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, on 9 December 2003,Official Report, column 355W.

  Fisheries Council
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions he has had with the First Minister on progress of negotiations towards the December Fisheries Council. [142045]

  Mrs. McGuire
  My right hon. Friend and the First Minister discuss a wide range of matters.

  Top-up Fees
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received from(a) student representative bodies and (b) the university sector in Scotland on the subject of top-up fees. [142729]

  Mrs. McGuire
  My right hon. Friend has not received any representations on the subject of variable tuition fees from student representative bodies, but he has had correspondence from three MPs writing on behalf of Scottish universities and individual students.

  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what written representations he has received from the First Minister of Scotland on the subject of top-up fees. [142764]

  Mrs. McGuire
  [holding answer 8 December 2003]: My right hon. Friend has frequent exchanges with the First Minister on a range of relevant issues, including the possible impact in Scotland of the introduction of variable tuition fees in England.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Noise Pollution
  Tony Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what provisions exist for the police to take action against motorists who emit loud noise from car stereos. [141919]
  536W
  Mr. Bradshaw
  The police have powers to restrict noise from moving vehicles under Regulation 97 of the Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986. This regulation makes it an offence to use a motor vehicle on the road in such a manner as to cause any excessive noise that could have been avoided by the exercise of reasonable care on the part of the driver; this includes excessive noise from car stereos. The penalty is a fine of up to £1,000.

  In addition, Section 59 of the Police Reform Act 2002 gives power to seize a vehicle if it is being used in certain specified circumstances, including in a manner
  "causing or likely to cause, alarm, distress or annoyance to members of the public".
  The Police (Retention and Disposal of Motor Vehicles) Regulations 2002 (SI 2002/3049) provide for the retention, safe-keeping and disposal by the police (or persons authorised by them) of vehicles seized under section 59.

  Cider
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what volume of cider was produced in the UK in each of the last five years. [142140]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The volume of cider produced in each of the last five financial years for which data are available is as follows:

  Financial Year

  Million litres

  1997–98

  475

  1998–99

  495

  1999–2000

  505

  2001–01

  510

  2001–02

  495

  Source:

  Mintel

  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the total profit made by UK cider producers was in each of the last five years. [142141]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The total profit before tax made by major cider producers in the UK in each of the last five financial years for which data are available is as follows:

  Financial Year

  £Million

  1997–98

  51

  1998–99

  15

  1999–2000

  28.5

  2001–01

  49

  2001–02

  5

  Source:

  Defra

  Projects (St. Helens)
  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs 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;

  537W
  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. [141271]

  Countryside stewardship scheme (part of the England rural development programme)

  Project funded by Defra

  Project 1

  Project 2

  Project 3

  Project 4

  Project 5

  Project 6

  Project was announced

  2002

  2002

  1995

  1995

  2001

  1998

  Project started

  2002

  2002

  1995

  2000

  2001

  1999

  Funding provided by

  Defra

  Defra

  Defra

  Defra

  Defra

  Defra

  Third party

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Target group

  General public

  General public

  General public

  General public

  General public

  General public

  Funding since 1997 (£)

  558.75

  477.90

  3.000.00

  1,500.00

  1,000.00

  2,000.00

  Name of the project

  Access

  Access

  Educational access

  Educational access

  Educational access

  Educational access

  European agricultural guidance and guarantee fund (St. Helens)—Objective 1 Merseyside

  Project funded by Defra

  Project 1

  Project 2

  Project 3

  Project 4

  Project 5

  Objective 1

  2000–06

  2000–06

  2000–06

  2000–06

  2000–06

  Project started

  January 2003

  September 2003

  September 2003

  March 2001

  March 2001

  Funding provided by

  Defra

  Defra

  Defra

  Defra

  Defra

  Third party

  EU

  EU

  EU

  EU

  EU

  Target group

  Farmer

  Farmer

  Farmer

  Land owners

  Land owners

  Funding since 1997 (£)

  23,000

  16,000

  18,000

  66,000

  150,000

  Name of the project

  Farm diversification

  Food processing and marketing

  Food processing and marketing

  Forestry

  Forestry

  Processing and marketing grant (ended 1996)

  Project funded by Defra

  Project 1

  Project was announced

  Unknown

  Project started

  1996

  Funding provided by

  Defra

  Third party

  None

  Target group

  Poultry processor

  Funding since 1997 (£)

  162,474

  Name of the project

  n/a

  Environment quality and waste

  Project funded by Defra

  Project 1

  Project 2

  Project was announced

  December 2003

  December 2003

  Project started

  April 2004

  April 2004

  Funding provided by

  Defra

  Defra

  Third party

  None

  None

  Target group

  General public

  General public

  Funding since 1997 (£)

  645,000

  350,000

  Name of the project

  n/a

  n/a

  The latest information on regional progress in the national headline indicators of sustainable development were published by Defra in the second edition of the 'Regional quality of life counts' report on 21 June 2002. This provides updated regional figures and analysis for 13 of the 15 headline indictors for each of the English Government Office Regions. The Government's third annual report on sustainable development in the UK—Achieving a better quality of life—was published by Defra on 24 February 2003. Both publications are available on the Government's sustainable development website: www.sustainable-development.gov.uk. In addition, a wide range of information about the Department's policies and work is also included in the Defra Publication Scheme which was introduced in November 2002 and is available on the Defra website at www.defra.gov.uk.
  538W
  Alun Michael
  Information and statistics on the distribution of the Department's funds are not normally held on a parliamentary constituency basis. The following tables show as fully as possible details of projects that have benefited St. Helens since 1997.

  Bovine Tuberculosis
  Sir Michael Spicer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the incidence of TB in badgers in(a) England, (b) Herefordshire and (c) Worcestershire was in the last six months for which figures are available. [140457]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  [holding answer 1 December 2003]: Data from the Randomised Badger Culling Trial (RBCT) and the associated current Road Traffic Accident (RTA) survey are not available. The most recent data available are for the period 18 February 1999 to 18 August 1999. These data are sourced from the previous RTA survey and sources other than from badger removal operations, and pre-date the current RTA and RBCT.

  The following table shows the number of badger carcases tested for Mycobacterium bovis (the causative organism for bovine tuberculosis) for this period. Data for Hereford and Worcester were collected together, and thus given as a total.

  Badgers tested for Mycobacterium bovis 18 February 1999 to 18 August 1999

  England

  Hereford and Worcester

  Number of badger carcases tested

  771

  128

  Number of badger carcases M.bovis positive

  72

  19

  Percentage

  10.1

  14.8

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

  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many people, since 1998, have been arrested for interfering with Government badger traps; and how many have been prosecuted. [141973]
  539W
  Mr. Bradshaw
  The arrest and prosecution of anti-trial activists is the responsibility of the relevant police forces in whose areas the Randomised Badger Culling Trial areas are located, and the Crown Prosecution Service. Defra does not receive information on, or maintain records of, such arrests and prosecutions.

  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what deleterious effects on wildlife arising from the current badger population level have been recorded by her Department and other UK public bodies. [141992]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Previous research has shown that there is a negative relationship between badger and hedgehog abundance, i.e. more badgers equals fewer hedgehogs, in rural areas. This is believed to be due to hedgehog predation by badgers and through hedgehogs avoiding areas of higher badger density. However, this is not necessarily a "deleterious effect on wildlife", since predator/prey interactions are a feature of ecosystems. It has been suggested that badgers may impact adversely on some species of ground nesting birds. The interaction between the badgers and other species in the ecosystem is the subject of a study being carried out by the Central Science Laboratory. This study is being conducted in selected areas of the Randomised Badger Culling Trial and the results will not be available until after the fieldwork programme finishes at the end of 2004.

  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the total cost has been of the reactive cull component of the Government's Randomised Badger Culling Trials. [142459]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  It is not possible to give an accurate cost of the reactive element of the Randomised Badger Culling Trial. The total cost of the trial to the end of March 2004 is forecast to have reached £30.5 million.

  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many badgers have been killed as part of the Randomised Badger Culling Trials; how many were tested for TB infection; and how many were culture positive for TB. [142467]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  As at 5 December 2003, 8,276 badgers had been culled in the Randomised Badger Culling Trials. All culled badgers are tested for TB infection. On the advice of the Independent Scientific Group on Cattle TB, data on the prevalence of TB in badgers caught in the trial, along with locations of their capture and the incidence of TB in cattle in trial areas, once triplets are active, are not released. This is to protect the integrity of the trial, and for the security of Defra field staff and farmers co-operating in the work.

  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what criteria are used to assess whether a reactive badger culling programme is effective. [142472]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  These are set out in the Second Report of the Independent Scientific Group on Cattle TB. Essentially, over the same time period, the number of cattle herd breakdowns in reactive trial areas are compared with the number of herd breakdowns in the survey only trial areas, taking into account factors such 540W
  as numbers of herds per trial area, timing of tuberculin test and a number of other variables. For analytical purposes, the starting point used for such comparisons, for each triplet, is the end of the initial culling operation in the proactive trial area.

  Sir Michael Spicer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she will publish the results of the research into the interaction between TB in badgers and TB in cattle. [140458]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  [holding answer 1 December 2003]1: The Independent Scientific Group on Cattle TB (ISO) intends to publish the results of the Randomised Badger Culling Trial as soon as possible following its predicted conclusion in 2006.

  In line with its undertaking to report any significant results that emerge from analyses before the trial's conclusion, the ISO recently reported results that indicated that localised badger culling seemed to increase TB incidence in cattle. These results stem from a comparison between the level of TB incidence in cattle in the reactive culling and the control (no culling) treatment areas. Further information is available from the Defra website http://www.defra.gov.uk/animalh/tb/index.htm and from a paper the ISO have published in Nature www.nature.com/nature.

  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what examples there have been of reactive badger culling programmes in England where the work was successful in controlling TB in cattle; and where and when those programmes were carried out. [141970]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Since the early 1970s MAFF/Defra has carried out a range of badger control strategies in an attempt to reduce TB incidence in cattle. These were reviewed in the Krebs Report in 1997 where, among other things, it was recommended that a scientific field experiment be set up to test rigorously the effectiveness (and cost-effectiveness) of different badger culling strategies and to provide the evidence on which to base future TB control strategies. The Krebs report recommended a randomised block approach comprising three treatments: reactive culling, proactive culling, and no culling. The Randomised Badger Culling Trial, as recommended by Krebs and designed by the Independent Scientific Group on Cattle TB, commenced in 1998.

  Previous control strategies included Gassing (1975–82), Clean Ring (1982–86), Interim (1986 to 1998) and Live Test (1994–96) further details are available in the Krebs Report Chapter 5 page 76. None of the control strategies has been assessed in a properly designed experiment to establish their efficacy. While removal operations may have had an effect on the prevalence of TB in badgers and on herd breakdowns, other factors may also have influenced these. In the absence of scientific controls, it is not possible to separate out the effects of badger removal from these confounding factors.

  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what estimate she has made of the incidence of TB in(a) badgers and (b) cattle in England during (i) 2004 and (ii) 2005. [142469]
  541W
  Mr. Bradshaw
  It is only possible to make estimates of the incidence of bovine TB in cattle based on previous years. Unfortunately, data for both 2002 and 2001 cannot be easily compared with earlier years. This is because, in 2001, TB testing was largely suspended during the foot and mouth disease outbreak, and in 2002 much of the testing effort was aimed at high-risk herds and those with overdue tests. Nevertheless, early indications suggest that the reduced levels of testing in 2001 have not substantially altered the underlying historical trend of confirmed TB incidents in cattle, which continues to rise at a yearly average rate of about 18 per cent. for new herd incidents.

  No estimates have been made regarding the incidence of TB in badgers.

  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the impact of the level of funding to laboratories for the examination of bovine samples for M. bovis on the time scale for the testing of samples. [142338]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Culture of samples for Mycobacterium bovis (the causative organism for bovine tuberculosis) takes at least six weeks. A backlog of samples built up at the Veterinary Laboratories Agency (VLA) after the foot and mouth disease outbreak in 2001.

  An extra £650,000 funding was made available in 2003–04 to the Veterinary Laboratories Agency (VLA) to tackle the backlog. So far in 2003, the monthly throughput at VLA of bovine samples for culture has been more than three times higher than in 2002. Fresh samples are now being processed as they arrive at VLA and we are further reducing the backlog of frozen samples.

  At the end of October 2003 there were 1,781 tissue samples awaiting culture at the VLA (down from 6,329 at the end of March 2003). Nearly all of the outstanding samples (1,712) are from carcases that showed no visible lesions at post-mortem, and thus not causing a delay in lifting movement restrictions from farms.

  Chemical Solvents
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what controls apply to the use of chemical solvents as substitute fuels in cement kilns; and what monitoring takes place of emissions which might reasonably be expected to derive from such use. [142345]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The use of solvents as substitute fuel in a cement kiln requires a permit from the Environment Agency. The permit contains conditions specific to the cement kiln which include:

  a specification for the substitute fuel(s);

  requirements for on-site storage and handling of substitute fuel(s);

  requirements for monitoring and sampling to ensure that out-of-specification substitute fuel is not burned in the kiln;

  a range of other requirements ensuring adequate control of the process;

  542W

  emission limits for pollutants likely to be emitted in significant quantities; and

  requirements for monitoring and reporting emissions.

  Permits require the continuous monitoring of the following parameters:

  Particulate matter

  Oxides of Nitrogen (NO plus NO2 expressed as NO2)

  Sulphur Dioxide (SO2)

  Carbon Monoxide (CO)

  Hydrogen Chloride (HCL)

  Oxygen, moisture, temperature and pressure

  Volatile Organic Carbon expressed as Total Organic Carbon (VOCs as TOC)

  Permits require the periodic monitoring of the following parameters:

  PM101

  Oxides of Nitrogen (NO plus NO2 expressed as NO2)

  Sulphur Dioxide (SO2)

  Carbon Monoxide (CO)

  Hydrogen Chloride (HCL)

  Hydrogen Fluoride

  Volatile Organic Carbon expressed as Total Organic Carbon (VOCs as TOC)

  Heavy metals

  Dioxins and furans2

  Moisture, temperature, oxygen,

  Flow

  Other species3

  1PM 10s monitored during substitute fuel trials.

  2Dioxin-like polychlorinated biphenyls are being included in new permit variations.

  3Other species may be specified based on an assessment of the fuel composition and trial data.

  Each of the above controls including monitoring requirements is considered in detail in the "Substitute Fuels Protocol"—Environment Agency guidance for managing substitute fuel trials on cement and lime kilns.

  Milk
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many litres of milk were produced in the UK in each of the last 10 years; and what the national quota was in each of those years. [141566]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The following table gives the total amounts of quota allocated to the UK for the period 1994–95 to 2002–03 and the amount of milk produced in each of these years.

  Million litres

  Quota year

  Quota allocation

  Amount produced

  1994–95

  14,167

  14,256

  1995–96

  14,167

  14,324

  1996–97

  14,167

  14,221

  1997–98

  14,167

  14,294

  1998–99

  14,167

  14,205

  1999–2000

  14,167

  14,232

  2000–01

  14,179

  13,885

  2001–02

  14,186

  14,103

  2002–03

  14,186

  14,064

  North Norfolk Coast
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on her Department's strategy for the stretch of coastline from Happisburgh to Winterton in North Norfolk; and what the cost of implementing this strategy is. [141989]

  Mr. Morley
  Development and implementation of options for defending against flooding and coastal erosion is the responsibility of the flood and coastal defence operating authorities—the Environment Agency, local authorities and, in areas with special drainage needs, internal drainage boards.

  The Environment Agency is responsible for a 14 kilometre length of sea defences from south of Happisburgh village to Winterton-on-Sea. This coastline has a long history of erosion and breaching of the defences, causing flooding of a large low-lying hinterland, extending into the Norfolk Broads area.

  Defra agreed the Agency's current sea defence strategy for this frontage which recommends maintaining the existing system of sea defence structures by implementing a programme of beach recharge and groyne replacement. The estimated cost of this strategy is now £60 million, if continued over the next 50 years.

  This strategy accords with the 'Hold the Line' defence policy recommended in the current Shoreline Management Plan. This plan is currently being reviewed.

  Pet Pig Walking Licences
  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the veterinary resources required to administer the pet pig walking licence scheme. [143634]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Pet Pig walking licences are issued as routine work by Defra Local Animal Health Divisional Offices. They allow Defra to minimise the risk of disease spreading from pet pigs to commercial herds. No central record is maintained. To obtain details of the licences issued would result in disproportionate costs.

  Countryside and Rights of Way Act
  Brian White
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the total cost is of completing the mapping stage of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000, broken down by(a) year, (b) central government and (c) local government. [143015]

  Alun Michael
  By the end of October 2003, the Countryside Agency and the Planning Inspectorate had spent a total of £22.7 million on implementing Part I of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000. This figure includes expenditure of £2.5 million in 2000–01; £3.4 million in 2001–02; £9.1 million in 2002–03 and £7.7 million in 2003–04. As well as the costs of mapping work completed, whether or not yet invoiced, it covers other costs arising from Part 1 of the Act, such as appeals, restrictions and publicity, and it includes staff costs.

  544W
  It is not possible to give accurate figures for the remainder of the mapping exercise because there are still large external factors to be taken into account. These include the number of comments received on draft maps and the number of appeals. These variables could have a large impact on the final costs of the mapping exercise.

  The figures relate to England. Information on mapping in Wales is a matter for the National Assembly for Wales. Local government is not involved in the mapping stage.

  Cement Kilns
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps she takes to ensure that materials agreed as suitable for fuel under the Environment Agency's Substitute Fuels Protocol in practice result in no net detriment to the environment; what formula is applied to consider relative gains against relative losses in environmental impact; and if she will make a statement. [142347]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The Substitute Fuels Protocol is based on the premise that it is necessary for an operator proposing to use substitute fuel(s) to undertake a programme of rigorous trials, in order to establish scientifically the facts about the possible environmental impacts of its proposals on the area around the site in question. The results of such trials ensure that the Environment Agency is able to make sound judgments as to whether or not the permanent use of substitute fuel(s) should be permitted and, if so, under what conditions.

  For applications to allow the use of substitute fuel(s), the Environment Agency ensures that the change will not produce any net detriment to the environment.

  The methodology for making this assessment is entitled "H1: Environmental Assessment and Appraisal of BAT" published by the Environment Agency. This methodology enables different operating scenarios to be compared for emissions to all media.

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what analysis is carried out to determine the impact on emissions from cement kilns of(a) particulate matter and (b) complex chemical compounds from the switch from fossil based fuels to substitute fuels, with particular reference to hazardous waste. [142348]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The Environment Agency requires operators to conduct a comparative environmental assessment of process emissions, including particulate matter and complex chemical compounds such as dioxins and furans, when plant operation is switched from burning fossil fuels to substitute fuels, such as hazardous wastes.

  Particulate matter is continuously monitored irrespective of the operating scenario.

  Complex chemical compounds such as dioxins and furans monitored using extractive techniques. Other compounds may be specified based on an assessment of the fuel composition and trial data. In addition, irrespective of the fuel composition, carbon monoxide and volatile organic carbon emissions are continuously monitored as they are both considered a good surrogate

  545W
  for monitoring efficient combustion. The operational criteria specified for hazardous waste combustion (temperature greater than 1100°C and residence time at least two seconds) are exceeded in cement kilns thus ensuring destruction of complex chemical compounds.

  Waste Management
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the ability of the planning process to enable sufficient infrastructure to be built by 2020 to manage waste in compliance with the EU's Landfill Directive. [143288]

  Keith Hill
  National planning policy on waste management is set out in Planning Policy Guidance Note 10 Planning and Waste Management (PPG10). PPG 10 underlines that the planning system should enable adequate provision of waste management facilities in appropriate locations, without undue adverse environmental effects or nuisance. As part of the Government's wider planning reform programme, PPG 10 will be reviewed in 2004 and updated as a planning policy statement (PPS). The new PPS will properly reflect and state the need for new, or upgraded, waste management facilities of all types. This will include the infrastructure required to support the prime objectives of reduction and recycling but, also, sites and plants for final treatment and disposal.

TRANSPORT

  Crash Barriers
  Mr. Mackay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of whether the performance standards of barriers used on motorways and trunk roads in England and Wales are the same as those used in other EU countries; and if he will make a statement. [142780]

  Dr. Howells
  The Highways Agency has carried out targeted investigations into performance standards of barriers at the approaches to bridges on motorways and trunk roads in England, and of the comparative performance standards in other EU countries. This found that some other EU countries require higher performance standards than England at these locations.

  The Highways Agency is also aware that some other EU countries require higher performance standards than England for motorway and trunk road central reserve barriers. The Highways Agency is currently carrying out research into the potential safety-benefits and cost-effectiveness of increasing the current performance standard for central reserve barriers.

  Emergency Vehicles
  David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what privileges accrue from having a vehicle fitted with an emergency blue light and siren; and what regulations govern which vehicles may be fitted with such equipment. [143241]
  546W
  Dr. Howells
  The fitting and use of blue lights on emergency vehicles are controlled by Regulations 16 and 27 of The Road Vehicles Lighting Regulations 1989, and sirens by Regulations 37 and 99 of The Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986.

  The authority to fit and use blue lights and sirens does not of itself provide any special privileges for drivers.

  Privileges often associated with their use, such as exemption from speed limits are contained in Section 87 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, and exemption from certain signals and traffic signs are contained in The Zebra, Pelican and Puffin Pedestrian Crossings Regulations 1997 and The Traffic Signs Regulations 2002.

  Public Transport (Disabled People)
  Mr. Stringer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what estimate he has made of the number of disabled people prevented from working because they are unable to use public transport. [143556]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Department for Transport has not carried out an assessment in that area.

  TransPennine Express Franchise
  David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport why the Hull-Manchester Airport link was not part of FirstGroup's Public Service Requirement when it acquired the TransPennine Express franchise. [143244]

  Dr. Howells
  The Passenger Service Requirement (PSR) for the Hull-Leeds-Manchester route, as part of the Arriva Trains Northern franchise, does not include an absolute requirement to operate services to Manchester Airport. The TransPennine Express franchise will inherit substantially the same PSR.

  Transport Investment (Yorkshire and Humber)
  David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much investment there was in transport in the Yorkshire and Humber region in each of the past five years. [143307]

  Dr. Howells
  I refer the right hon. Member to Public Sector Statistical Analyses 2003 Tables 8.10a to 8.13b where figures covering both transport investment and resource expenditure for the years 1998–99 to 2001–02 may be found. Data for 2002–03 are not yet available.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Digital Television
  Mr. Carmichael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport pursuant to her answer of 4 December 2003,Official Report, column 165W, on digital television, what estimate has been made of the number of households expected to purchase the new viewing card announced last month which replaces the Solus viewing card. [143497]

  Estelle Morris
  The latest ITC estimates for Q2 2003 are that 738,900 homes receive Free to Air (FTA) digital satellite services and could therefore wish to buy a viewing card. These figures comprise an estimate of the
  547W
  number of Sky viewers who have only ever been FTA viewers plus an estimate of the number of ex-Sky subscribers who continue to use their set-top boxes for viewing FTA channels.

  Projects (St. Helens)
  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport 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. [141272]

  Mr. Caborn
  My Department has wholly or partly funded a wide range of projects in St. Helens since 1997, covering the arts, sport, heritage, museums and libraries. I am particularly pleased that five schools in St. Helens are taking part in the DCMS/Arts Council England 'Creative Partnerships' initiative. Additional information on this initiative and other projects that have been wholly or partly funded by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport in St. Helens since 1997 has been placed in the Library.

  Racing Greyhounds
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make it her policy to use the proposed Gambling Bill to improve the statutory protection for the welfare of racing greyhounds. [143371]

  Mr. Caborn
  The Gambling Bill is intended to reform the regulation of gambling rather than make provision for animal welfare: this is a matter for separate legislation now under consideration by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. However, we envisage that the premises licences for greyhound tracks which local authorities will issue under the proposed Bill will include conditions safeguarding the integrity of betting events which will entail compliance with minimum welfare standards.

  The prime responsibility for the welfare of a greyhound must reside with the owner. I am, however, presently exploring with both the bookmaking and greyhound industries if more funds could be provided for welfare through the existing voluntary funding arrangements.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  European Constitution
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development whether it is the policy of his Department that the European Constitution should specify poverty eradication as the primary objective of EU development programmes and expenditure in every developing country. [140870]
  548W
  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  The draft new Treaty suggests that the principal aim of the Union's development policy is to reduce, and in the long term, eradicate poverty. We very much welcome this statement and have lobbied hard for this during the Convention debate.

  HIV/AIDS
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what steps are being taken to improve health delivery mechanisms in developing countries to ensure the dispersal of World Health Organisation-approved generic anti-retroviral drugs; and if he will make a statement. [142621]

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  DFID is committed to working with others, including our donor partners, the pharmaceutical industry, investors, developing country governments and non-governmental organisations (NGOs) to improve access to medicines in developing countries, including for the treatment of HIV/AIDS.

  With the World Health Organisation, DFID believes that affordable pricing, sustainable financing, reliable health and supply systems, and the rational selection and use of existing drugs are all essential to improve access to medicines.

  In line with this, DFID has committed over £1.5 billion since May 1997 to support the strengthening of health and supply systems in developing countries, which will help to build capacity to deliver medicines to the poor and to make effective choices about the selection of drugs. The UK has also pledged $280 million to the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, TB and Malaria (GFATM). This will help pay for increased coverage of proven interventions for the three diseases and some associated health systems strengthening. According to UNAIDS, the UK is the second largest bilateral donor for HIV/AIDS programmes.

  DFID supports a comprehensive response to HIV/AIDS, which includes prevention, treatment and care and alleviation of the impact of AIDS. We welcome recent reductions in the price of both patent and generic anti-retroviral drugs for the treatment of HIV. These reductions have created new opportunities to allow poor people to benefit from the same life-saving treatment that has been available in affluent countries. We will continue to work with the WHO, the patent based and generic pharmaceutical industries and others to further reduce prices. DFID supports the target set by the World Health Organisation and UNAIDS for three million people receiving treatment by the end of 2005. A new policy on treatment and care, to be launched early next year, will set out how DFID will coordinate work with partners to promote anti-retroviral treatment for poor people and for women.

  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if he will make a statement on his discussions regarding HIV and retro-viral drugs for developing countries. [141931]

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  DFID supports a comprehensive response to HIV/AIDS, which includes prevention, treatment and care and alleviation of the impact of AIDS. Recent reductions in the price of anti-retroviral drugs for the treatment of HIV has created
  549W
  new opportunities to allow poor people to benefit from the same life-saving treatment that has been available in affluent countries. This is why we support the target set by the World Health Organisation and UNAIDS for three million people receiving treatment by the end of 2005.

  DFID, the World Health Organisation and others believe that affordable pricing, sustainable financing, reliable health and supply systems, and the rational selection and use of existing drugs are all essential to improve access to medicines. DFID is committed to continuing our discussions with others, including our G8 partners, the pharmaceutical industry, investors, developing country governments and non-governmental organisations (NGOs) to improve access to medicines in developing countries, including for the treatment of HIV/AIDS. A new policy on treatment and care, to be launched early next year, will set out how DFID will coordinate work with partners to promote anti-retroviral treatment for poor people and for women.

  Malaria
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how much funding the Government has contributed towards research and development into affordable anti-malarial drugs in 2003–04; and how much it plans to spend in(a) 2004–05 and (b) 2005–06. [141191]

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  DFID is supporting public-private partnerships to develop the new generation of affordable drugs required for malaria control in developing countries. In 2003–4, we are contributing £1 million in support of the work of Medicines for Malaria Venture (MMV). We will also contribute £1 million to MMV in 2004–5 and a further £1 million in 2005–6.

  We are working in partnership with GlaxoSmithKline, the World Health Organisation and the University of Liverpool to develop an effective, safe and affordable drug called Lapdap, for treating drug resistant malaria. DFID is currently funding compliance and pharmacovigilance trials of Lapdap. Our funding in 2003–4 will be £213,000 and in 2004–5 it will be £286,000.

  DFID contributes to the Medical Research Council whose activities include funding research projects to develop medicines for resistant strains of malaria. We provide a core contribution to WHO, some of which is used to support the WHO Special Programme for Research and Training in Tropical Disease (TDR) to develop new approaches for treating infectious diseases, including malaria.

  Future funding plans beyond current commitments to September 2006 are under review.

  Number (million)

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–00

  2000–01

  2001–02

  (a) £5000

  0.1

  0.1

  0.1

  0.1

  0.1

  0.1

  (b) £7,500

  0.3

  0.3

  0.3

  0.3

  0.3

  0.3

  (c) £10,000

  0.8

  0.7

  0.6

  0.6

  0.6

  0.5

  (d) £15,000

  1.5

  1.5

  1.4

  1.3

  1.3

  1.2

  550W

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

  Bicycle Rickshaws
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Solicitor-General what discussions she has had in relation to(a) the decision in the High Court on bicycle rickshaws and their ability to convey passengers safely, and (b) clarifying (i) licensing, (ii) insurance and (iii) safety rules in relation to the carrying of the public by bicycle rickshaws.[142908]

  The Solicitor-General
  None.

  Gantanamo Bay
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Solicitor-General if she and the Attorney-General will examine the lecture by Lord Steyn of 25 November on the legal status of British citizens at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba. [142901]

  The Solicitor-General
  The Attorney-General and I have already read a transcript of the lecture given by Lord Steyn on 25 November on the subject of Guantanamo Bay.

  Mr. Roger Sylvester
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Solicitor-General what has been the Government's response to the recent inquest decision that the death of Roger Sylvester amounted to an unlawful killing; and if she will make a statement. [141210]

  The Solicitor-General
  On 3 October 2003, an inquest jury returned a verdict that Roger Sylvester was unlawfully killed. Lawyers from the Crown Prosecution Service were present throughout the inquest hearing and have commenced a fresh review of the case. The review will include the evidence given at the inquest once the relevant transcripts have been received. It will be for the reviewing crown prosecutor to decide, in accordance with the Code for Crown Prosecutors, whether any criminal proceedings should be instituted.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Household Incomes
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what his estimate is of the number of adults living on an income of less than(a) £5,000, (b) £7,500, (c) £10,000, (d) £15,000, (e) £20,000, (f) £30,000, (g) £35,000, (h) £40,000, (i) £50,000, (j) £75,000, (k) £100,000, (l) £150,000, (m) £200,000, (n) £500,000, (o) £1 million and (p) £10 million in London in each of the last six years for which information is available. [140853]

  Mr. Pond
  The information requested is provided for households and is set out in the table.

  Number of households with net equivalised income, before housing costs, of less than:
  551W

  Number (million)

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–00

  2000–01

  2001–02

  (e) £20,000

  2.0

  2.0

  1.9

  1.8

  1.8

  1.7

  (f) £30,000

  2.5

  2.6

  2.5

  2.5

  2.5

  2.4

  (g) £35,000

  2.6

  2.7.

  2.6

  2.7

  2.7

  2.7

  (h) £40,000

  2.7

  2.8

  2.8

  2.8

  2.8

  2.8

  (i) £50,000

  2.8

  2,9

  2.9

  2.9

  2.9

  3.0

  (j) £75,000

  2.9

  3.0

  3.0

  3.0

  3.0

  3.1

  (k) £100,000

  3.0

  3.0

  3.0

  3.0

  3.1

  3.2

  (l) £150,000

  3.0

  3.0

  3.0

  3.1

  3.1

  3.2

  (m) £200,000

  3.0

  3.0

  3.0

  3.1

  3.1

  3.2

  (n) £500,000

  3.0

  3.0

  3.1

  3.1

  3.1

  3.3

  (o) £1,000,000

  3.0

  3.0

  3.1

  3.1

  3.1

  3.3

  (p) £10,000,000

  3.0

  3.0

  3.1

  3.1

  3.1

  3.3

  Notes:

  1. Figures in the table compares reported household incomes uprated by inflation, to equivalent 2001/02 prices, against the income levels (a) to (p).

  2. Estimates are for London and are rounded to the nearest 0.1 million.

  3. The estimates are sample counts, which have been adjusted for non-response using multipurpose grossing factors that, in the case of the Family Resources Survey, control for tenure, Council Tax band and a number of other variables. Estimates are subject to both sampling error and to variability in non-response. The income measure used is weekly net (disposable) equivalised household income (that is to say income that is adjusted to reflect the composition of the household).

  4. Income is adjusted or equivalised to take into account variations in both size and composition of the household. This process reflects the notion that a family of several people needs a higher income than a single person in order for both households to enjoy a comparable standard of living. Incomes of larger families are adjusted downwards and incomes of smaller households adjusted upwards. The equivalence scales used takes a couple with no children as the reference point, and increases relatively the income of single persons households, and reduces relatively the incomes of households with larger consumption capabilities.

  5. The estimates are presented on a Before Housing Costs (BHC) basis. Figures are provided including the self-employed

  Source:

  Family Resources Survey (FRS).

  Access to Work Scheme
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many(a) deaf, (b) blind and (c) deaf-blind people have applied for the Access to Work scheme in each year since its introduction; and how many have been successful in their application; how many appeals against refusals were lodged; how many were found in favour of the claimant since the introduction of the scheme; and how many people are receiving support under the Access to Work scheme. [140513]

  Maria Eagle
  The information requested is not routinely collected and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. The total number of people receiving Access to Work support in 2002–03 was 36,606; of these 15,199 were new applicants.

  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what initiatives he is planning to increase(a) awareness and (b) uptake of the Access to Work scheme. [140515]

  Maria Eagle
  Information on all our disability services is available from Jobcentre Plus offices, and is also available on the Jobcentre Plus web site (www.jobcentreplus.gov.uk). The web address is included in our publicity material.

  Jobcentre Plus invests around £300,000 each year on marketing and publicising its specialised services and programmes for disabled people, including Access to Work. Promotional material is available in a range of media such as leaflets, audiotapes and videos.

  Disability Employment Advisers meet regularly with local employers to promote the full range of services available to disabled people, including Access to Work. In addition, many organisations for disabled people
  552W
  actively promote Access to Work to their members, and some also include information about the programme on their website.

  The number of people helped through Access to Work has increased year on year since 1996. In 1997–98, 12,825 people received support; that had risen to 36,606 in 2002–03.

  Child Maintenance Premium
  Mr. Goodman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what administrative reasons might prevent parents with care from receiving the child maintenance premium. [143535]

  Mr. Pond
  The child maintenance premium is a key feature of the new child support scheme. It relies on links with Jobcentre Plus IT systems to match up individuals on benefit with payments received. The new IT system is designed to do this and by the end of November 7,500 of the poorest families were already benefiting from the new premium. However to apply the premium to old scheme cases would require redesigning and rebuilding both the new and old IT systems.

  Chronic Pain
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the cost of disability payments paid to sufferers of conditions associated with chronic pain was in 2002–03. [140478]

  Maria Eagle
  The available estimates relate to Disability Living Allowance and Attendance Allowance. In 2002–03, the Disability Living Allowance and Attendance Allowance payments made to people for whom their recorded main disabling condition was one usually associated with chronic pain amounted to some £3.8 billion.
  553W

  Employment and Social Policy, Health and Consumer Affairs Council
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the outcome of the Employment and Social Policy, Health and Consumer Affairs Council was on 1 December; what the Government's stance was on the issues discussed, including its voting record; and if he will make a statement. [142006]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  I represented the UK together with the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Sutcliffe), at the Employment, Social Policy, Health and Consumer Affairs Council in Brussels on 1 December 2003.

  The Council reached partial political agreement on the Articles of a new Regulation to replace Regulation 1408/71 co-ordinating social security systems for people moving from one member state to another. In particular, member states reached a compromise on Unemployment Benefit for people who live in a member state other than the one where they last worked. This relates to a reimbursement system that member states have agreed to: the last state of work will reimburse part of the Unemployment Benefit paid by the state of residence. UK retains a Parliamentary Scrutiny on this Regulation.

  The Council discussed the Commission Communication on Structural Indicators for next year's spring Council and took note of the opinions of the Economic Policy Committee, the Working Group on Environment, Employment Committee and Social Protection Committee. The Presidency invited the General Affairs and External Relations Council to adopt joint conclusions as close as possible to the existing draft.

  The Council adopted Conclusions on disability, on immigration, integration and employment and on gender equality indicators. The Council also agreed a general approach on a Council Decision establishing a Social Protection Committee. Council noted the Other Business items without comment.

  In the Consumer Affairs part of the Council, a Resolution on the Safety of Services was adopted without comment. There was a general policy discussion on the proposed EC Regulation on Consumer Protection Co-operation, and the UK supported the proposal.

  My right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Health (Mr. Hutton), represented the UK for consideration of the health items on the agenda of the Council on 2 of December.

  The main health business related to the Proposal for a European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control. Discussion focused on the scope of the Centre, which is due to be operational by 2005, with member states agreeing it should concentrate initially on communicable disease, with the possibility of broadening the remit following external evaluation of its operations at a later date. Issues still to be resolved include the legal base, where the UK retained its reserve, and data protection requirements.
  554W
  A draft Council Decision was adopted authorising the Commission to negotiate the revision of the International Health Regulations under the framework of the World Health Organisation, within its area of competence.

  The Council Conclusions emerging from a conference on Healthy Lifestyles: Education, Information and Communication were adopted. These cover action on lifestyles monitoring and evaluation and impact assessment, aimed to help develop a European action plan to promote healthy lifestyles.

  The Council Recommendation on Cancer Screening advocating mass cancer screening through clearly established and scientifically proven methods in quality controlled screening programmes were also adopted, as was the Council Resolution on Pharmaceuticals and Public Health Challenges—Focusing on the Patients.

  The Council adopted Council Conclusions on Medical Devices which acknowledge the importance of medical devices in health and social care, endorse the good work done so far and invite further work to strengthen co-ordination, interpretation and implementation of the sectoral Directives in the interests of protecting public health.

  The Council received information from the Italian Presidency on the threat posed by malaria. The French delegation presented information on raising tobacco tax to help reduce tobacco consumption and the Irish delegation presented proposals for the forthcoming Irish Presidency where the emphasis will be placed on cardiovascular disease and e-health matters.

  No votes were taken at this Council.

  Legislation
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many pages of(a) primary and (b) secondary legislation the Department put through Parliament in 2002–03. [141169]

  Maria Eagle
  The Department did not sponsor any primary legislation during the 2002–03 Session (13 November 2002 to 20 November 2003).

  The Department was responsible for the making of 97 General Statutory Instruments during the 2002–03 Session and these accounted for 725 pages of secondary legislation. The number of instruments produced includes some that consolidated and revoked previous instruments.

  New Deal for Disabled People
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many people have(a) registered with a new New Deal for Disabled People job broker, (b) been placed in work by a job broker and (c) achieved sustained work with a job broker's help since the extension of the New Deal for Disabled People. [141496]

  Maria Eagle
  New Deal for Disabled People was extended nationally in July 2001. Between July 2001 and September 2003, over 57.000 disabled people registered to find work; over 15,500 found work; and over 5,900 achieved sustained employment.
  555W
  Notes:

  1. Overall Performance and Resource Agreement (PRA) job entries in life of programme total over 20,000.

  Sustained employment is defined as where a person remains in work for six months or more.

  Source:

  DWP statistics

  Winter Fuel Payment
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will estimate the number of eligible people who have not received backdated winter fuel payments for the first three years of the scheme; and what the value was of such payments. [143083]

  Malcolm Wicks
  According to our estimate around 1.9 million people could have been eligible for backdated payments for the first three years of the scheme and about 1.2 million people have now been paid. There are no cut-off dates for these retrospective payments.

  It is not possible to provide a reliable estimate of the numbers who have not claimed because the estimate of those newly eligible was based on sample data. It is up to the individual, where a claim is necessary, to decide whether or not to make that claim.

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what plans he has to introduce a cut-off date for claiming backdated Winter Fuel Payments for the first three years of the scheme. [143084]

  Malcolm Wicks
  There are no current plans to introduce a cut-off date for claiming backdated Winter Fuel Payments for the first three years of the scheme.

  Income Support
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what assessment he has made of the income support needs of women carers who are pensioners. [143340]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Pension Credit replaced Minimum Income Guarantee from 6 October 2003. Around half of all pensioner households are eligible and stand to gain around £400 a year. Of those eligible, over half are single women (when partners are included almost two thirds of the people who will benefit from Pension Credit are women.)

  Under Pension Credit additional amounts are included for carers. All those entitled to Carer's Allowance or treated as satisfying the qualifying conditions for the award benefit from the additional amount. A person may be entitled to Carer's Allowance even if it is not payable, (for example because of the overlapping benefit provisions). The rate is currently set at £25.10.

MINISTER FOR WOMEN

  Commission for Equality and Human Rights
  Mr. David
  To ask the Minister for Women if she will make a statement on the Making it Happen consultation. [143338]
  556W
  Jacqui Smith
  My right hon. Friend the Minister for Women announced on 30 October the Government's intention to set up a Commission for Equality and Human Rights (CEHR). The CEHR will be key to realising the Government's vision of a fairer, more prosperous, more inclusive Britain based on equal opportunities for all and respect for the dignity and worth of each person. We have set up a Task Force to advise Government on the vision for the new body, and as a first task, assist us in the preparation of a White Paper to be published in the spring.

  Domestic Violence
  Andrew Selous
  To ask the Minister for Women if she will make a statement on proposals to tackle domestic violence as it affects women. [143339]

  Ms Hewitt
  We introduced the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Bill in the House of Lords on 1 December 2003. This is the biggest overhaul of domestic violence legislation for 30 years.

  Iraq
  Kali Mountford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, if she will make a statement on action she is taking to ensure that Iraqi women play a full part in the leadership of Iraq. [143341]

  Ms Hewitt
  I have been very involved in supporting Iraqi women to play a full role in the leadership of their country.

  I recently met Dr. Raja Khuzaai, one of the two female members of the Iraqi Governing Council, to discuss concrete ways to support women's full involvement in the emerging political structures.

  I have also pledged my full support for the establishment of an Iraqi Women's Higher Council—a non-governmental advisory body on women's issues.

  Sex Discrimination Act
  Julie Morgan
  To ask the Minister for Women what plans she has to propose amendments to the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 to introduce a public sector duty to promote equality between men and women. [143342]

  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Minister for Women when she will take steps to amend the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 to introduce a public sector duty to promote equality between men and women. [143343]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Government are taking forward a significant legislative agenda on equality matters, and they have committed themselves to introduce a duty on public bodies to promote equality of opportunity for women and men generally when parliamentary time allows.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Inflation Target
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of state for Trade and Industry what assessment she has made of the
  557W
  impact of the change in the Bank of England's inflation target from RPIX to HICP on the competitiveness of UK businesses. [143332]

  Jacqui Smith
  The move of target to the HICP will have no effect on the competitiveness of UK business.

  Miners' Compensation
  Dr. Palmer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, if she will make a statement on the legal fees charged to former coal miners who are claiming compensation for industrial illnesses. [143333]

  Nigel Griffiths
  The Department's position on solicitors' or claims handlers' charges is clear: we believe that all the compensation should go to the claimant without anyone taking a slice of it.

  I deplore any attempt to charge sick miners or their widows and families for legal or administration expenses, which are covered by the DTI. I am asking the firms involved to reimburse sick miners' widows and families in such cases.

  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations she has received regarding solicitors charging success fees in coal health compensation claims. [143334]

  Nigel Griffiths
  My right hon. Friend and the Prime Minister have received angry representations from hon. Members and others.

  I deplore any attempt to charge sick miners or their widows and families for legal or administration expenses that are covered by the DTI. I am asking the firms involved to reimburse sick miners widows and families in such cases.

  Bangladesh
  James Purnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on bilateral trade relations with Bangladesh. [143335]

  Ms Hewitt
  Bilateral trade in goods between the United Kingdom and Bangladesh in 2002 was worth £549.8 million, an increase of 5 per cent. over 2001. In the first nine months of 2003, bilateral trade in goods with Bangladesh amounted to £438 million, an increase of 8.2 per cent. over the same period in 2002.

  Total UK exports to Bangladesh in 2002 were worth £66 million. Our principal exports are power generating machinery and equipment, dyeing, tanning and colouring materials and specialised industrial machinery and medical and pharmaceutical products.

  Bankruptcies in England and Wales—Industrial analysis

  2002

  2003

  Industry

  Q2

  Q3

  Q4

  Q1

  Q2

  Self-employed

  Agriculture and horticulture

  35

  34

  21

  42

  50

  Manufacturing

  Food, drink and tobacco

  6

  7

  3

  1

  4

  Chemicals

  3

  0

  3

  1

  0

  558W

  Carbon Tax
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make it her policy to promote the introduction of a carbon tax to apply to the energy industry. [143496]

  Ms Hewitt
  Since this is a tax matter, any decisions are a matter for the Chancellor as part of the Budget process, taking account of the Government's economic, social and environmental objectives.

  Bankruptcy
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many self-employed people have declared themselves bankrupt in each quarter since quarter one of 2002. [143150]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  The number of self-employed people declared bankrupt in England and Wales from the first quarter of 2002 to the second quarter of 2003 is shown in the following table. Total bankruptcies are also provided to put the figures in context. The sub-division of total bankruptcies into self-employed and other categories is not yet available for third quarter 2003.

  Self-employed bankruptcies

  Total bankruptcies

  2002

  Q1

  2,261

  6,027

  Q2

  2,235

  6,269

  Q3

  2,244

  6,249

  Q4

  2,114

  5,757

  2003

  Q1

  2,468

  6,912

  Q2

  2,267

  6,948

  Q3

  n/a

  7,217

  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many self-employed individuals were declared bankrupt(a) in the third quarter of 2003 and (b) since 1 October, broken down by industrial sector; and how many (i) employees, (ii) unemployed people and those with no occupation, (iii) directors and promoters of companies and (iv) people whose occupation is unknown were declared bankrupt (A) in the third quarter of 2003 and (B) since 1st October. [143256]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  [holding answer 10 December 2003]: There were 7,217 bankruptcies as a whole in England and Wales in the third quarter of 2003. The requested breakdown into types of individual is published one quarter in arrears of the main series and is not yet available for third quarter 2003. The third quarter data will be published on 6 February 2004. The latest data published on 7 November 2003 cover up to the second quarter of 2003 and are attached.
  559W

  Bankruptcies in England and Wales—Industrial analysis

  2002

  2002

  Industry

  Q2

  Q3

  Q4

  Q1

  Q2

  Metals and engineering

  72

  66

  63

  77

  50

  Textiles and clothing

  7

  7

  11

  21

  9

  Timber and furniture

  15

  15

  11

  23

  22

  Paper, printing and publishing

  12

  22

  18

  18

  9

  Other

  26

  30

  24

  27

  28

  Total

  141

  147

  133

  174

  122

  Construction and Transport

  Construction

  393

  452

  387

  456

  422

  Transport and communication

  279

  260

  271

  301

  300

  Total

  672

  712

  658

  757

  722

  Wholesaling

  Food, drink and tobacco

  11

  9

  8

  13

  4

  Motor vehicles

  5

  2

  4

  10

  0

  Other

  12

  3

  16

  15

  5

  Total

  28

  14

  28

  38

  9

  Retailing

  Food, drink and tobacco

  73

  79

  71

  68

  58

  Motor vehicles and filling stations

  25

  38

  37

  38

  35

  Other

  187

  150

  144

  160

  146

  Total

  285

  267

  252

  266

  239

  Services

  Insurance

  9

  5

  9

  4

  8

  Other financial and business services

  296

  241

  267

  286

  269

  Hotels and catering

  225

  291

  250

  263

  293

  Total

  530

  537

  526

  553

  570

  Other

  544

  533

  496

  638

  555

  Total self-employed

  2,235

  2,244

  2,114

  2,468

  2,267

  Other individuals

  Employees

  1,565

  1,502

  1,377

  1,676

  1,752

  No occupation and unemployed

  1,748

  1,853

  1,688

  2,133

  2,217

  Directors and promoters of companies

  82

  67

  85

  72

  102

  Occupation unknown

  639

  583

  483

  563

  610

  Total other individuals

  4,034

  4,005

  3,633

  4,444

  4,681

  Total bankruptcies

  6,269

  6,249

  5,747

  6,912

  6,948

  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will provide a breakdown by(a) age, (b) sex, (c) ethnicity, (d) region, (e) housing tenure and (f) household structure of individuals declared bankrupt in (i) each year since 1997 and (ii) each quarter in 2003. [143257]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  The official bankruptcy figures for England and Wales are available broken down by the

  Number of bankruptcies in England and Wales by regions classified according to Official Receiver's Offices

  2003

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  Quarter 1

  Quarter 2

  Quarter 3

  Anglia

  3,408

  3,144

  3,521

  3,527

  1,013

  1,003

  1,082

  London

  1,286

  1,285

  1,427

  1,457

  450

  463

  479

  Midlands

  3,066

  3,187

  3,409

  3,501

  1,046

  1,002

  1,105

  North East

  3,396

  3,838

  4,228

  4,227

  1,082

  1,208

  1,185

  North West

  3,517

  3,640

  4,108

  4,116

  1,020

  1,208

  1,039

  South East

  2,931

  2,730

  2,755

  3,052

  1,017

  999

  1,056

  South West

  4,002

  3,720

  4,023

  4,401

  1,281

  1,351

  1,267

  Public Interest Unit

  5

  6

  6

  11

  3

  3

  4

  National total

  21,611

  21,550

  23,477

  24,292

  6,912

  6,948

  7,217

  British Energy
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the pension rights of employees of British Energy following the financial restructuring of that company. [143119]
  560W
  Official Receiver's Office that dealt with the case. There are no official breakdowns available by age, sex, ethnicity, housing tenure or household structure of the bankrupt.

  The following table gives the total number of bankruptcies by regions classified according to groupings of Official Receivers' Offices falling within them from 1999 to 2002 and the first three quarters of 2003.

  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 9 December 2003]: British Energy's proposed restructuring is intended to restore the company to long-term viability in the private sector. The pension rights of its employees will remain the responsibility of the company as at present.
  561W

  Correspondence
  Sir Michael Spicer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when she will reply to the letter of 7 October from the hon. Member for West Worcestershire. [143433]

  Ms Hewitt
  My hon. Friend the Minister of State for Trade, Investment and Foreign Affairs responded to the hon. Gentleman's letter of 7 October on 17 November. I will however be responding shortly about his query on EU subsidies on sugar.

  E-business
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many businesses in the United Kingdom were trading online(a) in each quarter in 2003 and (b) in each year since 1997, broken down by region. [143140]

  Mr. Timms
  The DTI's International Benchmarking Study has been produced annually since 1997 and is used to measure the take-up and use of ICT's by business.(a)No information is available on a quarterly basis.
  (b)Trading online figures by region, are only available for the period 2000 to 2002 (earlier studies did not capture this type of information). Copies of the International Benchmarking Study for 2000 (URN 00/147), 2001 (URN 01/147) and 2002 (URN 02/147) are available from the Libraries of the House.
  The 2003 study (URN 03/147) will be published on Thursday 11 December 2003. Copies will be available from the Libraries of the House.

  Energy
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what estimate she has made of(a) total energy production, (b) total energy primary consumption and (c) total final energy consumption in the (i) industrial sector, (ii) service sector, (iii) domestic sector and (iv) transport sector in each month in 2003. [143004]

  Mr. Timms
  The energy data requested are published on a quarterly basis and are currently available for the first two quarters of 2003.

  Million tonnes of oil equivalent

  Q1 2003

  Q2 2003

  Total Indigenous Energy Production

  73.0

  63.0

  Total Primary Consumption

  71.6

  55.1

  Total Final Consumption

  50.7

  37.2

  Of which:

  Industrial Sector

  10.6

  8.0

  Service Sector (including Agriculture)

  6.4

  4.2

  Domestic Sector

  17.9

  8.6

  Transport Sector

  12.9

  13.7

  Further information is published in table 1.3a of Energy Trends, copies of which are available in the Libraries of the House. The latest edition was released on 25 September 2003; the next edition containing data for Q3 2003 will be released on 8 January 2004.

  Hallmarking
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the 562W
  future of United Kingdom Hallmarking in the context of discussions on the draft Directive on Articles of Precious Metals following the European Council of 27 November. [142129]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  Following the decision of the Committee of Permanent Representatives not to send the draft Directive to the Council of Ministers on 27 November, the draft Directive has now effectively been shelved again, and UK hallmarking will continue as before. After the Accession countries join the EU next year (nine of the 10 have compulsory independent hallmarking systems) there will be more support for compulsory third party marking.

  Indonesia
  Mr. Caton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the export of British military equipment to Indonesia. [143144]

  Mr. MacShane
  I have been asked to reply.

  All export licence applications for Indonesia are rigorously assessed on a case by case basis against the Consolidated EU and National Arms Export Licensing Criteria, taking account of the circumstances prevailing at the time and other announced Government policies.

  All strategic exports licensed to Indonesia in 2002 are set out in the Annual Report on Strategic Export Controls, which is available on the Foreign and Commonwealth Office website: www.fco.gov.uk/Trade-and-Investment/Export Controls. The report also shows that the approximate value of exports of UK military goods to Indonesia in 2002 was £2,130,000.

  Legislation
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many pages of(a) primary and (b) secondary legislation her Department put through Parliament in 2002–03. [141121]

  Ms Hewitt
  My Department sponsored four Bills during the 2002–03 Session, which made a total of 632 pages once enacted.

  In the case of secondary legislation, my Department was responsible for the making of 141 General Statutory Instruments which would have been considered either by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments or the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments. These instruments made a total of 1,295 pages.

  It should be noted that the instruments produced by my Department include many which consolidated and revoked previous instruments and which may have been produced at the prompting of Parliamentary Committees.

  Medicines (Parallel Trade)
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what assessment she has made of the loss to pharmaceutical companies in the UK from parallel trade of medicines from abroad; [141698]

  (2) what discussions she has had with pharmaceutical companies regarding the parallel trade in medicines from abroad. [141699]
  563W
  Ms Rosie Winterton
  I have been asked to reply.

  In terms of the impact on national health service expenditure, information is not routinely collected on the source of products, but from the data currently available the Department of Health estimates that parallel imports saves the NHS in England approximately £60 million per year in the community sector. No estimate is available for the hospital sector.

  The Government have not made their own assessment of the loss to pharmaceutical companies in the United Kingdom from parallel trade. The NHS does not reap the full benefit of the price differentials associated with parallel trade, as much of the difference is lost within the supply chain across Europe.

  Ministers in the Department of Health meet representatives of the pharmaceutical industry frequently to discuss issues affecting that sector, including parallel trade in Europe. The most recent meeting was on 2 December, between my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health my noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Health (Lord Warner) and representatives of the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry.

  Minimum Wage
  Chris Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many completed successful investigations into underpayment of the national minimum wage there have been, broken down by constituency; and how much was recovered in each case. [142634]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  Between the start of the minimum wage in April 1999 and September 2003 the Inland Revenue have carried out 8,471 successful investigations, in which underpayments of over £14.3 million was identified.

  These statistics are not available at constituency level.

  National Environment Research Council
  Julie Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what percentage of its annual budget the National Environment Research Council has given to each university in England and Wales. [142911]

  Ms Hewitt
  The most recent details of the expenditure by university are set out in the NERC Annual Report and Accounts for the year 2002–03 on pages 44 and 45. During this period NERC received £224.513 million grant in aid. Copies of the NERC Annual Report and Accounts were laid before both Houses of Parliament on 16 July 2003 and are also available at http://www.nerc.ac.uk/publications/annualreport2003/pages.pdf.

  Overtime
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what estimate her Department has made of the total annual value of unpaid overtime by British workers. [142853]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  According to the Labour Force Survey over the four quarters to summer 2003 the average number of employees who actually worked unpaid overtime in a week was 3.82 million. On average, they 564W
  worked 7.7 hours of actual unpaid overtime a week and their gross hourly pay for the hours they did get paid for was £14.95. By multiplying these numbers together (and by multiplying by 52 weeks) we get an estimated value of annual actual unpaid overtime worked by employees in the UK of £22¾ billion. If managers and senior officials who receive a salary rather than an hourly rate are excluded then the value of annual unpaid overtime falls markedly, to £12½ billion. These workers (2.55 million) on average worked 7.1 hours of actual overtime per week and their gross hourly pay for the hours they did get paid for was £13.40.

  Post Office Closures
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she is satisfied with the existing arrangements for consultation by the Post Office and Postwatch on proposed post office closures. [141591]

  Mr. Timms
  The Government do not have a role in the consultation process for post office closure proposals, which is laid out in the code of practice agreed between Post Office Ltd. and Postwatch. I attach great importance to the role of Postwatch in protecting the interest of customers when any closure is proposed. Final decisions on closure, after consideration of representations received, are an operational matter for Post Office Ltd.

  Renewable Energy
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what progress has been made towards her Department's target of the UK obtaining 5 per cent. of its electricity from renewable sources by 2003; what her assessment is of whether the target will be met within the stipulated time; what percentage of electricity has been produced from renewable sources in each year since the target was introduced; and which renewable sources have contributed in each year. [143125]

  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 10 December 2003]: Government Ministers acknowledged in the debates leading up to the introduction of the Renewables Obligation on 1 April 2002 that earlier hopes to obtain 5 per cent. of our electricity from renewable sources by 2003 would not be met. Such hopes had always depended on a high proportion of proposals awarded contracts under the old Non Fossil Fuel Obligation (NFFO) arrangements resulting in commissioned projects, and it had become apparent that this was not happening with the necessary speed.

  The percentage of UK electricity coming from all renewable sources and the contributing categories of renewables in the years since 1999 are as follows:

  percentage

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  All renewables

  2.76

  2.75

  2.62

  2.96

  of which:

  Wind, wave and solar

  0.23

  0.25

  0.25

  0.32

  Hydro

  1.45

  1.35

  1.05

  1.24

  Biofuels

  0.93

  1.01

  1.19

  1.27

  Wastes

  0.15

  0.14

  0.13

  0.13

  565W
  The table includes all renewable energy sources, including those not eligible for the Renewables Obligation, such as large-scale hydro, since the 5 per cent. target pre-dated the Renewables Obligation.

  The Government's target for renewable energy is for 10 per cent. of our electricity sales to come from renewable sources eligible for the Renewables Obligation by 2010.

  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what percentage of renewable energy in the United Kingdom is supplied by the hydro-electric industry. [143195]

  Mr. Timms
  In 2002, 42 per cent. of the renewable electricity generated in the UK was from hydro-electric schemes.

  Royal Mail
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions she has had with Postcomm with regard to its proposals to redefine the Royal Mail's universal service obligations. [143024]

  Mr. Timms
  The Department has a regular dialogue with Postcomm on a wide range of postal issues concerning the postal market.

  Start-ups: VAT Registrations per 10,000 resident adults1

  19922

  19932

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  North West

  36

  33

  31

  30

  32

  35

  35

  34

  34

  33

  33

  Merseyside

  28

  24

  22

  22

  22

  24

  24

  23

  23

  23

  22

  St. Helens

  27

  20

  19

  19

  20

  21

  19

  20

  21

  20

  20

  Closures: VAT De-registrations per 10,000 resident adults1

  19922

  19932

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  North West

  41

  40

  34

  33

  30

  30

  31

  31

  31

  31

  33

  Merseyside

  34

  31

  24

  25

  23

  21

  21

  20

  21

  19

  23

  St. Helens

  29

  28

  20

  23

  22

  19

  19

  18

  18

  17

  18

  1Mid-year resident adult (16 and over) population estimates.

  2The large VAT threshold increase in 1993 means data before and after this date are only broadly comparable.

  Source:

  Business Start-ups and Closures: VAT Registrations and De-registrations 1980–2002; population data from The Office for National Statistics

  For further information on the VAT statistics please see www.sbs.gov.uk/statistics/vatstats.php

  The number of company insolvencies for each financial year in the North West area is as follows:

  Company insolvencies in the North West1

  Company insolvencies2

  1999–2000

  672

  2000–01

  620

  2001–02

  651

  2002–03

  927

  1Includes the Official Receivers offices of Blackpool, Chester, Liverpool, Manchester and Stoke-on-Trent. Businesses recorded in these figures were not necessarily active in the North West prior to being wound-up.

  2Does not include creditors voluntary liquidations.

  566W

  Shop Window Displays
  Mr. John Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will extend to shop window displays the taste and decency controls that apply to advertising hoardings and advertisements on buses. [143492]

  Jacqui Smith
  No. Extension of the British Code of Advertising Practice would be for the Advertising Standards Authority, an independent body, to consider. However, it is already a criminal offence, under the Indecent Displays Control Act 1981, publicly to display indecent matter, which includes displays in shop windows.

  Small Businesses
  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the(a) start-up and (b) failure rate was for small businesses in (i) the North West Region, (ii) Merseyside and (iii) St. Helens in each year since 1992. [142715]

  Nigel Griffiths
  VAT registrations are the best official guide to start-ups. VAT de-registrations and insolvency statistics give an indication of failure rates and numbers.

  The rates of businesses registering and de-registering for VAT in each calendar year from 1992 to 2002 in the North West Government Office Region, Merseyside and St. Helens, are as follows:

  For further information on the DTI insolvency statistics please see: www.dtistats.net/sd/insolv/index.htm

  Sun Chemicals
  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether the acquisition of the printing ink manufacturers Gibbons and Coates and Lovilleux by Sun Chemicals has been referred to the Competition Commission; and if she will make a statement. [143000]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  [holding answer 10 December 2003]: Ministers are no longer involved in decisions on whether to refer to the Competition Commission mergers which do not raise specified public interest considerations.

  The Office of Fair Trading is not currently investigating this acquisition.
  567W

  Working Time Directive
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what estimate she has made of the number of workers who work more than 48 hours a week but who have not signed the opt-out to the 48-hour average working week limit. [142606]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  A survey of workers' experiences of the working time regulations conducted on behalf of my Department in 2001 estimated that three quarters of long hours workers had not signed a written agreement with their employer to opt-out of the 48-hour average working week limit. Also, the Second Work-Life Balance Study: Employees Survey carried out in early 2003 estimates that 70 per cent. of employees who usually or were contracted to work more than 48 hours per week had not signed a written agreement to opt-out of the 48-hour average working week limit. Some of these employees would not have been required to sign an opt-out as not all would have worked over 48 hours per week on average over the 17 week reference period, some would have been autonomous workers and others would have been in sectors or occupations that were excluded from the regulations at the time of the surveys.

  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps are being taken to increase the awareness of the 48-hour average working week limit among workers. [142607]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  Guidance on the Working Time Regulations, which includes a comprehensive chapter on the weekly working time limits is available on the Department of Trade and Industry website. In addition the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service (ACAS) operate an inquiry helpline on all employment related legislation, including the Working Time Regulations. As part of their work, the enforcing agencies also play a role in educating employers and workers on the working time limits.

  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment she has made of the numbers of workers who are unaware of the 48-hour average working week limit. [142608]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  A survey of workers' experience of the working time regulations conducted on behalf of my department in 2001 estimated that around 30 per cent. of workers were unaware of laws regarding the number of hours people can work each week.

  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will estimate the number of workers whose conditions of employment included a requirement to opt out of the 48-hour average working week limit. [142609]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  Employers are required to keep a record of workers who have opted out of the 48-hour average working week limit. As there is no requirement to report opt out agreements to anyone other than the parties concerned, there are no official estimates of the numbers of workers whose conditions of employment included a requirement to sign an opt out. However, workers who have agreed to opt out of the weekly working time limit retain the right to end the agreement at any time subject only to a notice period of a maximum of three months.
  568W
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the future of the UK's individual opt-out from the Working Time Directive. [142847]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  The European Commission's Communication on the opt-out is expected shortly. The Government hope that the Communication will present a range of options on the opt-out that can be discussed with UK social partners.

  UK is firmly committed to reducing working hours, demonstrated by the work/life balance campaign, but the problem is workplace culture rather than a lack of laws. Work/Life balance is not just about long hours but about providing individual workers with choice over their hours or pattern of work and ensuring that they are not disadvantaged by their choice.

DEFENCE

  Armed Forces Personnel
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many personnel were serving in the Army,(b) Royal Air Force and (c) Royal Navy at the beginning of each of the last three years; what the predicted numbers are for each of the next three years; and if he will make a statement. [142199]

  Mr. Caplin
  The numbers of personnel serving in the armed forces over the last three years are displayed in Tri-Service Publication (TSP) 1 'UK Regular Forces Strengths and Changes', a copy of which can be found in the House of Commons Library.

  Each service sets manpower requirements at the level required to deliver the capabilities needed to meet their endorsed requirements. The requirements and the performance in meeting them are reported by the Defence Analytical Services Agency (DASA) both annually in UK Defence Statistics and quarterly under National Statistics arrangements. Copies of these can also be found in the House of Commons Library.

  Army (Victimisation)
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many members of the Army indicated when last questioned that they believed that(a) harassment, (b) discrimination and (c) bullying are problems in (i) their immediate area of work and (ii) the Army as a whole; what percentage of those responding this represents; what percentage of the actual strength this represents; and if he will make a statement. [142576]

  Mr. Caplin
  In response to the latest Serving Personnel Army Continuous Attitude Survey, 202 of those surveyed indicated they believed that harassment, discrimination or bullying were problems within their immediate work area; this represents 12 per cent. of those who responded to this question and 12 per cent. of those who returned questionnaires. In addition, 837 serving personnel indicated that they believed harassment, discrimination and bullying were problems within the British Army; this represents 51 percent of those who responded to this question and 50 per cent. of those who returned questionnaires.
  569W
  The latest survey was undertaken in December 2002 and was sent to a four percent stratified random sample of the trained Army (excluding Gurkhas and Full Time Reserve Service).

  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many members of the Army indicated when last questioned that they have been a victim of(a) harassment, (b) discrimination and (c) bullying in the Army; what percentage of those responding this represents; what percentage of the actual strength this represents; and if he will make a statement. [142577]

  Mr. Caplin
  In response to the latest Army Serving Personnel Continuous Attitude Survey, those members of the Army that indicated they had been subject to harassment, discrimination or bullying in the last 12 months are shown in the table:

  Question

  Number within previous 12 months:

  Percentage of those who answered the question

  Percentage of those who returned a completed questionnaire

  Racial Discrimination

  37

  2.3

  2.2

  Racial Harassment

  26

  1.6

  1.6

  Sex Discrimination

  54

  3.3

  3.2

  Sexual Harassment

  28

  1.7

  1.7

  Bullying

  83

  5.1

  5.0

  The latest survey was undertaken in December 2002 and was sent to a 4 per cent. stratified random sample of the trained Army (excluding Gurkhas and Full Time Reserve Service personnel); There may be an element of double counting in the number of occurrences, for example, one individual may have indicated they were subject to both racial discrimination and racial harassment, this having been counted twice.

  Defence Finance
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what his Department's budget was in(a) cash terms and (b) at 2002–03 prices for each year from 1997–98 to 2002–03; what his estimates are for each year from 2003–04 to 2005–06; and if he will make a statement. [142030]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Ministry of Defence's outturn for 1998–99 to 2002–03 and plans for 2003–04 to 2005–06 at outturn prices are set out in The Government's Expenditure Plans for the MOD 2003–04 to 2005–06. These exclude the cost of unprogrammed operations and conflict prevention. At 2002–03 prices they are as follows:

  £ million

  Outturn Prices

  2002–03 Prices

  1998–99

  22,321

  24,393

  1999–2000

  22,105

  23,719

  2000–01

  23,170

  24,440

  2001–02

  23,838

  24,517

  2002–03

  24,382

  24,382

  2003–04

  25,872

  25,194

  2004–05

  26,590

  25,240

  2005–06

  27,496

  25,463

  570W
  The MOD's cash outturn in 1997–98, as set out in The Government's Expenditure Plans for the MOD 2002–03 to 2003–04, was £20,748 million at outturn prices and £23,292 million at 2002–03 prices.

  Both documents are available on the MOD's website: www.mod.uk

  From 1997–98 to 2000–01 the Department was controlled in cash. Meaningful year-on-year comparison is not possible with the 2001–02 outturn in the light of the transition from cash to Stage 1 Resource Accounting and Budgeting (RAB) in that year. Near cash figures after the transition to Stage 2 RAB, from 2003–04 to 2005–06, are intended to allow comparison with the Stage 1 RAB figures in 2001–02 and 2002–03.

  Procurement
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, (1) if he will list the major(a) defence estates upgrades and (b) information infrastructure upgrades that will be met from the Defence Procurement Agency budget, stating in each case (a) the in-service date and (b) the total projected cost of each project; and if he will make a statement; [143265]

  (2) if he will list the amounts (a) spent on procurement through the Defence Procurement Agency in each year since 1997 and (b) projected to be spent in each year up to 2012, indicating in each case the percentage of the defence budget represented in each case; and if he will make a statement. [143267]

  Mr. Ingram
  I will write to the hon. Member and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the total estimated cost of(a) refurbishment of western jetties, (b) Navystar, (c) Access, (d) LITS, (e) EMMA, Phase 1 and (f) RAFT at Devonport, stating in each case (i) the in-service date and (ii) which budget line the expense will be drawn from; and if he will make a statement. [143266]

  Mr. Ingram
  I will write to the hon. Member and place a copy of my reply in the Library of the House.

  Depleted Uranium
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the UNEP depleted uranium environmental survey will be completed; and if he will place a copy in the Library. [142320]

  Mr. Caplin
  The timing of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) environmental field survey of Iraq, of which a survey into depleted uranium is an element, will depend upon the local security situation. However, UNEP expect to commence the field survey in spring 2004. I am unable to say at present when the proposed depleted uranium survey will be complete.

  No discussions have taken place about publication but I would anticipate a copy to be made available to the Library of the House.
  571W

  Mental Health
  Mr. Keith Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which companies entered the competitive bidding process to provide psychiatric treatment and rehabilitation to members of the armed forces previously treated at the Duchess of Kent Psychiatric Hospital; and what assessment was made of the political affiliation of the board members of the bidding companies. [143485]

  Mr. Caplin
  Five companies responded to the initial tender advertisements that appeared in the Official Journal European Community (OJEC) Services Directive and the MOD Contracts Bulletin in February 2003. Of these, four attended an Industry Day held on the 15 April 2003, and subsequently three received Invitations to Tender: Cygnet Health Care, The Priory Group, and Affinity Health Care. The first two of these submitted final tender responses.

  Following detailed evaluation of the tender bids, The Priory's tender was considered the most technically compliant and they were accordingly awarded the contract.

  No assessment was made of the political affiliation of the bidding companies. The Ministry of Defence's competitive tendering arrangements do not take such factors into account.

  Missile Defence
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he has had with the US Department of Defence on the technical issues to do with the UK sites encountered in developing missile defence. [142112]

  Mr. Hoon
  None, though officials have a wide range of contacts with US experts on technical matters relating to missile defence. As I told the House on 5 February 2003,Official Report, column 11 WS, the Government have agreed to the upgrading of the early warning radar at RAF Fylingdales for missile defence purposes. UK and US officials are discussing the detailed plans for this upgrade, and we expect to finalise the necessary bilateral agreement shortly.

  Navigational Aids
  John Thurso
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what navigational aids are employed by the Ministry of Defence; where they are stationed; and at what cost, in each of the last five years for which figures are available. [141742]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Ministry of Defence uses both sea and land based navigational aids. For sea based aids the Department currently operates four vessels used to lay/recover and undertake annual maintenance of some 205 navigational buoys, 120 moorings and 15 targets around the coast of the British Isles. The Department also maintains 12 Oceanographic Data Acquisition System buoys for the Meteorological Office. The sea based navigational aids are provided to mark channels, boundaries or hazards contained within the dockyard ports, trials ranges and areas of interest to MOD.
  572W
  This work is to be included in a PPP/PFI Acquisition programme for future provision of Marine Services, and I am withholding details of expenditure in accordance with Exemption 7 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information (Effective management and operations of the public service).

  The requested information on land based navigational aids will take some time to collate and I will write to the hon. Member and place a copy of my letter in the Library of the House.

  Northern Ireland Veterans
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how many claims have been made to the Veterans' Agency for post traumatic stress disorder-related illnesses attributed to service in Northern Ireland since 1973; [142741]

  (2) how many war pensions are being paid to members of the armed forces injured during their service in Northern Ireland. [142745]

  Mr. Caplin
  The information is not available in the format requested and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Northern Ireland veterans have taken their own lives(a) after and (b) during their service in Northern Ireland since 1973. [142742]

  Mr. Caplin
  Between 1984 and 2002 there have been 45 deaths among Regular Service personnel serving in Northern Ireland recorded with a suicide verdict or an open verdict from a coroner. During this period there were three other deaths among Regular Service personnel serving in Northern Ireland for whom we are waiting for a coroner's verdict. Information on deaths prior to 1984 is not held centrally. Information on other Service personnel who may have served in Northern Ireland, but died in Service elsewhere is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. Information on deaths of Service personnel after they have left the Service is also not generally available to the Ministry of Defence.

  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what reports he has received from associations or organisations specifically set up to support Northern Ireland veterans. [142860]

  Mr. Caplin
  The Ministry of Defence has not received any reports from organisations specifically set up to support Northern Ireland veterans. The recently formed Northern Ireland Veterans Association has been invited to attend the next Veterans Plenary Forum on 24 March 2004 which I chair as Minister for Veterans.

  Nuclear Deterrent
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence under what circumstances it would be necessary to replace Trident; and what implications this would have for the renewal of Article III of the Mutual Defence Agreement. [142319]
  573W
  Mr. Hoon
  I refer my hon. Friend to paragraph 3.11 of the Defence White Paper (Cm 6041) which was laid before the House on 11 December, in which the Government stated that'decisions on whether to replace Trident are not needed this Parliament but are likely to be required in the next one. We will therefore continue to take appropriate steps to ensure that the range of options for maintaining a nuclear deterrent capability is kept open until that decision point'.
  Implications for the 1958 Mutual Defence Agreement, or other relevant agreements, are therefore hypothetical at this stage.

  Reserve Forces
  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to encourage more employers to enable their workforces to participate in the reserve forces. [142985]

  Mr. Caplin
  The SaBRE (Supporting Britain's Reservists and Employers) campaign aims to win and maintain the support of employers for the Volunteer Reserves. This is achieved through a combination of highly targeted direct marketing and the establishment of a network of Employer Support Executives to focus employer support at the regional level. We are confident that SaBRE succeeds in generating increased levels of interest in, and support for, our Volunteer Reserve forces, and demonstrate to employers the benefits of employing reservists in their organisations.

  In addition, as part of the overall process of identifying lessons learned from all aspects of Operation Telic, we will be reviewing the employer support package, including the right to claim financial assistance to cover the additional costs resulting from the call out of a member of staff.

  Also as a result of our experiences during Operation Telic we intend to foster greater involvement of employers in "intelligent mobilisation" in the future. This process recognises that, if there is time, it is better to seek volunteers for specific posts whose employers have given permission for them to be mobilised. Where possible, we will also endeavour to provide reasonable notice of mobilisation plans and improve the flow of information to employers about mobilised Reservists.

  Warships
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether HMS Bridport has been placed in(a) reserve and (b) extended readiness. [143258]

  Mr. Ingram
  The terms 'in reserve' and 'extended readiness' are broadly similar, although the latter is in more common usage and describes the very low level readiness state in which HMS Bridport is currently held.

CABINET OFFICE

  Art Acquisition
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office 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
  574W
  much it cost; and what the total revenue raised by his Department through sales of its works of art has been since 1997. [142364]

  Mr. Alexander
  The Cabinet Office has not spent any monies on the acquisition of works of art since 1997. No revenue has been raised by the Cabinet Office through sales of its works of art.

  Fair Trade Products
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office 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. [142812]

  Mr. Alexander
  It is Cabinet Office policy to purchase on the basis of value for money. Whilst we have no specific policy on purchasing Fair Trade products, we encourage our contracted catering providers to purchase Fair Trade products where commercially practicable and viable.

  Hutton Inquiry
  Mr. Cameron
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office for what reason the document 'Submissions of the Government to the Inquiry' (CAB/28/0002–0017), submitted to the Hutton Inquiry, was not published; and if he will make a statement. [142056]

  Mr. Leslie
  I have been asked to reply.

  Lord Hutton conducted the inquiry on the basis that all the evidence given by witnesses at the inquiry and all the documents referred to in evidence, together with the oral statements of Counsel to the inquiry, would be made public, but that the written submissions of the parties would not be made public, pending the publication of his report. After the publication of the report Lord Hutton will decide whether some or all of the written submissions should be published.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Electoral Fraud (Northern Ireland) Act
  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the Electoral Fraud (Northern Ireland) Act 2002 in combating electoral fraud in Northern Ireland. [142692]

  Mr. Spellar
  We are satisfied that the Electoral Fraud (Northern Ireland) Act 2002 has proved to be successful in combating electoral fraud and has improved public confidence in the electoral process. Furthermore I am also pleased to see that a report, published by the Electoral Commission on 9 December, concludes that the register more accurately reflects those entitled to be registered than the previous register.

  However, we also recognise that work still needs to be done to ensure that all those entitled to have the opportunity to register. We will continue to work closely with the Electoral Office and the Electoral Commission to ensure this happens.
  575W

  Fire Service
  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many(a) part-time and (b) full-time fire officers were serving in the Northern Ireland Fire Brigade in each year since 1997; and if he will make a statement on Fire Service recruitment in Northern Ireland. [142674]

  Angela Smith
  The numbers of whole-time and retained fire fighters serving in the Northern Ireland Fire Brigade since 1997 are as follows:

  Whole-time

  Retained

  1997

  918

  975

  1998

  909

  971

  1999

  881

  960

  2000

  879

  798

  2001

  894

  799

  2002

  895

  812

  2003

  887

  788

  The Northern Ireland Fire Brigade has just completed one of the most extensive retained recruitment campaigns in the UK fire service, having recruited 126 retained fire-fighters over 41 stations in recent months. A further retained recruitment campaign will be launched in January 2004.

  The Brigade is currently short-listing candidates to fill whole-time vacancies.

  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many attacks on firefighters there have been in each Fire Authority district in Northern Ireland in each of the past five years; what steps he is taking to reduce such attacks; and if he will make a statement. [142696]

  Angela Smith
  The information requested by the hon. Lady is set out in the following table. Information is available at this level of detail only from 2001.

  The reported increase in 2002 is partly the result of improved recording procedures. Although the reduction this year is welcome, attacks on firefighters—and other staff in the emergency services—are criminal offences and utterly unacceptable. I have taken every opportunity to condemn them, and continue to do so in the strongest possible terms.

  This year I have made available to the fire and ambulance services special additional funding, totalling £400,000, to help them to raise public awareness that such attacks endanger not only their crews but also those members of the public they are trying to help.

  I am grateful to those elected representatives and community leaders who have been using their influence to reinforce this message, and I urge them to continue to do so.

  Reported attacks on firefighters by district, 2001–03

  District

  2001

  2002

  2003 (to 5 December)

  South and East Belfast

  38

  126

  82

  North and West Belfast

  59

  142

  122

  Ballymena

  3

  10

  4

  Coleraine

  0

  2

  2

  Glengormley

  5

  28

  21

  576W

  Reported attacks on firefighters by district, 2001–03

  District

  2001

  2002

  2003 (to 5 December)

  Lisburn

  0

  7

  1

  Portadown

  4

  16

  24

  Bangor

  1

  17

  9

  Newry

  9

  23

  14

  Downpatrick

  1

  5

  5

  Londonderry

  10

  20

  21

  Omagh

  1

  1

  1

  Cookstown

  2

  9

  7

  Enniskillen

  0

  4

  2

  Total

  133

  410

  315

  Hare Coursing
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will meet(a) the Game Conservancy Trust and (b) Professor Montgomery of the School of Biology at Queen's University, Belfast, to discuss management of the hare population in Northern Ireland. [142937]

  Angela Smith
  As Minister with responsibility for environmental matters, including issues relating to management of the Irish hare population, I would be prepared to consider any request for a meeting on the issue.

  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment he has made of the effect of(a) legal coursing on the recovery of the hare population and (b) appropriate land management by coursing clubs and responsible hunting groups on hare conservation; and if he will make a statement. [142938]

  Angela Smith
  No such assessments have been made.

  The Species Action Plan (SAP) for the Irish Hare, published by the Environment and Heritage Service of the Department of the Environment in October 2000, contains a number of steps to encourage all relevant landowners to adopt hare and habitat management practices that will contribute to the SAP objective to double the population of Irish Hares, over as wide an area as possible, by 2010.

  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment he has made of the reliability of evidence for the decline in the Irish hare; what assessment he has made of the effect of(a) setting up a monitoring system and (b) developing current hunting, shooting and coursing practices to ensure they cannot have an unsustainable impact on hare numbers; and if he will make a statement. [142939]

  Angela Smith
  The Irish Hare Species Action Plan, published by the Department of the Environment in 2000, identified the need for regular surveys of the Irish hare population, building on the baseline population for the species established by research commissioned by the Department from Queen's University of Belfast (QUB) in 1997. This was followed by The Northern Ireland Irish Hare Survey 2002, also carried out on the Department's behalf by QUB. Both reports confirmed that Irish hare numbers are low. I am satisfied that this research provides as accurate a population estimate as can be made for such an elusive and uncommon animal.
  577W
  The Department intends to carry out regular monitoring throughout Northern Ireland in order to detect future trends in Irish hare numbers. The next survey is scheduled for spring 2004.

  No assessment has been made of the effect on hare numbers of developing current hunting, shooting and coursing practices to ensure they cannot have an unsustainable impact on hare numbers. These practices are subject to the provisions of the Game Preservation Act (Northern Ireland) 1928, as amended. I recently published notice under the Act, of a proposal to introduce a temporary ban on the killing or taking, or the sale or purchase of Irish hares. This is intended to allow time to consider, within a current review of the Wildlife (Northern Ireland) Order 1985, whether there is a need to strengthen the statutory protection afforded to the Irish hare.

  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what scientific evidence he has assessed that supports the case for banning hare hunting and coursing in Northern Ireland; for what reason such evidence was not circulated in detail to concerned parties; and if he will make a statement. [142941]

  Angela Smith
  Research carried out at the Queen's University of Belfast (QUB) reported in 1997 that the population of the Irish Hare was at low density in Northern Ireland.

  This assessment was followed up by a research study, "The Northern Ireland Irish Hare 'Lepus timidus hibernicus' Survey 2002", commissioned by the Environment and Heritage Service (EHS) of the Department of the Environment and also carried out by QUB. It reported that Irish Hares were widespread but occurred at a low density of about one hare per kilometre square. The report of this study included the recommendation that the Department should consider removal of the Irish Hare from the quarry list and giving protection under the Wildlife (Northern Ireland) Order 1985. This recommendation is among the issues being considered in a current review of the Wildlife Order.

  I considered the research and survey report in the context of the Irish Hare Species Action Plan published by EHS in 2000, which has among its objectives a target to double the Irish Hare population, over as wide an area as possible, by 2010. The inconsistency between this policy objective and the continuing practice of hunting and coursing Irish Hares led to the proposal for a temporary ban on the killing or taking, or the sale or purchase, of Irish Hares, pending the outcome of the Wildlife Order review.

  A seminar delivering the results of the 2002 Survey was held in January 2003 at Queen's University Belfast. Interested parties were invited to attend. Following this seminar the full text of the report was made available on the EHS website, (http://www.ehsni.gov.uk/ pubs/publications/Irish HareSurvey2002.pdf) where it remains available, together with the Irish Hare Species Action Plan. Copies of both documents have also been placed in the Library.

  Kate Hoey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will place in the Library a copy of all the evidence and advice given to him by his Department on the issue of the ban on hare-hunting. [143126]
  578W
  Angela Smith
  I have placed in the Library copies of:Biodiversity in Northern Ireland—Species Action Plans—Irish Hare, Chough and Curlew, published by the Environment and Heritage Service of the Department of the Environment in 2000; and
  The Northern Ireland Irish Hare "Lepus timidus hibernicus" Survey 2002 by Dr. Jane Preston, Dr. Paulo Prodohl, Dr. Alex Portig and Professor Ian Montgomery of the Queen's University of Belfast; commissioned by the Environment and Heritage Service.

  These documents provide evidence of the size of the Irish Hare population and assess the reasons for the decline in its numbers. They were the principal sources of information on the low numbers of Irish Hare on which I took the decision to refuse a licence to a coursing club to net hares and to propose the making of a special protection order to introduce a temporary ban on killing and taking Irish Hares, pending the outcome of a current review of the Wildlife (Northern Ireland) Order 1985, which will examine, among other things, whether the Irish Hare should be placed on the list of species that are protected at all times.

  Milk
  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what discussions he has had with representatives from Northern Ireland's dairies in relation to milk prices. [142671]

  Mr. Pearson
  I have had no formal discussions recently with representatives from Northern Ireland's dairies in relation to milk prices. This is a reserved matter and it is not Government policy to interfere in the operation of normal market forces. I note, however, that average producer price for raw milk sold in Northern Ireland in October 2003, at 21.18 pence per litre, was 15.6 per cent. higher than the price of 18.32 pence per litre realised in October 2002.

  NHS Direct
  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has to introduce NHS Direct to Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement. [143817]

  Angela Smith
  The Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety has sought to introduce a pilot project based on the NHS Direct concept in the Western Health and Social Services Board area to test the system locally. Two bids were made for Executive Programme Funds to support this initiative but these were unsuccessful. The Department is currently engaged in the development of a Primary Care Strategy Framework document that will identify those issues that matter to people who use the service. The Strategy will determine the priority to be accorded to various initiatives to be introduced to primary care over the next 20 years.

  Police Act 1997
  Ms Shipley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland on what date Part V of the Police Act 1997 will commence in Northern Ireland. [142905]
  579W
  Jane Kennedy
  There is no date for the commencement of Part V of the Police Act 1997 in Northern Ireland as yet.

  Ms Shipley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether an implementation plan exists for the commencement of Part V of the Police Act 1997 in Northern Ireland. [142906]

  Jane Kennedy
  We are considering how best to implement Part V of the Police Act 1997 in Northern Ireland and are exploring a number of options. It is important to note that the Pre-Employment Consultancy Service will continue to check the suitability of those seeking to work with children pending the implementation of Part V of the Police Act.

  Ms Shipley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether Part V of the Police Act 1997 will be commenced in tandem with the Protection of Children and Vulnerable Adults (NI) Order 2003. [142907]

  Jane Kennedy
  We are considering how best to implement Part V of the Police Act 1997 and officials from the DHSSPS(NI) and other relevant NI departments will be involved in such considerations.

  Potato Ring Rot
  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps he is taking to prevent the spread of ring rot to Northern Ireland. [142672]

  Mr. Pearson
  The recent finding of potato ring rot in Wales poses a significant threat to the potato industry in Northern Ireland. Stringent preventative measures are already in place to minimise the risk of this disease spreading to Northern Ireland. The Department of Agriculture and Rural Development (DARD) has increased its existing preventative actions. Its response to the current incident has included:checking and sampling of crops produced from GB seed potatoes this year;
  further targeted sampling of GB seed potatoes due to be planted in Northern Ireland in 2004;
  increased monitoring by inspectors at the ports of Belfast, Larne and Warrenpoint of all seed and ware potato imports;
  increased inspections at premises of importers and processors, including inspections of stocks and checks on sources and reliability;
  the issue of letters to merchants and importers seeking information on imports. Letters will also be sent to all growers; and
  meetings with stakeholder representatives and key industry individuals to provide scientific information on the disease and advice on new preventative measures.

  Student Finance
  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what discussions he has had with representatives from Northern Ireland's universities in relation to tuition fees. [142694]

  Jane Kennedy
  I have had no discussions with representatives from Northern Ireland's Universities in relation to tuition fees. If student fees are increased in England, I will consider the implications for Northern 580W
  Ireland with my officials and the relevant stakeholders, with a view to bringing forward proposals for consultation.

  Working Time Directive
  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the implementation of the European Union Working Time Directive in Northern Ireland. [142688]

  Jane Kennedy
  The European Directive on Working Time (93/104/EC) and the related Directive (94/33/EC) on the protection of young people at work were given effect in Northern Ireland by the Working Time Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1998, S.R. 1998/386. Subsequently, there have been two significant amendments to the 1998 Regulations, both of which were made this year, namely:the Working Time (Amendment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2003, S.R. 2003/119, which implement certain provisions of the 1994 Directive which had not previously been introduced (maximum working day and working week, and restrictions on night work by young workers)
  the Working Time (Amendment No. 2) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2003, S.R. 2003/330 which implemented a further Directive known as the Horizontal Amending Directive (2000/34/EC). This extended working time provisions to previously excluded sectors (i.e. air, rail, road, sea, inland waterway and lake transport, sea fishing, other work at sea and doctors in training). The provisions for doctors in training will not apply until 1 August 2004.

  Certain provisions of the Horizontal Amending Directive, which are being given effect on a UK-wide basis, have yet to be implemented.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Afghanistan
  Mr. Hammond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action allied troops in Afghanistan are taking to(a) counter opium production and (b) interdict opium trade. [141899]

  Mr. Ingram
  I have been asked to reply.

  International forces in Afghanistan are helping to train the Afghan Transitional Administration's security forces and, in Kabul, to assist in maintaining security. By doing so, troops of both the coalition and the International Security Assistance Force contribute towards the counter-narcotics programmes of civilian law enforcement and development agencies. They also help the Afghans themselves create the structures through which they can implement more effectively President Karzai's commitment to deal with both opium fanning and trafficking in his country.

  Algeria
  Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what mechanism will be put in place to monitor Algeria's adherence to the human rights principles laid out in the EU/Algeria Association Agreement, once the Agreement is ratified. [143127]
  581W
  Mr. Rammell
  Under Articles 92–95 of the EU/Algeria Association Agreement, an Association Council will be established which shall meet at ministerial level once a year and examine any major issues arising within the framework of the agreement.

  Article 2 states that human rights shall constitute an essential element of this agreement.

  Ascension Island
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will amend the 1956 Bahamas Long Range Proving Ground Agreement in order to charge rent to the United States for their occupation of Wide Awake Airfield and additional land exclusively occupied by US personnel on Ascension Island; and if he will arrange for the rent to be made payable to the Ascension Island administration. [143279]

  Mr. Rammell: We have no plans to amend the 1956 Bahamas Long Range Proving Ground Agreement.

  Bangladesh
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations he has made to the Government of Bangladesh concerning(a) attacks upon and (b) intimidation of (i) Christians and (ii) Hindus by militant Islamist groups. [142602]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Officials from the British High Commission in Dhaka regularly raise discrimination against religious minorities and other human rights concerns with the authorities. While I have not personally raised the issue, our High Commissioner did so with the Acting Foreign Secretary on 6 November 2003.

  Colombia
  Sandra Osborne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how he proposes to ensure that funding to Colombia from(a) the EU and (b) the United Kingdom is used for the purposes for which it was given in the light of the Colombian Government's decision to merge the programmes of Plan Colombia, Social Solidarity Network and the Colombian Agency for International Cooperation and to create a single programme instead. [142972]

  Mr. Rammell
  We understand the merger is to form a single coordinating agency rather than a single programme of activity.

  The UK's contribution to the EU Aid Budget to Colombia is some 19 per cent. Projects are monitored by the European Commission's office in Bogota. The workings of the merger are still settling down and it will be some time before things are completely clear. The European Commission are assessing the situation.

  Funding for other UK assistance to Colombia is not channelled through any of these organisations. Our projects are implemented by non-governmental organisations, UN agencies or other Colombian Government bodies. We always ensure the reliability and probity of all our partners.
  582W
  Sandra Osborne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make it his policy not to support any process of demobilisation of the paramilitaries in Colombia that fails to take into account the rights of the civilian population to truth, justice and reparation. [142973]

  Mr. Rammell
  Before agreeing to support any process of demobilisation we would carefully consider all aspects, including the need to take into account the rights of the civilian population to truth, justice and reparation. We have stressed to the Colombian Government that in pursuing a peace process with any of the illegal armed groups that there should be no general amnesty or pardon for those who have committed human rights violations, and that all negotiations should be open, transparent and treated on the same basis.

  Sandra Osborne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what support the British Government will give to human rights defenders in Colombia: and if it will provide on going financial support to the UN Office on Human Rights. [142974]

  Mr. Rammell
  We support publicly the role of human rights defenders, other NGOs and members of civil society in Colombia. We stress the importance of the role they should be given in the reform process, the need for continued dialogue, and for farther urgent and effective measures to protect them, at every opportunity. We will continue to do so.

  We continue to provide financial support to the Office of UN High Commissioner for Human Rights in Bogota.
  Mr. Allan: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on recent statements by ministers in the Colombian government that (a) the London Declaration of July 2003 is not binding and (b) the Colombian government will not be complying with all the UN recommendations on human rights because national sovereignty is more important than international commitments; and how the British Government will work with the EU to monitor full implementation of the UN recommendations. [143187]

  Mr. Rammell
  [holding answer of 10 December 2003]: None of the governments who attended the London Meeting on International Support for Colombia are bound by the London Declaration. It is a declaration not a legal document. Nevertheless, political commitments were made at the Meeting which are reflected in the Declaration. We continue to stress to the Colombian Government the importance of keeping to these commitments.

  We are working with EU partners through the Working Group in Bogota of the governments who attended the London Meeting to monitor implementation of the London Declaration, including UN recommendations. We have requested an end of year evaluation.

  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the implications of recent accusations made by members of the Colombian military against(a) the displaced civilian populations of the Cacarica River basin and Jiguamiendo, (b) the ombudsman

  583W
  of Cacarica, (c) Peace Brigades International and (d) Justice and Peace for the Colombian Government's compliance with commitments they gave in July at the London Conference. [143198]

  Mr. Rammell
  We have stressed to the Colombian Government that such blanket public accusations are inappropriate and run the risk of being counterproductive. I made this clear to the Colombian Foreign Minister when I met her in September in New York and issued a press statement following the meeting. If there are credible allegations of impropriety by individual organisations, they should be investigated by due judicial process.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he will reply to the letter to him dated 7 October 2003 from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton, with regard to Abu Nayem. [142951]

  Mr. Mullin
  I would like to apologise to my right hon. Friend for not having replied to his letter of 7 October to my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary about Mr. Abu Nayem.

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

  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when will he reply to the letter to him dated 7 October 2003 from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton, with regard to Mr. Mukhtar Ahmed Rana. [142952]

  Mr. Mullin
  I can confirm that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary replied on 3 December 2003 to my right hon. Friend's letter of 6 October 2003 with regard to Mr. Mukhtar Ahmed Rana.

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he will reply to the letters from the right hon. Member for North-East Hampshire of 7 April and 22 July, regarding his constituent Dr. McGarry. [143750]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The reply was sent to the right hon. Member on 10 December 2003. I apologise for the delay in replying.

  Eritrea
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations he has made to the government of Eritrea concerning persecution of evangelical and Pentecostal Christians. [142603]

  Mr. Mullin
  I raised this issue most recently with Eritrea's Foreign Minister when he called on me in London on 1 December. On the same day, our ambassador in Asmara raised religious freedom with 584W
  Eritrea's Director for Europe. Previously, I had raised this issue with the Eritrean ambassador when he called on me on 11 September 2003.

  Fair Trade Products
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs 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. [142806]

  Mr. Rammell
  Foreign and Commonwealth Office purchasing policy is in accordance with the Government's Public Purchasing Consolidated Guidelines, which require the procurement of goods and services to be based on value for money and that they should be acquired by competition unless there are convincing reasons to the contrary.

  Fair trade products are widely available in our offices. Almost all tea and coffee provided for official meetings is fair trade and our canteens and restaurants sell fair trade products including coffee, tea, chocolate and muesli bars.

  Former Soviet Union
  Andrew Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps are being taken to aid former Soviet states in the decommissioning of nuclear weapons, devices and delivery systems. [142280]

  Mr. MacShane
  The Government published on 5 December the First Annual Report on the United Kingdom's contribution to the G8 Global Partnership. The Report details the work under way to address the nuclear, chemical and biological legacies of the former Soviet Union.

  At the 2002 G8 Summit at Kananaskis in Canada, leaders pledged to provide up to US$20 billion over 10 years for a new Global Partnership against the spread of weapons and materials of mass destruction. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced that the UK would make available up to US$750 million to fund projects in pursuit of these objectives.

  Considerable progress has already been made as a result of close co-operation between FCO, DTI and MOD in conjunction with the Russian Federation and other countries of the former Soviet Union, Central and Eastern Europe as well as funding partners. The signing of bilateral agreements with the Russian Federation during President Putin's State Visit in June this year has helped to consolidate a firm foundation for the UK's programme of assistance.

  The report outlines the specific projects in which the United Kingdom is involved. These include the dismantling of two Oscar class nuclear submarines and related projects; constructing a spent nuclear fuel facility, preparing the groundwork for the safe removal and storage of some 21,000 spent nuclear fuel assemblies at a former Russian Navy site, and constructing the infrastructure at a major chemical weapons destruction facility.
  585W
  Copies of the report are available in the Library of the House. Further reports will be published annually setting out the progress achieved in the work being undertaken by the United Kingdom.

  Hong Kong
  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the recent elections in Hong Kong. [142667]

  Mr. Rammell
  District council elections took place in Hong Kong on 23 November 2003. Over a million people voted, 44 per cent. of those registered to do so, compared with a 36 per cent. turnout in the previous district council elections in 1999. The parties that secured the most out of the 400 seats available were the Democratic Party with 95 and the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment of Hong Kong (DAB), which secured 62 seats. The Chief Executive of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region is entitled to choose up to an additional 102 people to sit in various district councils but has yet to announce these.

  We continue to follow developments in Hong Kong closely. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary continues to report regularly to the House on the implementation of the 1984 Sino-British Joint Declaration on Hong Kong. The last such report, which covered the first six months of this year, was published in July (Cmnd 5864).

  Immigration Adjudicator
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many persons applied for the post of immigration adjudicator; and when he intends to announce the name of the successful candidate. [142934]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  86 people applied for the post of Independent Monitor for Entry Clearance Refusals Without the Right of Appeal. As my hon. Friend will now be aware, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary announced the appointment of Fiona Lindsley in a written statement to the House on 1 December 2003,Official Report, column 53WS.

  Iraq
  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many schools have been renovated by coalition forces in Iraq since 1 May. [141281]

  Mr. Rammell
  Since 1 May, UK forces have renovated 91 schools in Iraq, and are working on a further 140. We have no information about schools renovated by other Coalition forces.

  Mr. Godsiff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether, in the build up to the war with Iraq and subsequently, he permitted British Intelligence Services to intercept diplomatic communications between member states of the United Nations. [143035]

  Mr. Straw
  In common with most governments, we do not go into detail about intelligence-related issues, including interception. I can, however, give an 586W
  assurance that the only purposes for which interception may be permitted are set out in legislation: national security, safeguarding economic well-being and the prevention and detection of serious crime.

  Israel
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will support the implementation of the Geneva agreement between representatives of Israel and the Palestinian territories. [141814]

  Mr. Rammell
  The recognition and implementation of any final status agreement is for the Israeli Government and the Palestinian Authority. But. as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said in his Statement on the Geneva Accord on 1 December "I would like to commend this initiative and the debate that it has stimulated among Israelis and Palestinians, and more widely in the International Community. I hope that this initiative will also show that Israelis and Palestinians remain capable of finding partners for peace and working together, and encourage a return to the negotiating table.

  Mrs. Calton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps are being taken to encourage the Palestinian Authority to take steps to prevent further suicide attacks in Israel.

  [143131]

  Mr. Rammell
  The UK, nationally and with EU partners, continues to urge the Palestinian Authority to fulfil its roadmap commitments on security, and intensify its efforts to tackle groups and individuals engaging in terrorist activity. The UK is also providing practical support to the Palestinian Authority to help them to rebuild the capacity of their security forces to tackle terrorism.

  Mrs. Calton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he is taking to persuade the Israeli Government to(a) stop further construction of the separation wall in the West Bank and (b) prevent more settlements being built there. [143037]

  Mr. Rammell
  The Government have urged the Government of Israel to re-route the fence away from Palestinian areas and to freeze settlement activity. My right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary have made clear our concerns to the Israeli Prime Minister and Foreign Minister on a number of occasions. My noble Friend Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean raised these matters with the Israeli Foreign Minister during her visit to Israel on 30 September, and with the Israeli Minister for National Infrastructure on 29 October in London. She also raised our concerns about the fence with the Israeli Ambassador on 22 October.

  Continuing illegal Israeli settlement activity and the building of the fence on Palestinian land threaten the prospects for a two-state solution and is an obstacle to peace. Israel should reverse its settlements policy and end land confiscation for the construction of the fence.
  587W

  Kyoto Protocol
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Russian Government regarding its decision not to seek ratification of the Kyoto Protocol. [142624]

  Mr. Rammell
  President Putin stated at the World Conference on Climate Change in Moscow in early October that the Russian Government was still analysing the economic implications of ratifying the Kyoto Protocol. The statement made by President Putin's economic adviser on 2 December does not appear to be an official statement of policy, and we look forward to a decision from the Russian Government when it has completed its assessment of the Kyoto Protocol.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, and my hon. Friend the Minister for Environment and Agri-Environment are attending the ninth Conference of the Parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change in Milan, where Parties will be putting the finishing touches on preparations for entry into force of the Kyoto Protocol. Ministerial colleagues will continue to press their Russian counterparts on the importance of Kyoto ratification.

  Lockerbie Bombing
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what the total value is of the compensation paid by the Libyan Government to the families of victims of the Lockerbie bombing; [143005]

  (2) whether payments to solicitors acting for families of the Lockerbie victims were paid under contingency fee agreements for percentage payments; [143006]

  (3) if he will make a statement on the level of fees charged by solicitors in the Lockerbie case; and what action he is taking to limit such fees; [143007]

  (4) what steps he is taking to ensure that the families of the Lockerbie victims receive the highest possible proportion of compensation payments made. [143008]

  Mr. Rammell
  Libya has agreed to pay $10 million per family in compensation for the Lockerbie bombing, payable in three tranches of $4 million, $4 million and $2 million on, respectively, lifting of UN sanctions against Libya, lifting of US bilateral sanctions against Libya, and removal of Libya from the United States' list of States involved in terrorism. The Government is not privy to the fee arrangements made between solicitors and their clients in the Lockerbie case and has no standing in this issue. The question of the level of fees charged by solicitors is entirely a matter for them and their clients.

  Mr. Jafar Dhia Jafar
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs for what reasons Mr. Jafar Dhia Jafar has been refused permission to attend a meeting of the Royal Society in London; and if he will make a statement. [142171]
  588W
  Mr. Mullin
  I am withholding the information requested under exemption 5 of Part 2 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  It is not our practice to disclose details of the individual entry clearance cases in a public forum. However, I will write to the hon. Member with regard to this matter.

  India
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he intends to announce the name of the new director of visa operations for India. [142970]

  Mr. Mullin
  It is not normal procedure formally to announce such appointments. However, I will write to my hon. Friend.

  Zimbabwe
  Mr. Hammond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the impact on the political situation in Zimbabwe of that country's suspension from the Commonwealth. [141904]

  Mr. Mullin
  Robert Mugabe's decision to withdraw Zimbabwe from the Commonwealth highlights the increasing isolation of his regime. It will do nothing to ease the current crisis and shows how far ZANU (PF) has moved since it signed up to the Commonwealth's principles for good governance agreed at Harare in 1991. Once Zimbabwe has returned to democracy it will be welcomed back into the Commonwealth.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Housing
  Mr. Hayes
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister (1) how many private sector housing initiatives have been launched in each of the last 10 years; and what local authority funds have been committed to private sector housing initiatives(a) in each of the last 10 years and (b) since April 2002; [141019]

  (2) how many private sector housing initiatives have been launched since April 2002. [141020]

  Keith Hill
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and its predecessor departments have launched many private sector housing initiatives over the last 10 years to improve the condition and management of the stock, and the rights and responsibilities of those who occupy it. These include:measures enabling local authorities to adopt schemes to register houses in multiple occupation, and improve their condition, in 1996. These will be succeeded by licensing provisions in the forthcoming Housing Bill;
  the sustainable home ownership initiative, in partnership with the lending and insurance industries, to improve the quality and take up of mortgage protection payment insurance, in 1999;
  new, wider powers for local authorities to provide assistance to owners and tenants to repair, improve and adapt their homes, in 2002;

  589W
  improved rights for leaseholders, including a new right to manage, improved enfranchisement and lease extension procedures and greater rights against unreasonable service charges, from 2002;
  pilot projects in five areas of low demand to help local authorities make best use of existing powers to improve the condition and management of the private rented sector, in 2003.

  In addition, a number of initiatives have been piloted during this period, including Home Information Packs and the Tenancy Deposit Scheme. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has also been involved in other initiatives launched, such as the National Approved Letting Scheme.

  Other measures will be included in the forthcoming Housing Bill.

  The condition of the private sector housing stock will also be improved as a result of initiatives including:
  neighbourhood renewal, through key mechanisms such as the Neighbourhood Renewal Funds and New Deal for Communities Programme, which can contribute to regenerating private sector housing;
  the nine market renewal pathfinders, which will help to tackle low demand and abandonment, including in private sector stock.

  Detailed information is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost in respect of all local authority funding for private sector housing. However, information for expenditure on private sector renewal assistance is tabled as follows:

  Amount (£000)

  1993–94

  461,914

  1994–95

  436,382

  1995–96

  401,981

  1996–97

  381,094

  1997–98

  310,300

  1998–99

  313,943

  1999–2000

  319,562

  2000–01

  296,831

  2001–02

  288,458

  2002–03

  259,102

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what percentage collection rate of council tax he expects in(a) 2003–04 and (b) 2004–05; and if he will make a statement. [142992]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister makes no estimate of the collection rate for council tax for the current or future years.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will introduce additional council tax bands; and if he will make a statement. [142995]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The Local Government Act 2003 provides for a council tax revaluation in England in 2007 based on 1 April 2005 values. Ahead of that the Government will listen to the views of local government and taxpayers about council tax bands. Decisions on any changes to the banding structure will be taken nearer to the time of the revaluation.

  School Finance
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what discussions Ministers and officials have had with the Department for Education and Skills regarding the 2004–05 settlement for those local authorities whose formula grant increase is equal to their schools' formula spending share increase. [143145]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Ministers and officials from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and the Department for Education and Skills have met on a number of occasions in recent months to discuss the additional resources that we propose to provide to these authorities.

  Tamworth Borough Council
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what level of grant from all government sources Tamworth borough council has received in each year since 1996. [142625]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Tabled are details of revenue grants received by Tamworth borough council as part of gross Aggregate External Finance (AEF) between 1996–97 to 2004–05.

  £000

  Revenue support grant

  National non-domestic rates

  Specific grants within AEF

  1996–97

  2,070

  2,540

  160

  1997–98

  2,298

  2,292

  162

  1998–99

  2,012

  2,321

  160

  1999–2000

  1,902

  2,514

  164

  2000–01

  1,765

  2,813

  160

  2001–02

  2,017

  2,773

  183

  2002–03

  1,824

  3,100

  211

  2003–04

  2,809

  2,603

  1653

  2004–05

  3,216

  2,032

  2—

  1 The increase in specific grants within AEF between 2002–03 and 2003–04 is due to large increases in Council Tax Benefit Administration and Housing Benefit Administration, plus the introduction of grants for Neighbourhood Wardens and Building Safer Communities.

  2 Data not available until spring 2004 when it will be reported by local authorities on their RA and RA(SG) returns.

  Notes:

  1. The grants are on an unadjusted basis and may not be comparable between years, because transfers of function may have taken place.

  2. Information on specific grants up until 2002–03 is taken from local authority outturn returns. From 2003–04, where outturn information is not yet available this is based on local authority budget returns.

CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS

  Written Constitution
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs what plans he has to bring forward proposals for a written constitution for the UK; and if he will make a statement. [142997]

  Mr. Leslie
  There are no plans to draft a written constitution for the United Kingdom.
  591W

  Fair Trade Products
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs 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. [142804]

  Mr. Leslie
  Catering services to meet my Department's requirements are provided through contractual arrangements with specialist suppliers.

  My Department will continue to take every opportunity to encourage the use of fair trade products

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  20031

  Receipts where the First Defendant was recorded as IAT/Adjudicator/IAA

  848

  740

  1,276

  1,773

  1,396

  Grants of permission made during the relevant calendar year where the First Defendant was recorded as IAT/Adjudicator/IAA

  306

  284

  302

  290

  252

  1 to end November.

  Notes:

  1. Cases are recorded in the Administrative Court Office database by defendant and only those cases in which the first defendant is recorded as the Immigration Appeal Tribunal, Adjudicator or Immigration Appellate Authority have been included.

  2. These figures do not include any case in which the Secretary of State for the Home Department is recorded as the first defendant.

  3. The figures for grants reflect decisions made in the calendar year. To identify the decisions in each of the cases received in the calendar years in question (a total of 6,033) would involve an audit on a case-by-case basis. Such an exercise would be labour intensive and would take several weeks.

  It should be noted that due to the way in which details of cases were entered in the Administrative Court Office database prior to 2002, the above figures should not be regarded as providing a precise record of the applications received and granted.

  Ross Cranston
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs, in each of the last five years, how many cases were decided by immigration adjudicators; how many and what percentage of such cases were appealed to immigration

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  Case decided by adjudicators

  38,117

  28,600

  27,134

  56,813

  84,259

  Number of cases applying for permission to appeal to the tribunal

  14,356

  11,142

  7,365

  18,046

  28,945

  Number of substantive appeals to the tribunal

  2,331

  2,870

  2,061

  4,437

  7,687

  Number of substantive tribunal appeals decided

  1,841

  2,619

  3,568

  3,867

  6,564

  Percentage of tribunal appeals allowed

  Not held

  Not held

  Not held

  18%

  16%

  Percentage of tribunal appeals remitted

  Not held

  Not held

  Not held

  45%

  44%

  Information on the number of appeals which are subsequently allowed by an immigration adjudicator following a remittal is not available without incurring disproportionate costs.

  Mental Incapacity
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs what plans he has to bring forward legislation on mental incapacity in this parliamentary session. [140829]

  Mr. Leslie
  A draft Mental Incapacity Bill was scrutinised by a Joint Committee during the summer and their report was published on 28 November. My Department is working together with the Department of Health and stakeholders to consider the Committee's592W
  through its procurement activities, and specifically during the course of the review of the arrangements for contracted catering services that is currently under way.

  Immigration Appeals
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs how many applications were made to judicially review a decision of the immigration appellate authorities in each of the last five years for which figures are available; and, of these, how many were granted permission for a review. [142530]

  Mr. Leslie
  The information requested is in the following table.

  appeals tribunal; in how many and what percentage of the appealed cases the appeal was (a) allowed and (b) remitted to adjudicators; and in how many and what percentage of the cases in category (b) the adjudicator decided in favour of the applicant. [142944]

  Mr. Leslie
  The information requested is contained in the following table Please note that the Immigration Appellate Authority does not hold certain elements of information prior to 2001. This is indicated in the table where appropriate:

  recommendations. We aim to respond in February 2004. We will seek to introduce the Bill in the current session of Parliament.

  Work-related Stress
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs what progress has been made towards the creation of a central register for cases of work-related stress in the Department. [141692]

  Mr. Leslie
  We have no central register for cases of work-related stress. However, under our sick absence management policies, managers are responsible for informing our in-house Welfare service immediately if the cause of an employees absence is stress or
  593W
  depression. Our Welfare Officers are fully trained, and ideally placed, to deal with issues involving work-related stress.

  My Department is committed to reducing work-related stress. We have introduced a range of stress management courses for both managers and non-managers, and are currently working on a Stress at Work policy, which takes account of the latest HSE standards, and aims to:
  ensure that all employees are aware of the factors that can produce stress and are able to take preventative measures to avoid creating stressful situations;
  ensure that employees watch for evidence of undue stress in their own and others' behaviour and take prompt action, using all available support, to reduce stress levels in my Department.

  My Department introduced a wide range of work-life balance policies during 2001, enabling staff to adopt more effective working patterns to better balance their work and home life. My Department won the Opportunity Now National Public Sector award earlier this year for these policies.

HEALTH

  Pharmaceutical Trade
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the loss or gain to the Exchequer from the parallel trade of medicines. [141697]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  In terms of the impact on national health service expenditure, information is not routinely collected on the source of products, but from the data currently available the Department of Health estimates that parallel imports save the NHS in England approximately £60 million per year in the community sector.

  No estimate is available for the hospital sector. The Government have not made their own assessment of the loss to pharmaceutical companies in the United Kingdom from parallel trade. The NHS does not reap the full benefit of the price differentials associated with parallel trade, as much of the difference is lost within the supply chain across Europe. Ministers in the Department of Health meet representatives of the pharmaceutical industry frequently to discuss issues affecting that sector, including parallel trade in Europe. The most recent meeting was on 2 December, between my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health, my noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Health, Lord Warner, and representatives of the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry.

  Age-related Macular Degeneration
  Mr. Baron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate the Government have made of the number of people who will be affected by the Government's decision to extend implementation of National Institute for Clinical Excellence guidance to make photodynamic therapy available to those suffering from age-related macular degeneration. [142628]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  [holding answer 8 December 2003]: On the basis of limited epidemiological data the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE)
  594W
  estimated that each year in England and Wales there may be 5,000 to 7,500 new cases of predominantly classic subfoveal choroidal neovascularisation (CNV) associated with wet age-related macular degeneration. However, they noted, there is a high degree of uncertainty about this estimate.

  It was the Department's assessment, informed by advice from NICE, that the national health service would be unable to implement the guidance in full within the usual three-month period. We have previously varied the direction on five occasions when it was required to implement effectively the guidance to provide the service to patients.

  Patients are already receiving photodynamic therapy (PDT) on the NHS and we are committed to working with the NHS to facilitate implementation by July 2004. We want to see eligible patients benefiting from effective treatment: this is why we are implementing the NICE guidance as quickly as possible and have asked the NHS to ensure that patients with suspected classic with no occult CNV are treated wherever capacity exists to do so.

  Cabinet Office Website
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the Cabinet Office website referred to in the Winter Supplementary Estimates; if he will publish the URL; and if he will make a statement. [142241]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The website referred to in the Winter Supplementary Estimates is the Department's own website, which is in the process of being migrated onto DotP ('Delivering on the Promise'), a centralised content management platform. DotP has been developed and hosted by the e-Delivery Team in the Office of the e-Envoy, which is part of Cabinet Office.

  The Department's new website will go live early in the new year and will be available at www.dh.gov.uk.

  Dental Laboratories
  Richard Ottaway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list by county those dental laboratories which have registered with his Department under the Medical Devices Regulations. [142529]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  This information could only be obtained at a disproportionate cost.

  Sodium Depletion
  Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what risk assessment his Department has conducted on depleted sodium levels in elderly people during hot weather conditions; [141465]

  (2) what advice his Department has issued to elderly people on salt consumption during hot weather conditions. [141466]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Department has not conducted any risk assessment on depleted sodium levels or issued any specific advice on salt consumption to older people during hot weather conditions.
  595W
  There is insufficient evidence to suggest that elderly people should modify their normal salt consumption during hot weather conditions. It is, however, important to maintain an adequate fluid intake.

  Food Labelling
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will ask the Food Standards Agency to take steps to tackle misleading nutritional information in food labelling aimed at children. [143209]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Food Standards Agency (FSA) recognises that nutrition labelling can help parents choose food that contributes to a healthy diet for their children, but notes that currently there is no mandatory requirement for such information to be included on all food labels. The FSA would like to see such a requirement for all pre-packed food, including that aimed at children, and is pressing the European Commission to act on this. A proposal, which would revise the current legislation on nutrition labelling, is expected next year.

  General Practitioners
  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which(a) ambulance service and (b) acute NHS trusts have made representations about their capacity to assume additional responsibilities that may arise from the new general practitioner contract. [143190]

  Mr. Hutton
  No representations have been received.

  Brian Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many general practitioners were in training in(a) England and (b) North Somerset in each of the last five years. [142491]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 8 December 20031]: The numbers of general practice registrars (GPRs) in England since 1998 and in North Somerset Primary Care Trust (PCT) since 2001 are shown in the table.

  Information prior to 2001 is not available at PCT level.

  GP registrars for England and North Somerset PCT

  Number (headcount)

  England

  North So merset PCT

  1998

  1,446

  —

  1999

  1,520

  —

  2000

  1,659

  —

  2001

  1,883

  13

  2002

  1,980

  10

  June 2003

  2,157

  11

  Note:

  Data as at 1 October 1998–99, 30 September 2000–02 and 30 June 2003.

  Source:

  Department of Health General and Personal Medical Services Statistics.

  Genetic Information
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what progress is being made in developing a national policy on the use of genetic information by insurance companies after 2006; [142268]
  596W
  (2)what steps (a) have been taken and (b) will be taken in 2004 to develop a regulatory framework for the use of genetic information by insurance companies after 2006; [142269]

  (3) what stakeholders and interested groups (a) have been involved and (b) will be involved in 2004 in developing a national policy on the use of genetic information by insurance companies. [142270]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Government have made clear their position on the use of genetic test results for underwriting life and health insurance in the October 2001 Government response to the report from the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee: Genetics and Insurance.

  The Genetics and Insurance Committee (GAIC) is responsible for the evaluation of specific genetic tests and their relevance to particular types of insurance. The GAIC also provides independent scrutiny of compliance with the terms of the moratorium on the use of genetic test results by insurance companies, which runs until November 2006. If there is evidence of non-compliance with the moratorium by the insurance industry, then the Government are prepared to enforce it through legislation, if necessary.

  The Human Genetics Commission (HGC) has been asked to work closely with the GAIC to provide Government with further advice in developing a longer-term policy on the use of genetic information by insurance companies.

  The GAIC and HGC will also monitor the effectiveness of the Association of British Insurers (ABI) code of practice on genetics, which is mandatory for all ABI members.

  The HGC and GAIC held a well-received joint public meeting in September 2003. A number of interested groups and members of the public attended this meeting, including representatives from organisations concerned with genetic disorders, as well as from insurance and re-insurance companies, and nongovernmental organisations with an interest in this area. The HGC and GAIC are planning a further such meeting in 2004.

  Research is also under way to consider the use of genetic information in insurance underwriting. This research will be completed by 2005.

  GM Crops
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will make a statement on the decision of the Food Standards Agency to vote to approve a licence for GM sweetcorn at the recent EU committee meeting; [143656]

  (2) what discussions his Department has had with the Food Standards Agency regarding the application for use of Bt11 GM maize in food considered by the EC Standing Committee on Food Chain and Animal Health meeting on 8 December; [143474]

  (3) what advice his Department has (a) given and (b) received from the Food Standards Agency on a decision regarding the application for use of Bt11 GM

  597W
  maize in food considered at the EC Standing Committee on Food Chain and Animal Health meeting on 8 December. [143475]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  A vote on the authorisation of Bt11 sweetcorn was taken at a meeting of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health on 8 December. The Food Standards Agency represents the United Kingdom at this committee. As is always the case at such committees, the UK delegation presented a position on behalf of the Government, which was agreed after consulting Ministers from all relevant Departments.

  The application for the authorisation of a line of genetically modified sweetcorn for food use was made in 1999 under the novel foods regulation (EC) No. 258/97. The dossier was reviewed by the European Union member states and then referred to the European Community Scientific Committee on Food (SCF). The SCF reviewed the application along with an additional dossier of information provided by the applicant, which responded to questions raised by member states. The SCF opinion was published in May 2002 and concluded that this line of GM sweetcorn is as safe for human food consumption as its conventional counterparts.

  The UK supported the proposal for authorisation because the criteria laid out in the relevant legislation had been met, namely: the product does not present a risk to the consumer, does not mislead the consumer and is not nutritionally disadvantageous compared with other foods that it might replace.

  Mersey Regional Ambulance Service
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will place in the Library a copy of the report prepared by Ms Pearl Brown for the Mersey Regional Ambulance Service. [143487]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The report prepared by Ms Pearl Brown for the Mersey Regional Ambulance Service National Health Service Trust is not a Department of Health publication. The information requested is not held centrally by the Department of Health.

  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health on what date(a) the Mersey Regional Ambulance Trust and (b) any member of its board received notification from the trust's solicitors that there was a prima facie case of gross misconduct against the chief executive; on what occasions this matter was discussed with the (i) chair and (ii) chief executive of the Strategic Health Authority; and what action was taken to investigate the matter following the advice from the trust's solicitors. [143490]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The matter to which the question refers is one of individual employment between the trust and the employee. The information requested is not held centrally at the Department of Health.

  Ministerial Meetings
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health on what dates Ministers in his Department have held meetings with members and officials of the United States Administration since 1 January 2002; where each 598W
  meeting was held; which Ministers were involved in each meeting; which United States Administration Department attended each meeting; and which members and officials from the United States Administration attended each of these meetings. [142391]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn) met the American Secretary of Health and Human Services, Tommy Thompson, on 22 October 2002 while attending the Commonwealth Fund International Health Symposium in Washington.

  They met again on the 24 October 2002, when Mr. Thompson was present at a Ministerial Round Table discussion at the same Commonwealth Fund International Health Symposium in Washington.

  They met once more at the World Health Assembly in Geneva on 19 May 2003.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health met Mr. Thompson while attending the Commonwealth Fund International Health Symposium in Washington on 22 October 2003.

  The Minister of State, Department of Health, my right hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton) attended the Global Health Security conference in March 2002, which was attended by a number of United States officials from the Health, State and Defence Departments.

  In May 2002, he also attended a dinner during the World Health Assembly on Global Health Security at which Mr. Thompson was present.

  In November 2003, he met Mr. Thompson at the Berlin meeting on Global Health Security.

  Pneumococcal Disease
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to put the pneumococcal conjugate vaccine on the routine childhood immunisation schedule. [143017]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Government are very careful when considering introducing a new vaccine into the childhood immunisation schedule. We have to be sure that the vaccine is safe, and effective in preventing disease. It is also important to know how many doses that children need to be protected and at what age the doses should be given. We also need to be confident that introducing a new vaccine into the childhood immunisation schedule doses not interfere with the protection given by the other vaccines in the programme. We have to be sure that any new health intervention is cost-effective.

  The independent expert advisory body, the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI) is currently examining the evidence of the potential benefits of introducing pneumococcal conjugate vaccine to the infant immunisation schedule. What is clear is that there are many uncertainties in the evidence, in particular in measuring the burden of pneumococcal disease, and in the amount of disease that is expected to be prevented by a vaccine in both the short and longer term, because it protects against only seven of the numerous strains of pneumococcus.
  599W
  Research is being undertaken to try to answer the questions, and the JCVI is assessing the evidence as it develops.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of(a) the number of children affected by pneumococcal disease in the last year for which figures are available and (b) the severity of the disease and its complications in each case. [143018]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The nature of pneumococcal disease makes it difficult to measure with accuracy the burden of that disease. Notifications are for pneumococcal meningitis only and these are shown in the table for 2002.

  Information on individual cases is not available centrally.

  Number of notified cases of pneumococal meningitis in children for 2002

  Age

  Number of cases

  0 years

  49

  1–4 years

  29

  5–9 years

  6

  10–14 years

  3

  15–24 years

  8

  Residential Care
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to produce national minimum standards of care for residential services provided by the NHS. [141527]

  Dr. Ladyman
  National minimum standards have been developed for a range of establishments and agencies regulated under the Care Standards Act. The National Care Standards Commission must take the standards into account when making any decision about whether an establishment or agency conforms to the relevant statutory regulations. The standards apply irrespective of who provides the service, thus care homes run by the national health service are subject to the standards.

  There are no plans to produce national minimum standards for NHS hospital accommodation although residential services provided in such establishments would come within the Commission for Health Improvement's rolling review.

  Sexual Health
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many referrals were made to(a) genito-urinary medicine clinics and (b) sexual health clinics by a general practitioner (i) after diagnosis by the GP for treatment and (ii) for diagnosis and treatment in (A) the last 12 months for which figures are available, (B) 2000 and (C) 1997; [140691]

  (2) what the average waiting time for treatment for a sexually transmitted infection after initial examination by a general practitioner was in (a) the last year for which figures are available, (b) 2000 and (c) 1997; what proportion of such treatments were overseen by the GP who made the initial diagnosis; and if he will make a statement; [140692]
  600W
  (3) how many, and what proportion, of general practitioners in England do not treat patients suffering from a sexually transmitted infection; and if he will make a statement; [140693]

  (4) how many general practitioners in England provide sexual health services; how many provided them (a) in 2000 and (b) in 1997; and how many have walk-in facilities. [140719]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  These data are not collected centrally. Data are only available on numbers of referrals from general practitioners to genito-urinary medicine (GUM) clinics and this is shown in the table. GUM clinics are open-access and this data does not include the vast majority of patients who will self-refer to GUM clinics or who are advised to attend by their GP without a formal referral letter.

  GPs are required to provide for the management and on-going treatment of patients who are ill, or believe themselves to be ill. Some GPs provide diagnosis and treatment for sexually transmitted infections (STIs). However, others will make an initial assessment and advise the patient to attend a GUM clinic where more specialist skills and diagnostic tests are available.

  Outpatients: Number of GP Referrals made (Provider Based) for Genito-urinary medicine in England

  Specialty Code

  Specialty Name

  GP referrals made in the Quarter

  360

  Genito-urinary medicine

  8,922

  360

  Genito- urinary medicine

  9,209

  360

  Genito-urinary medicine

  8,782

  360

  Genito-urinary medicine

  8,698

  360

  Genito-urinary medicine

  8,517

  360

  Genito-urinary medicine

  8,712

  Source:

  Department of Health QM08.

  Student Nurses
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether it is his Department's policy to pay for the top-up university fees charged to student nurses; and if he will make a statement. [141639]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 3 December 2003]: Existing contracts between strategic health authorities and higher education institutions cover the full cost of training and top-up fees are not charged. The consultation document, Funding Learning and Development for the Healthcare Workforce, sets out our proposal for a national model contract. It is intended that this contract for national health service-funded pre-registration courses, to be introduced from 1 April 2004, will specifically prohibit the charging of top-up fees to students.

  Vaccination and Immunisation
  John Mann
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance he gives to NHS trusts concerning Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation recommendations. [143681]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Advice from the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI) is made public on the JCVI website, and in the book Immunisation against Infectious Diseases. If new advice

  601W
  is given that results in a new vaccination campaign, this is communicated to trusts via Chief Medical Officer/ Chief Nursing Officer/Chief Pharmaceutical Officer letter.

  John Mann
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether the recommendations of the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation are endorsed by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence. [143689]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The agendas and minutes for Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation meetings are routinely sent to the National Institute for Clinical Excellence, and both committees collaborate to work on topics such as antiviral agents for influenza.

  Works of Art
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health 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. [142366]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The Department does not own any works of art, nor has it purchased or sold any since 1997.

TREASURY

  European Council of Finance Ministers
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the outcome was of the ECOFIN meeting held on 25 November; what the Government's stance was on the issues discussed, including its voting record; and if he will make a statement. [142978]

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  I attended ECOFIN on 25 November.

  The Council discussed the Excessive Deficit Procedure for France and Germany (recommended under Article 104(8)). Council did not vote in favour of the Commission proposals under both Article 104(8) and 104(9) to enforce the excessive deficit procedures against both countries, therefore the decision was not adopted. It agreed non-binding Council conclusions and a separate declaration.

  The UK did not support the Commission's proposal under Article 104(8). The Council reached an agreement on a general approach on the Transparency Directive. A compromise was reached on the important issue of mandatory quantitative quarterly reporting, whereby companies with shares on regulated EU markets will be required to disclose qualitative information, similar to trading statements, about the company's performance at least once in the six-months periods following the date of their annual and half-yearly reports. This was a
  602W
  success for the UK and followed our intervention at the 4 November ECOFIN when I expressed strong concerns about the regulatory burden of introducing mandatory quarterly reporting across the EU.

  The Council noted a Commission presentation on its implementation report on the Risk Capital Action Plan and Conclusions were adopted inviting the Commission and the Financial Services Committee to undertake further work.

  The Council took note of a report from the Code of Conduct group on the implementation of rollback and standstill. The group was asked to report back on rollback and standstill before summer 2004.

  On VAT Reduced Rates, Council agreed to extend the VAT labour intensive services experiment for two years and produced a declaration to this effect, inviting the Commission to make the appropriate proposals.
  proposals.

  The Commission presented its company tax communication, which was discussed further at the conference on EU corporate tax reform in Ostia on 5–6 December.

  On the structural indicators to be used in the Commission's Spring Report for the European Council, the Commission welcomed a Joint Committee text. The Council invited the Permanent Representatives Committee (COREPER) to finalise the issues for approval at the next General Affairs (GAERC) meeting.

  The Council adopted a report on European Action for Growth to be forwarded to the European Council in 12–13 December. The Council reached political agreement on an increased rate of Trans-European Networks co-financing of 20 per cent, for certain projects.

  The Council adopted two reports concerning the European Investment Bank (EIB): on the mid-term review of EIB lending mandates and on the review of the EIB facility for Euro-Mediterranean Investment and Partnership (FEMIP).

  The Council agreed to an additional allocation of EUR 500 million for lending to Russia and the Western Newly Independent States by the EIB until January 2007. In a unilateral declaration the UK noted
  "agreement reflected the assurance given by the Commission that the increase is compatible with the margin in the Loan Guarantee Reserve".
  Council also agreed to develop further and reinforce FEMIP within the EIB.

  On the Investment Services Directive, a UK-drafted Declaration was agreed, that will accompany the formal adoption of a Council Common Position on 8 December. This Declaration helpfully indicates Council's desire to reach an agreement with the European Parliament on this Directive by April 2004.

  Inland Revenue
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what annual efficiency savings targets were set for Inland Revenue in 2002 to 2003; what Inland Revenue's performance against these targets was in each year; and
  603W
  what the total sum paid in performance related pay as a consequence of Inland Revenue's achievement was in each year. [143674]

  Dawn Primarolo
  In 2001–02, 2002–03 and 2003–04 the Inland Revenue had a target to"Improve value for money by achieving productivity gains of at least 2.5 per cent. per year until March 2004 without detriment to accuracy or customer satisfaction".
  This was set by Spending Review 2000. This target is measured by reference to four Performance Indicators and the results for 2001–02 and 2002–03 are set out below. The results for 2003–04 will not be known until after the end of the Financial Year. Spending Review 2002 also gave the Inland Revenue a value for money target that came into effect in 2003–04 to
  "Achieve annual efficiency savings of at least 2.5 per cent. per year until March 2006, without detriment to accuracy or customer satisfaction."
  The results for 2003–04 will not be known until the end of the Financial Year.

  IR performance against productivity target:

  Percentages

  2001–02 target

  2001–02 result

  2002–03 target

  2002–03 result

  Percentage improvement in:

  Taxpayer cases dealt with per staff year

  2.5

  0.90

  2.5

  4.8

  Number of NI work items per staff year

  2.5

  7.0

  2.5

  7.8

  Number of WFTC decisions per staff year

  2.5

  3.4

  2.5

  12.4

  Number of DPTC decisions per staff year

  2.5

  21.4

  2.5

  2.6

  The need to make efficiency savings is only one of several objectives that any individual could have in their Performance Agreement. It is therefore impossible to quantify the amount of individual performance related pay that has arisen from the achievement of such targets. However, it is the case that performance related pay is only paid to individuals who have met or exceeded their Performance Agreement in total.

  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer pursuant to his answer of 2 December 2003,Official Report, column 345W, on Inland Revenue (IT Systems), who the prospective suppliers who engaged in the Inland Revenue's market-making exercise for the EAGLE project prior to the placement by Inland Revenue of the Procurement Notice in the Official Journal of the European Communities were. [143604]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The initial Market-making exercise for the EAGLE contract prompted six responses prior to the placement of the Procurement Notice in the OJEC. The suppliers involved were:

  CSC Europe/IBM UK;

  EDS Ltd.;

  Hoskyns Group Plc:

  ICL/Anderson Consulting;

  Digital Alliance (Digital Equipment Co., Logica and Barclays);

  Sema Group UK.

  604W
  Of these suppliers, two were invited to tender—EDS Ltd. and CSC Europe/IBM UK. The preferred supplier was announced in December 1993, and the contract awarded in May 1994.

  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the EAGLE Invitation to Tender (ITT) contained a provision that the Inland Revenue might undertake a review of the tax affairs of the companies responding to the ITT and that such reports might be used as a factor in the evaluation of tenders.[143671]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The EAGLE Invitation to Tender (ITT) did not contain any provision that the Inland Revenue might undertake a review of the tax affairs of the companies responding to the ITT or that such reports might be used as a factor in the evaluation of tenders.

  Tax Credits
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what measures are being taken to ease the financial burden on firms whose research and development tax credit claims are under retrospective investigation by the Inland Revenue. [143353]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Companies claim R&D tax credits by entering figures on their Corporation Tax Self Assessment return at the end of the accounting period in which the R&D is undertaken. Companies self assess the amount of R&D tax credits due to them and receive payment of any R&D tax credit in line with their self-assessment.

  Only a proportion of returns which contain an R&D tax credit claim will be inquired into. Where a return is inquired into, payments of the tax credit may be withheld during the inquiry but interim payments can be agreed.

  Smoking
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many cigarettes have been consumed in the United Kingdom in each year since 1997; what the total revenue generated from duties was; what percentage of cigarettes were(a) smuggled and (b) crossborder sales of cigarettes in each year since 1997; and how much was lost in revenue from duty in each case. [143143]

  John Healey
  All figures relating to 2000–01 to 2002–03, and the smuggled cigarette share estimates for earlier years are published in "Measuring and Tackling Indirect Tax Losses (December 2003)".

  The same figures for 1999–00 are contained in Measuring Indirect Tax Losses (November 2002).

  Comparable figures for earlier years are not available.

  Information on the total revenue generated from UK cigarettes duties can be found in the HM Customs and Excise 'Tobacco Bulletin'.

  Copies of all these documents are available in the Library of the House.
  605W

  Tourism
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much tax revenue was raised from hotel accommodation in(a) England, (b) Wales, (c) Scotland and (d) Northern Ireland in each of the last five years. [143194]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The figures are not available in the format requested. They would be available only at disproportionate cost and would require assumptions about tax incidence that could render the results misleading.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  Open Academies
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will place in the Library a copy of the admissions policy of each academy. [141565]

  Mr. Miliband
  I am pleased to confirm that copies of the admissions policies for all open Academies have been placed in the Libraries.

  Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) what the current status is of the board of CAFCASS; and if he will make a statement; [143110]

  (2) When he proposes to publish Sir Clive Booth's report on the operation of the board of CAFCASS; [143111]

  (3) what his plans are for the future of CAFCASS; [143112]

  (4) what changes have been made to the complaints procedure of CAFCASS since the appointment of the Children's Minister; [143113]

  (5) what changes to the operation of CAFCASS have been initiated by the Minister for Children. [143114]

  Margaret Hodge
  [holding answer 9 December 2003]: I am pleased to announce that Baroness Pitkeathley OBE has been appointed as Chairman of CAFCASS, with effect from 11 December 2003. In order for her to take the service forward, all but one member of the existing Board have agreed to resign.

  The Government are grateful to them for their willingness to stand down and for their commitment and hard work since CAFCASS was launched.

  As an interim measure Baroness Pitkeathley will be assisted by a temporary Board comprising:

  Richard Sax

  Baroness Howarth of Breckland OBE

  Professor Jane Tunstill

  Nicholas Stuart CB

  We will be placing advertisements shortly for appointment to a new permanent Board.
  606W
  The Board member who has declined to resign is being asked to accept the suspension of their Board membership, pending further consideration of their position.

  There are no plans to publish Sir Clive Booth's report.

  CAFCASS will be a key element of the Government's new focus on children's services. The Government Green Paper "Every Child Matters" sets out an exciting new agenda and CAFCASS has an important role in its delivery.

  CAFCASS is a national non-departmental public body for England and Wales. As such, responsibility for its day-to-day work rests with its Executive Team and Board. I have, therefore, initiated no changes in its operation, though CAFCASS itself introduced a new complaints procedure with effect from April 2003.

  Coalfield Communities
  Adam Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what discussions he has had with the education ministers of(a) the National Assembly for Wales and (b) the Scottish Parliament on educational attainment in coalfield communities. [142947]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  I have regular discussions with Ministers from both the National Assembly for Wales and the Scottish Parliament regarding education matters (including educational attainment). However these discussions have not related to educational attainment in coalfield communities specifically.

  Adam Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what discussions he and his officials have had with the Coalfield Communities Campaign on the levels of educational attainment in coalfield communities. [142948]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  My officials have an on-going dialogue with the Coalfield Communities Campaign on issues that need to be addressed in order to improve educational attainment.

  Adam Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what studies of education attainment in coalfield communities have been undertaken since the 2001 Centre for Regional Economic and Social Research Study. [142949]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  Following the DfES commissioned study "Patterns of Educational Attainment in the British Coalfields", to which the hon. Gentleman refers in his question, my Department, together with the Coalfields Community Campaign, commissioned a further research project, "Raising Attainment in Schools in the Former Coalfield areas", with a view to learning more about factors that have led to school improvement in these areas. This research drew up case studies of eight schools in coalfield areas that are doing well, despite challenging circumstances.

  The final report has recently been distributed to all secondary schools in coalfields areas as a tool for strengthening performance.
  607W

  Education (North-west)
  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many(a) teachers and (b) teaching assistants were employed in (i) nursery, (ii) primary and (iii) secondary education in (A) St. Helens, (B) Merseyside and (C) the North West Region, in each year since 1992. [141471]

  FTE Regular Teachers1

  St. Helens

  Merseyside2

  North West3

  Year

  Nursery and primary

  Secondary

  Nursery and primary

  Secondary

  Nursery and primary

  Secondary

  19924

  770

  850

  6,290

  6,020

  29,210

  28,590

  19934

  780

  850

  6,240

  6,040

  29,400

  28,800

  1994

  790

  800

  6,300

  5,880

  29,380

  27,190

  1995

  780

  790

  6,300

  6,010

  29,310

  27,380

  1996

  750

  760

  6,300

  6,040

  29,370

  27,060

  1997

  760

  760

  6,270

  5,940

  29,210

  27,190

  1998

  740

  750

  6,090

  6,080

  28,840

  27,440

  1999

  730

  760

  6,000

  6,160

  29,070

  28,050

  2000

  730

  760

  6,040

  6,080

  29,190

  28,100

  2001

  730

  760

  6,040

  6,290

  29,010

  28,480

  2002

  720

  760

  6,060

  6,640

  29,380

  29,310

  2003

  760

  790

  5,990

  6,390

  29,100

  29,490

  1Excludes occasional teachers

  2 Includes Knowsley, Liverpool, St. Helens, Sefton and Wirral Local Education Authorities.

  3 Includes Merseyside.

  4 Sixth form colleges are included in the secondary sector for 1992 and 1993.

  Source:

  DIES annual survey of teachers in service and teacher vacancies (Form 618G)

  FTE Teaching Assistants1

  St. Helens

  Merseyside2

  North West3

  Nursery and Primary

  Secondary

  Nursery and primary

  Secondary

  Nursery and primary

  Secondary

  1992

  130

  4—

  680

  10

  4,370

  180

  1993

  150

  4—

  780

  20

  4,750

  200

  1994

  190

  4—

  890

  30

  5,100

  270

  1995

  180

  4—

  990

  40

  5,480

  340

  1996

  180

  10

  1,060

  70

  5,990

  500

  1997

  190

  10

  1,100

  100

  6,340

  630

  1998

  200

  10

  1,150

  130

  6,720

  750

  1999

  210

  20

  1,230

  160

  6,930

  950

  2000

  220

  20

  1,360

  220

  7,630

  1,200

  2001

  280

  40

  1,910

  350

  9,740

  1,650

  2002

  290

  50

  1,660

  510

  9,630

  2,250

  2003

  350

  60

  2,370

  600

  12,010

  2,730

  1Includes nursery assistants, teaching assistants, special needs support staff and from 1996 minority ethnic support staff

  2Includes Knowsley, Liverpool, St. Helens, Sefton and Wirral Local Education Authorities.

  3Includes Merseyside

  4 Number less than 5

  Source:

  Annual Schools Census

  Education Spending
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) of 3 December 2003,Official Report, column 89W, on education spending, what the basic amount included in the figures is for each (a) primary and (b) secondary pupil; and if he will list separately the amounts included in the figures he gave for (i) deprivation, (ii) additional costs and (iii) sparsity. [143129]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The basic entitlement in the Education Formula Spending Share calculations for 2004–05 is £2,111.59 for primary pupils and £2,826.23 for secondary pupils.
  608W
  Mr. Miliband
  The following tables show full-time equivalent (FTE) regular teachers and teaching assistants in maintained nursery, primary and secondary schools in January of each year. Nursery and primary staff are shown as a group because staff providing nursery education within primary schools cannot be identified separately.

  Tables showing the breakdown for the primary and secondary formula spending share for each local authority are available on the Department's school funding website and copies have been placed in the Libraries.

  Further Education
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many students studied(a) part-time and (b) full-time in further education in each of the last five years; and how many (i) full and (ii) part-time lecturing staff there were in each of those years; what figures for student/lecturer ratios for further education over this period he uses. [143276]
  609W
  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  [holding answer 11 December 2003]: The numbers of full time and part time students studying at further education sector colleges in the five years to 2001/02 were published by the Learning and Skills Council (LSC) in the Statistical First Release (SFR) "Student Numbers At Colleges In The Further Education Sector And External Institutions In England In 2001/02" on 19 December 2002 and are shown in the following table. The numbers of full time and part time teaching staff in further education sector colleges in the five years to 2001/02 were published by the LSC in "Staff Statistics, 2001/2002" on 30 October 2003 and are also shown in this table.

  Student and staff in further education sector colleges 1997/98 to 2001/02

  Thousand

  1997/98

  1998/99

  1999/2000

  2000/01

  2001/02

  Students

  Full time

  925.1

  890.6

  860.7

  839.6

  870.7

  Part time

  2,211.8

  2,124.0

  2,076.1

  2,215.0

  2,625.9

  Teaching staff

  Full time

  47.0

  46.1

  45.6

  46.8

  47.3

  Part time

  92.7

  95.7

  91.1

  87.5

  89.6

  Sources:

  LSC Individualised Student Record; Staff Individualised Record

  Staff student ratios are based on full time equivalents and are routinely published in the DfES Departmental Report. The following figures are derived from Annex L of the Department's 2003 Report. 2001/02 figures are not yet available.

  Student to teaching staff ratio (in full time equivalents) in further education sector colleges

  Student/staff ratio

  1997/98

  16.2

  1998/99

  16.1

  1999/2000

  15.9

  2000/01

  14.9

  2001/02

  n/a

  Sources:

  LSC Individualised Student Record; Staff Individualised Record

  Graduate Income
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) what the latest Government estimate is of the extra life-time earnings arising from graduation; [140794]

  (2) what the statistical sources are for Government estimates of extra life-time earnings arising from graduation; [140795]

  (3) whether Government estimates of extra life-time earnings of graduates are (a) pre-tax and (b) post-tax. [140796]

  Alan Johnson
  [holding answer 1 December 2003]: Higher Education is undoubtedly a good investment for the average graduate. The Department has previously estimated 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-levels. The analysis is based on the spring 2002 quarter of the Labour Force Survey (LFS) for Great Britain. The £120,000 differential is derived from gross lifetime
  610W
  earnings streams that are assumed to grow at 2 per cent. per annum in real terms and are discounted at a rate of 3.5 per cent1. The Department estimates that the differential would fall to around £90,000 using net lifetime earnings streams, given that higher earning degree-holders would pay more tax on average over their working lives than those with only A-levels.

  1Real earnings are assumed to grow in line with productivity at 2.0 per cent., as set out in Annex A of The Budget 2003. The discount rate of 3.5 per cent. is the rate used by the Treasury in deciding whether public investments are worthwhile.

  Key Stage 1
  Stephen Hesford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans he has to reform assessment methods at Key Stage 1; and if he will make a statement. [142858]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  We have developed a new approach to assessment at Key Stage 1. We have asked the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority to trial an approach that uses testing to underpin teacher assessment.

  Teachers will make a rounded assessment of each child, taking into account task and test results and their own judgement on the child's work. 37 LEAs are in the trial. If the trial is successful it will be extended to all schools in the next academic year.

  Oxbridge Funding
  John Mann
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the Government contribution was, at today's value, towards the funding of(a) Oxford and (b) Cambridge universities, (i) in total and (ii) as a percentage of the total, in (A) 1973, (B) 1980, (C) 1990 and (D) 2003. [143695]

  Alan Johnson
  The information is shown in the following table using 2002–03 prices.

  £ million

  Percentage of total

  Cambridge

  1972–73

  97.3

  71

  1980–81

  81.5

  57

  1990–91

  83.6

  37

  2001–02

  142.8

  31

  Oxford

  1972–73

  97.4

  68

  1980–81

  85.5

  53

  1990–91

  86.5

  35

  2001–02

  138.6

  33

  Sources:

  Statistics of Education—Universities 1973, University Statistics—Finance 1980 and 1990–91, and HESA—resources of higher education institutions 2001–02.

  School Finance
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what discussions he has had with the local authorities whose grant increase is equal to their schools' formula spending share increase in the 2004–05 settlement. [143146]
  611W
  Mr. Charles Clarke
  No Ministers from the DfES have had specific discussions with the relevant local authorities regarding the 2004–05 settlement. Representatives of local authorities and the Local Government Association were involved in discussions on this topic with officials from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister at Settlement Working Group meetings.

  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what guidance he has issued to local authorities regarding the passporting of schools' formula spending share budget increase of the 2004–05 settlement. [143166]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Both myself and my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister wrote to all local authorities with an education responsibility setting out their clear expectation that LEAs will passport their Schools Formula Spending Share in full unless there are wholly exceptional circumstances. The Government have ensured that every authority will receive an increase in its Formula Grant which is at least as big as its cash SFSS increase, on a like-for-like basis and has put additional resources into other services—a total of £300 million in additional Revenue Support Grant and specific formula grant to ensure that a decision to passport the full SFSS increase to schools should not be at the expense of other services.

  Officials have also written twice to Chief Education Officers, firstly setting out the basis of the passporting calculation and explaining the amendments to the "reserve power" provisions of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 (as amended) which were recently enacted through the Local Government Act 2003; and secondly setting out the passporting figures, the steps authorities need to take and the timetable involved.

  Small Businesses
  Brian Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills whether his Department uses a database of individual small businesses for consultation purposes. [142477]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  There is no DfES departmental small business contact database. Normally DIES uses contacts in the representative bodies eg Small Business Council, Confederation of British Industry, Federation of Small Businesses; or through our delivery partners such as Learning and Skills Council and Sector Skills Development Agency as a way of consulting small firms. DfES shares research that the Small Business Service or DTI have gathered. The Department's small firms portal can also be used to seek views.

  Specialist Schools
  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what proportion of specialist schools are permitted to select pupils by aptitude. [140977]

  Mr. Miliband
  [holding answer 1 December 2003]: Section 102 of the 1998 Education Act and associated Regulations made under it allow schools with a specialism in modern foreign languages; the performing arts; the visual arts; physical education or sport; design and technology or information technology to select up to 10 per cent. of their intake on the basis of aptitude in the relevant specialism.
  612W
  Ninety per cent. of mainstream secondary schools currently designated as specialist schools have one or more of these subjects as part of their specialist curriculum.

  Student Finance
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what(a) fee remission systems, (b) grants and (c) bursaries he proposes for (i) higher education and (ii) other level 4 courses delivered through the further education system. [142635]

  Alan Johnson
  [holding answer 9 December 2003]: The HE White Paper sets out our proposals for student support. From 2004, we are introducing a grant worth up to £1,000 to assist students from low-income backgrounds. The full grant will be available to those whose household income is below £15,200, estimated to be around 30 per cent. of students. This is in addition to the loans available for students' living costs, currently of up to £4,930 and a grant for tuition fees currently worth up to £1,125 a year. From next year, the hardship loan fund will be merged into the Access to Learning Fund. All payments of grants will be non-repayable and will be delivered through universities and colleges. Students with dependants and disabled students will continue to benefit from a series of grants that are designed to assist with the cost of entering higher education. We are also introducing a more flexible package of support for part-time students. Full details on the 04/05 student support package were announced on 3 December 2003, Official Report, column 61WS.

  From 2006, students will no longer have to pay upfront fees. Instead, we will offer a loan for fees, which with the maintenance loan will be repayable after graduation once earnings exceed £15,000. Any institution that wishes to charge higher fees must first have an access agreement, approved by the Office for Fair Access (OFFA). We are considering and discussing the content of access agreements, including bursaries and other financial support, and the role of OFFA, and will make an announcement in due course.

  Michael Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills pursuant to the oral answer given by the Prime Minister to the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Alan Simpson) on 3 December 2003,Official Report, column 504, if he will publish the alternative methods for funding higher education being considered by his Department. [142735]

  Alan Johnson
  [holding answer 9 December 2003]: I refer the hon. Member to the letters from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Paul Farrelly) dated 11 April, 3 June and 12 November, and also to our response to the Education and Skills Select Committee of 28 July. Copies of all these documents have been placed in the House Library. We will be providing further information in due course.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many students in each university are receiving(a) full fee remission and (b) bursary support. [143102]

  Alan Johnson
  [holding answer 9 December 2003]: The information requested has been placed in the Libraries.
  613W
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what research he has commissioned into students' risk aversion to debt. [143104]

  Alan Johnson
  [holding answer 9 December2003]: The Department has recently published results from the 2002–03 Student Income and Expenditure Survey. This showed that more students are taking on debt; 92 per cent. of students anticipated leaving university with debts in 2002–03. All students are taking on more debt on average, partly as a result of the complete replacement of mandatory grants with student loans, and partly to finance higher levels of expenditure.

  In addition, in 2001 the Department published research entitled, 'Social Class and Higher Education: Issues Affecting Participation by Lower Social Class groups' which amongst other things explored the relationship between social class and students' attitudes to debt. This research showed that most potential and current students accepted that they would accumulate debt but felt that the investment was worthwhile and that most current students were confident about paying back the debt they were accruing.

  Both research reports are available from the Department's website at http://www.dfes.gov.uk/research/

  Teaching Methods
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what new teaching methods are being introduced geared to each child's ability. [141799]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  The national Primary and Key Stage 3 Strategies have enabled teachers to improve and broaden their teaching skills to raise standards of attainment for children of all abilities. Typical of their approach to inclusion has been the help on challenging and supporting all pupils in whole class teaching, in the ways in which teachers differentiate tasks, in the ways pupils are grouped, and in the ways in which teaching assistants are used to support pupils. This year Key Stage 3 Challenge Programmes offer support in new approaches in one-to-one teaching for pupils who are falling behind in basic skills. Our programme for gifted and talented education, including our support for the National Academy for Gifted and Talented Young, is also helping to develop teachers' understanding of the most effective approaches to the teaching of the most able pupils.

  Our ambitions for personalised learning in schools are that universal provision should be tailored-to the needs of every child. Central to this agenda are that teachers have more effective skills in formative assessment. We know through a wide body of research, for example through the Ofsted report "Good Assessment in Secondary Schools" published earlier this year, that the quality of assessment by teachers has a significant impact on attitudes to learning through challenging children and through encouraging teachers to focus on how to improve the learning skills of individual pupils. That is why we have made available to all schools the new Pupil Achievement Tracker to help them identify their pupils' strengths and weaknesses and set appropriate targets for development, based on the results of pupils in their National Curriculum Tests.
  614W
  And through the Primary and Key Stage 3 Strategies we will be making available to teachers next year support in assessment for learning techniques and approaches.

  Timber
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills by what means the Department's policy for purchasing timber and timber products ensures that they are obtained from legal and sustainable sources. [141332]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  The Department for Education and Skills uses the Ministry of Defence and Office of Government Commerce contracts for the supply of office furniture. These are compliant with all current Government guidance. It is also departmental policy to include the model timber specification clause in all relevant contracts, and all buyers of timber and timber related products are aware of central Government guidance.

  University Funding
  John Mann
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will list written representations he has received from the vice-chancellors of(a) Oxford, (b) Cambridge, (c) Sheffield and (d) Sheffield Hallam universities about university funding in the last three years. [143693]

  Alan Johnson
  Both my right hon. Friend and I have received numerous representations from universities on a number of matters related to the funding of higher education, both by means of formal correspondence and in meetings with Vice Chancellors and others from the higher education sector.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Big Conversation
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what visits(a) he and (b) Ministers in his Department (i) have made and (ii) plan to make using public funds in connection with the Big Conversation; how many civil servants accompanied each Minister in respect of such visits; what the cost to public funds was of visits by (A) each Minister and (B) civil servants in connection with the Big Conversation; and if he will make a statement. [143099]

  Fiona Mactaggart
  [holding answer 9 December 2003]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by the Leader of the House on 9 December 2003, Official Report, Vol. 415, column 355W.

  Antisocial Behaviour Orders
  Mr. Ruffley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many Antisocial Behaviour Orders have been issued in Suffolk in each year since their inception. [143529]

  Ms Blears
  The number of notifications received by the Home Office of Anti-Social Behaviour Orders (ASBOs) issued in Suffolk from 1 April 1999 up to 30 June 2003 (latest available) is given in the table.
  615W

  The number of notifications, as reported to the Home Office, of ASBOs issued in Suffolk, from 1 April 1999 1 to 30 June 2003 (latest available)

  Number

  1 April 1999 to 31 May 20001

  3

  1 June 2000 to 31 December 2000

  0

  1 January 2001 to 31 December 2001

  4

  1 January 2002 to 30 November 2002

  4

  31 December 2002 to 30 June 20031

  11

  Total

  22

  1From 1 April 1999 up to 31 May 2000 data collected by police force area (pfa).

  Note:

  Following implementation of the Police Reform Act (2 December 2002), data for December 2002 are incorporated into the first quarter 2003 data.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many asylum seekers have been provided with accommodation at public expense in(a) Hampshire and (b) Basingstoke and Deane borough council in each year since 1997; what type of accommodation they were given; and what the nature of the tenancy was in each case. [143139]

  Beverley Hughes
  The information is not available in the form requested.

  Figures in respect of asylum seekers in receipt of accommodation support from the National Asylum Support Service (NASS) are published at the end of each quarter by local authority area.

  Figures for the areas requested as at the end of each quarter since December 2002 are shown in the table:

  Statistics on the number of asylum seekers supported by NASS in each region are available on the Home Office's Immigration and Asylum Statistics website: http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/immigration1. html

  Numbers in NASS accommodation as at end

  Unitary/Local authority

  December 2002

  March 2003

  June 2003

  September 2003

  Southampton

  460

  440

  435

  445

  Portsmouth

  340

  380

  510

  555

  Correspondence
  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when his Department will reply to the letter of 16 September from the hon. Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey regarding a constituent, Mr. Dennis Spalding, and his son John Spalding, ref DL2252. [140706]

  Paul Goggins
  I wrote to my hon. Friend on 27 November 2003.

  DNA Database
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many individuals on the national DNA database have not been convicted of a criminal offence; and what criteria are used to determine who should be on the database. [142174]
  616W
  Ms Blears
  Section 63 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE) 1984, as amended, provides powers for taking DNA samples from a person in police detention in the following circumstances:following charge with a recordable offence or notification that a suspect will be reported for such an offence;
  on an Inspector's authority, which may be given where the officer has reasonable grounds for believing the suspect is involved in a criminal offence and the sample will tend to confirm or disprove his involvement;
  following conviction for a recordable offence.

  Section 82 of the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 amends section 64 of PACE and allows the retention of a DNA profile where the person has either been acquitted or against whom charges have been dropped. There are approximately 109,000 such profiles.

  In addition, DNA profiles may also be retained from people who have voluntarily given a DNA sample and who have given their written consent to the profile being added to the National DNA Database. This will principally include people who have taken part in an intelligence screening exercise where an offender is believed to live in a particular area. There are approximately 10,500 such profiles.

  Female Offenders
  Mrs. Brooke
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what analysis his Department has undertaken into the variation of sentencing penalties for female offenders imposed by(a) Crown Courts and (b) magistrates courts; [142292]

  (2) what research his Department has undertaken into the variation by region of sentencing penalties for female offenders. [142293]

  Paul Goggins
  "Statistics on women and the CJS" (published annually under section 95 of the Criminal Justice Act 1991) provides information on the treatment of women across the criminal justice system. It includes a comparison of trends in custody rates at magistrates courts and the Crown Court, for both males and females. Figures on use of imprisonment for adult males and females are provided broken down by offence type as well as court. The next section 95 report containing 2002 data will be published in January 2004.

  Criminal Statistics, England and Wales, 2001 Supplementary Tables Volume 4 Table S4.1E provides regional sentencing indicators for females in magistrates courts. Criminal Statistics, England and Wales, 2001 Supplementary Tables Volume 2 table S2.2 provides figures for females sentenced at each Crown Court centre by type of sentence imposed. Figures for 2002 will be published later this month.

  Forensic Science Service
  Dr. Desmond Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will provide a breakdown of the capital investment needs of the Forensic Science Service identified in the Home Office review of the service. [142193]

  Ms Blears
  The Review of the Forensic Science Service identified a capital requirement of between £20 million and £30 million in order to sustain business
  617W
  at its present level. The review team did not undertake a detailed study of the service's capital investment needs, which would be necessary to determine more precise figures.

  Identity Cards
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the implications for his Department of the introduction of compulsory identity cards. [142653]

  Beverley Hughes
  The Home Office has lead responsibility for developing the national identity cards scheme, which my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary announced on 11 November. A national identity cards scheme will bring significant benefits in areas that are the responsibility of the Home Office. These include strengthening immigration controls, providing a means to encourage legal routes of migration to the United Kingdom, combating organised crime and terrorism and reducing identity fraud. The national identity cards scheme will be built incrementally by strengthening existing forms of identification, some of which are currently issued by the Home Office or one of its agencies such as residence permits and passports.

  Immigration and Detention Centres
  Alistair Burt
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what guidelines he has issued in relation to racist language and behaviour to staff at immigration and detention centres run by the Home Office and its agents; if he will publish them; and if he will make a statement. [143582]

  Beverley Hughes
  Under Rule 3(2) of the Detention Centre Rules 2001 operators of removal centres are required to recognise the need for awareness of the particular anxieties to which detained persons may be subject and the sensitivity that this will require, especially when handling issues of cultural diversity.

  The contract to operate Yarlswood Immigration Removal Centre, in common with other such contracts, requires the centre operator to have a race relations policy approved by the Immigration and Nationality Directorate. In addition, the Immigration and Nationality Directorate issued an Operating Standard on Race Relations to all removal centre operators in December 2002. This Standard sets out the minimum requirements expected of all removal centre operators. Copies of the two documents will be placed in the House Library.

  Alistair Burt
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will investigate allegations of(a) racism and (b) misconduct among staff at the Yarlswood Detention Centre; and if he will make a statement. [143583]

  Beverley Hughes
  We take these allegations very seriously indeed. It is obviously of the utmost importance that staff at immigration removal centres should carry out their duties professionally and sensitively. Our contractor at Yarlswood Immigration Removal Centre, Global Solutions Ltd. (GSL—formerly Group 4), has launched a full investigation into the allegations. The investigation will be conducted by a senior manager with no line management responsibility 618W
  for Yarlswood. I have instructed the Director General of the IND to institute an independent investigation of the allegations.

  Leicestershire Police
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he next intends to meet the Chief Constable of Leicestershire police. [142924]

  Ms Blears
  The Home Secretary meets the Chief Constable of Leicestershire Constabulary at regular intervals in his capacity as the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) representative on the Lawrence Steering Group. The next meetings are scheduled for Wednesday 25 February and Wednesday 26 May 2004.

  IRA Terrorism
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on which dates terrorist incidents ascribed to the IRA have taken place in England since 1973. [142754]

  Mr. Blunkett
  The information requested has been placed in the Library.

  The table that has been placed in the Library details the number of incidents in Great Britain ascribed to Irish Republican terrorists on a yearly basis since 1973. Incidents include bomb attacks (including letter bombs), finds of improvised explosive devices, arrests and shooting incidents in Great Britain attributed to all Republican terrorist groups (OIRA, PIRA, RIRA, INLA). All incidents occurred in England except those that are indicated otherwise.

  Policing (Gwent)
  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the trial Bobby on the Beat scheme in New Earswick. [142784]

  Ms Blears
  The Joseph Rowntree Housing Trust funded the project in New Earswick. I have not carried out any evaluation of the project myself, but am aware that a full evaluation was carried out by the Centre for Criminal Justice Studies at the University of Leeds for the Joseph Rowntree Foundation.

  A full report of the research was published by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation on 9 October 2003 and is available, together with summary findings, on the Foundation's website at: http://www.jrf.org.uk/knowledge/findings/socialpolicy/023.asp.

  Prisons
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the average number of hours per week prisoners spent in education in the last 12 months was; and what the target figure is. [142175]

  Paul Goggins
  For the period September 2002 to August 2003 the average number of hours per week prisoners undertaking education spent in formal learning activities was 9.15. This excludes distance learning, private study, and learning which takes place on the wings, for example through peer support schemes.
  619W
  We do not have a target for the number of hours prisoners should be spending in education. Our targets for prisoner learning are outcome-based, focusing on improving prisoners' literacy, language, numeracy and vocational skills. In 2002–03 prisoners gained 41,518 basic skills achievements against a target of 28,800 (exceeding our target by 44.2 per cent).

  We are continuing to work towards widening prisoner access to appropriate learning opportunities: through increased investment, a robust quality improvement strategy, new contracts which put the individual at the centre of the learning process, and the support of newly appointed Heads of Learning and Skills across the prison estate.

  Charles Hendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much was spent on the provision of education facilities in(a) prisons and (b) young offenders institutions in each of the past 10 years. [140653]

  Paul Goggins
  The following table shows education spend in prisons from 1993–94 to 2002–03.

  Financial year

  Education expenditure (£ million)

  1993–94

  31.08

  1994–95

  36.75

  1995–96

  36.95

  1996–97

  34.50

  1997–98

  36.17

  1998–99

  39.04

  1999–2000

  40.89

  2000–01

  41.87

  2001–02

  52.60

  2002–03

  59.40

  These totals do not include additional funding for the Youth Justice Board and curriculum development projects. The 2002–03 total does not include £4.4 million allocated to prisons from the Capital Modernisation Fund to enhance the quality, quantity and relevance of education and training. From April 2003 money for vocational training of £12 million a year transferred to the Department for Education and Skills.

  Vera Baird
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of the female receptions into prison has been(a) under sentence and (b) on remand (i) for non-violent offences and (ii) for sentences of six months or less for each of the last 10 years. [141638]

  Paul Goggins
  [holding answer 2 December 2003]: The number of females received under sentence by offence group, for the last 10 years, is given in tables 3.11 and 4.7 of Prison Statistics England and Wales 2002.

  The number of females received under sentence by sentence length, for the last 10 years, is given in tables 3.12 and 4.8 of Prison Statistics England and Wales 2002.

  The number of females received on remand by offence group, for the last 10 years, is given in table 2.9 of Prison Statistics England and Wales, years 1994 to 2002.

  An individual who first enters the remand population and is subsequently received under sentence will be counted in both categories.
  620W
  Copies of Prison Statistics England and Wales are available in the Library.

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the percentage of(a) prisoners and (b) prison staff who are smokers; and what action he is taking to reduce the numbers. [143095]

  Paul Goggins
  [holding answer 9 December 2003]: The information requested is as follows:
  (a) Approximately 80 per cent. of prisoners smoke.
  (b)There is no current estimate of the percentage of prison staff that smoke.

  The Directorate of Prison Health has recently completed a pilot programme to establish best practice for smoking cessation services in prisons. Five prisons were involved in the pilots and the rollout programme is such that all prisons will be involved in these services by the end of the financial year.

  Results so far indicate a similar success rate to that which is to be found with such initiatives in the community.

  Delivery will be evaluated over the next two years and further development work is ongoing with Strathclyde University.

  This year £500,000 has been allocated across all Primary Care Trusts that cater for prisons in their areas. It is planned that such funds will be made available each year through to 2006.

  Since 1 July 1996, Prison Governors have been required to comply with the Prison Service Workplace Smoking Policy. The aim of this policy is to ensure that a smoke-free working environment can be enjoyed by everyone.

  Smoking is not permitted in any office accommodation, including single occupancy offices and adjacent circulation spaces. Nor is smoking permitted in toilets, lifts and conference rooms.

  In prisons, smoking is banned in all visits areas and it is recommended that governors prohibit smoking in all communal areas. In establishing local smoking policies, Governors are encouraged to complement them with the provision of smoking cessation courses for those wishing to give up.

  Proceeds of Crime Act
  Jim Dowd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the value of assets seized by the Metropolitan Police under the provisions of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 has been in 2003. [142979]

  Caroline Flint
  The total amount of cash seized by the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) under new powers in the Act which came into effect on 30 December 2002 is £7,237,530. Cash seizures are subject to forfeiture proceedings in the magistrates' courts. The value of cash forfeited by the MPS under the new powers in the Act is £602,195.

  The confiscation powers in the Act, which are dependent on securing a conviction, are triggered by offences committed after the provisions were brought

  621W
  into force on 24 March 2003. It will, therefore, be some time before such cases are dealt with by the Crown Court in numbers.

  Special Immigration Appeals Commission
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what account of Scots Law principles is taken by the Special Immigration Appeals Commission. [142728]

  Mr. Leslie
  I have been asked to reply.

  The jurisdiction of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission is United Kingdom wide. The Commission takes into account whatever principles of law are drawn to its attention in the appeals before it. In the appeals heard so far no principles peculiar to Scots Law, or to the law of England and Wales, have arisen.

  Women Prisoners
  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many suicides there were among the female prison population in(a) 2001, (b) 2002 and (c) 2003 to date. [140452]

  Paul Goggins
  The information requested is provided in the following table:

  Number of female self-inflicted deaths

  2001

  6

  2002

  9

  20031

  14

  Total

  29

  1 to 26 November.

  The Prison Service employs the term 'self-inflicted death' rather than 'suicide'. This includes all those deaths where it appears the person may have acted specifically to take his/her own life.

  The prison population, and particularly the women's estate, contains a large number of prisoners with a combination of factors that raise their risk of suicide. These include psychiatric disorders, a history of self-harm, drug and alcohol abuse, homelessness, relationship problems and previous abuse, and family background problems. Since January 2001, there has been a 34 per cent. increase in the women prisoner population.

  A proactive three-year strategy to develop policies and practices to reduce prisoner suicide and manage self-harm in prisons commenced in April 2001. The main principles of the strategy apply across all types of prisons and prisoners whether male or female. An investment of over £21 million through the three-year programme is enabling appropriate physical improvements to be made at six pilot sites, one of which is Eastwood Park prison and young offender institution.

  Vera Baird
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of female prison establishments has the capacity to prescribe medications essential to detoxification in the evenings and at weekends. [141626]
  622W
  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of female prison establishments has the capacity(a) in the evenings and (b) at weekends to prescribe medications essential to detoxification. [142894]

  Paul Goggins
  All of the seven prison establishments that receive women direct from court have the capacity to prescribe medications essential to detoxification in the evenings and weekends.

  Vera Baird
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of female prison establishments has a psychiatrically qualified doctor on duty(a) during the working day, (b) during the evening and (c) on a 24-hour basis. [141627]

  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of the female prison establishments have a psychiatrically qualified doctor on duty(a) during the working day, (b) during the evening and (c) on a 24-hour basis. [142893]

  Paul Goggins
  The information requested is not available centrally. As part of the programme to implement the commitments to improved mental health services for prisoners in the NHS Plan (2000), the NHS is funding provision of multi-disciplinary mental health in-reach services at 94 establishments during 2003–04, including 11 for women. By 2006 such services will be available to all prison establishments.

  Vera Baird
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the budget for the current financial year is for(a) mental health care to women prisoners and (b) the Dangerous and Severe Personality Disorder programme (i) in total and (ii) per capita. [141619]

  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the estimated budget is(a) to provide mental health care to women prisoners and (b) for the Dangerous and Severe Personality Disorder programme (i) in total and (ii) per capita in 2003–04. [142895]

  Paul Goggins
  Funding for mental health services in prisons is not specifically identified or ring-fenced within prison budgets. "Changing the Outlook, a Strategy for Developing and Modernising Mental Health Services for Prisoners" (December 2001) estimated that around half of the Prison Service's then expenditure on health care was spent on mental health care. In the current financial year total Prison Service expenditure on health services in prisons in England and Wales (excluding the contractually managed prisons) is expected to be around £130 million, including £19 million on establishments holding only female prisoners. In addition, the Department of Health made £903,000 available for NHS mental health in-reach services in 11 women's prisons during 2003–04.

  In the current financial year £17.039 million has been allocated to meet the Home Office contribution to the development and running costs of the Dangerous and Severe Personality Disorder Programme. It is, however, too early in the development of this programme to give meaningful per capita costs.
  623W

  Young Offenders
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what academic and vocational education and training is available to young people serving custodial sentences. [141865]

  Paul Goggins
  The Government is investing £40 million over three years through the Youth Justice Board to provide a range of academic and vocational training opportunities for juvenile offenders. The specification for learning and skills being implemented includes programmes that allow young people to:Improve language literacy and numeracy skills
  Continue with GCSEs, A levels and AS levels
  Prepare for going back to schools, colleges or other places of learning
  Attain specific vocational skills and general employability skills
  Address offending behaviours
  Develop a range of study skills and make good use of learning materials

  There is a target for 90 per cent of juvenile offenders to engage in full-time education, training or employment by the end of 2004.

  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what health services and support are available to young people(a) sentenced and (b) remanded to custody; and what specialist mental health services are available to repeat young offenders. [141866]

  Paul Goggins
  Young people held in prison custody, whether on remand or sentenced, have access to a full range of primary and specialist healthcare services through the institution's healthcare centre. Health care staff will arrange for any necessary specialist treatment to be provided, either within the institution or as an in-or-out patient at an outside hospital, as appropriate. A substantial programme of reform of prison health care, begun in 2000 on the basis of a partnership between the Prison Service and the NHS, is due to lead to the full devolution of prison health resources to NHS Primary Care Trusts by the end of March 2006.

  Young offenders who need in-patient treatment for mental disorder may be transferred to psychiatric hospitals.

  As part of the programme to implement the commitments to improved mental health services for prisoners in the NHS Plan (2000), the NHS is funding provision of multi-disciplinary mental health in-reach services at 94 prisons and young offender institutions during 2003–4. By 2006 such services will be available to all prison establishments.

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) assaults and (b) instances of criminal damage there were in HM Young Offenders Institution Wetherby in each of the past five years. [140587]

  Paul Goggins
  The numbers of assaults in the establishment for each of the last five years, with numbers of serious assaults1 shown in brackets, are:

  Number of assaults

  Number of serious assaults

  April 1999 to March 2000

  145

  (4)

  624W

  Number of assaults

  Number of serious assaults

  April 2000 to March 2001

  135

  (4)

  April 2001 to March 2002

  117

  (10)

  April 2002 to March 2003

  129

  (5)

  April 2003 to October 2003

  79

  (2)

  1'Serious assault' is defined as an assault on any person, including fights (if resulting in detention in outside hospital as an in-patient, medical treatment for concussion or internal injury, fractures, scalds and burns, stabbing, crushing, extensive or multiple bruising, black eye, broken nose, lost or broken tooth, cuts requiring suturing, bites, temporary or permanent blindness or sexual assaults).

  Information about incidents of criminal damage is not recorded centrally for the Prison Service estate as a whole. However, since April 2003 there has been central recording by Prison Service juvenile group of incidents of significant damage1 to the fabric of cells within the Prison Service juvenile estate. From April to October 2003 there were 64 such incidents at Wetherby.

  1'Significant damage' is defined as any damage incurring a cost.

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many sick days were taken by staff at HM Young Offenders Institution Wetherby in each of the past five years. [140589]

  Paul Goggins
  Information on staff sickness absence at Wetherby young offender institution is contained in the following table. Reliable data are not available prior to April 1999.

  Working days lost

  Working days lost per person

  1999–2000

  2,456

  10.1

  2000–01

  2,700

  11.0

  2001–02

  3,984

  15.5

  2002–03

  4,291

  15.5

  April to September 20031

  2,431

  16.7

  1April to September 2003 rate has been annualised.

  The overall sick absence rate across the Prison Service has fallen this year and currently stands at 13.3 working days per member of staff per year. The Director General is committed to reducing this level further. At Wetherby, the increase in absence since 2001–02 was due in particular to a rise in long-term sickness absence.

  However, I understand that there has been a significant reduction in such cases this year. In addition, a six-month pilot project has recently begun at Wetherby to provide a counselling and support service to staff to address issues associated with stress. It is too early to assess the impact of this project.

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the reasons are for(a) the removal of staff batons and (b) the proposed removal of staff uniforms at HM Young Offenders Institution Wetherby. [140590]

  Paul Goggins
  The policy on the use of staves and mini-batons is set out in Prison Service Order 1600. Female staff who have been trained in its use may be issued with a mini-baton, and this applies at juvenile establishments and units, including Wetherby. In line with the policy relating to juvenile establishments and units, staff at Wetherby have been required to follow the practice of not carrying staves within the establishment.
  625W
  In June 2003. after seeking clarification of the policy from Prison Service headquarters, the Governor ended the practice of issuing staff with staves when escorting young people outside the establishment.

  Staff in the operational support and prison officer grades at Wetherby continue to wear the traditional
  626W
  Prison Service uniform. Prison Service Order 4950 sets out a requirement for a less formal uniform for staff. Consultations on the implementation of this aspect of the Order are taking place at a national level. The Prison Service remains committed to implementing a uniform that is appropriate for use in juvenile establishments.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Police Pension Scheme
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Blunkett)
  I have today published a consultation paper which sets out proposals for a new police pension scheme for future entrants. We intend that the new scheme should be in place by no later than April 2006.

  The aim is to produce a modernised, more flexible scheme for a twenty first century police service. The proposed new scheme would include benefits such as a full pension of half final salary plus a lump sum of four times' pension after 35 years, life-long survivor benefits extended to unmarried and same sex partners as well as spouses, and a lower contribution rate of between 9 to 9.5 per cent. of pensionable pay. In line with Government policy on pension ages in future the new scheme would have a minimum pension age of 55 and a deferred pension age of 65 for those leaving the service before the age of 55.

  Currently serving officers who are in the existing scheme will remain there unless they opt to transfer to the new scheme. As members of the current scheme they will still be able to retire after 25 or more years' service with a pension age unaffected by the proposed changes. However, younger serving officers who leave the service early might be affected by Government proposals to apply the planned rise in the normal public service pension age from 60 to 65 to some existing staff. Any future move to raise the deferred pension age of currently serving officers to 65 would not be made before there had been a full debate about how this might be implemented across the public sector, and would apply only to pensionable service falling after the date of change.

  Government plans to raise the minimum pension age to 55 in April 2005 will not affect currently serving officers who continue in service until retirement under the present police pensions scheme. However, the consultation document discusses the arrangements that should be made for officers who enter the service between April 2005 and the start date of the new scheme, if such a time lag occurs.

  The consultation document also sets out Government plans for reforming the system of financing police pensions with a view to making expenditure on paying pensions to retired officers more predictable and more clearly separated from operational costs.

  We seek a well-informed and constructive debate on the proposed elements of a new scheme for future entrants to the police service before we come to our final decision on how to take police pensions forward into the twenty-first century.
  90WS
  Copies of the consultation document are available in the House library and on the Home Office web-site www.homeoffice.gov.uk/ Comments have been requested by 11 March 2004.

  Community Capacity Building
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Fiona Mactaggart)
  A Home Office consultation document on the Review of support for community groups and community capacity building in England is being published online today. The consultation document outlines the results of the review on mapping existing Government activity in the field of community capacity building and makes proposals for change. The consultation document asks questions to inform how Government might take forward actions to implement change.

  The Government aim is to unify and make more effective the planning, resourcing and evaluating of provision for building the capacity of individuals and groups in communities to participate in community activity and contribute to a wide range of social objectives.

  The review focused on two main areas, and the proposals for change outlined in the consultation document relate to the:
  provision of support to community groups and community capacity building activities at community level, whether that be a neighbourhood, locality, parish or across a community of interest;
  policies and practices that govern the way that central, regional and local government supports community engagement, and thus civil renewal, through community capacity building initiatives and programmes.

  Copies of the consultation document are available in the House Library and on the Home Office http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/docs2/ccbrconsult.pdf website. We would welcome views on the proposals and questions outlined in the consultation document.

  A partial regulatory impact assessment is included with the consultation document.

  Voluntary/Community Sector
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Blunkett)
  I am pleased to announce that arrangements for the implementation of the futurebuilders fund for voluntary and community sector have now been completed. The fund will be transferred to the active communities unit in the Home Office from HM Treasury. Futurebuilders is a £125 million investment over three years, mainly for one-off investment funding. We expect funding to come on stream towards the end of this financial year. The vast majority of the funds will be available in the next two financial years. The availability of funding will be publicised and organisations will be able to apply.

  The fund will be aimed at helping individual voluntary and community sector organisations strengthen the scale and scope of their contribution to the delivery of public services. This fund complements the £80 million already being made available to support the implementation of a strategy for the development and support of voluntary and community organisations being jointly developed by government and the sector.

  91WS
  Over £200 million is therefore being invested between now and 2006 to building capacity within communities.

  This fits with our wider strategy to promote and develop volunteering and mentoring for all ages. We will shortly be investing funding in a number of volunteering initiatives including work with older volunteers.

  This will strengthen our communities and help ensure that they are better able to shape and deliver the services they need and to engage in volunteering and mentoring.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Parliamentary Pay and Allowances
  The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Peter Hain)
  In 1996 the Senior Salaries Review Body recommended that Parliamentary pay and allowances should be reviewed every three years, commencing in 2000. In line with this recommendation my right hon. Friend, the Prime Minister has recently written to John Baker, the Chairman of the Senior Salaries Review Body asking the body to report next year.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  BNFL
  The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Ms Patricia Hewitt)
  In July this year, I announced that DTI and BNFL would conduct a joint review of the company's future strategy, and that recommendations would he made to the BNFL Board and Ministers in the Autumn.

  It was decided that a review was necessary to evaluate alternative strategies, following on from the decision to rule out a flotation of the company after the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority had been formed in April 2005. The review has been conducted against the framework of the Government's policy objectives set out in the White Paper "Managing the Nuclear Legacy—a Strategy for Action" and in particular the need to develop a competitive market for nuclear site management. It has been driven by the Government's overriding priority to ensure safe, efficient and effective clean-up at Sellafield and other civil nuclear sites. One of the key objectives of the review was to focus BNFL's activities more closely on the priority of UK clean-up.

  As announced in the White Paper, the NDA will take over strategic responsibility for the discharge of BNFL's UK nuclear liabilities from April 2005, subject to Parliamentary approval of the Energy Bill. A new parent company will be established at that point to hold those parts of BNFL that will not become the NDA's responsibility.

  The Government does not intend that the new parent company and its holdings will be privatised as a whole by flotation. We have also agreed that the sale of the entire group as an integrated structure is not an objective. However, proposals for involving the private sector in individual businesses will be examined on their merits, consistent with the Government's overall objectives of focusing on a more competitive market in UK clean-up, maximising the value and limiting the risk
  92WS
  of BNFL's businesses to taxpayers; while ensuring that safety, security and environmental standards are maintained.

  Other key conclusions are:
  The principal focus of the new parent company will be clean-up activities at UK sites.

  In the period up to the establishment of the NDA in April 2005, BNFL and its Board will continue to have responsibility for the safe and efficient running of its existing sites and for the financial performance of the company and its subsidiaries.

  At the same time as a new parent company is established in April 2005, a new group of subsidiary companies will be established which will have initial responsibility for managing clean-up and operations at BNFL's UK sites under transitional arrangements to be agreed with the NDA. These companies will have the chance to bid to continue managing these sites when the NDA introduces competition.

  Fuel manufacture will continue at the Springfields site, where clean-up activity is also underway. It will be established as a separate licensed entity, likely to be managed initially by Westinghouse, and with the NDA taking financial responsibility for the relevant decommissioning and clean-up liabilities.

  The vast majority of the existing BNFL UK workforce will continue to be employed by companies that operate current BNFL sites. Initially, the two largest site licensee companies will be British Nuclear Fuels plc (which will continue to have the licence for the Sellafield site) and Magnox Electric plc. Other employees will transfer into companies within the clean-up group.

  BNFL's existing Research and Technology facilities and a proportion of the personnel will remain with the site licensee companies. Other staff will transfer to a new Nuclear Science and Technology Service (NSTS) which will initially be a subsidiary of the new parent company and will deliver services on a commercial basis to the NDA, site licensee companies and third parties. These proposed arrangements for R & T are consistent with the Government's policy to keep the nuclear option open as set out in the White Paper "Our Energy Future—creating a low carbon economy".

  The BNFL Board, and from April 2005, the Board of the new parent company will manage the other businesses to deliver value and in a way that limits and controls risk to the UK taxpayer.

  In relation to the Westinghouse business, the Government has agreed with the BNFL Board that steps will be taken to enable the business to operate with greater financial independence from its parent, so that possibilities for private sector participation are opened up.

  Future strategy for the investment in the Urenco fuel enrichment business will take full account of the strategic significance of this business and of the UK's nuclear non-proliferation obligations.

  BNFL is seeking routes to reduce significantly its exposure to the US clean-up market.

  These proposals are designed to help deliver the policy objectives set out in the 2002 White Paper "Managing the Nuclear Legacy" and are entirely

  93WS
  consistent with our continuing commitment to keep the nuclear option open as set out in the 2003 Energy White Paper. They offer the best route towards both a more competitive market for UK clean-up, better value for taxpayers and a genuine opportunity for BNFL staff and management to continue to play a key role in meeting the challenge of nuclear clean-up.

  We are also very conscious of the need to consider the impact of the NDA proposals and BNFL's future strategy on local communities. This is why the legislation to establish the NDA will facilitate its involvement in social and economic activities to support them.

  We have sought to maximise the benefits from the establishment of the NDA to West Cumbria, for example:
  The headquarters of the NDA will be in West Cumbria.
  We have established a key project on UK nuclear skills in West Cumbria with the North West Development Agency
  Moreover, we are today setting out plans to establish a strategic taskforce for West Cumbria whose job it will be to plan and ensure the implementation of the social and economic regeneration of the area in light of decommissioning the Sellafield site.

  I am placing further details of the review outcome in the Library of the House.

  EU Regional Policy
  The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Ms Patricia Hewitt)
  On 17th September,Official Report, columns 53–54WS, I confirmed that the Government's proposed EU Framework for Devolved Regional Policy would form the basis of our negotiating position in Europe. The Government believe that the EU Framework offers the best model to reform EU regional policy in line with the principles of a flexible UK regional policy, ensuring that it is both effective and fair for all Member States.

  We also believe that our proposal provides a sustainable response to the challenge of EU Enlargement and that it will actively support the Lisbon agenda of higher productivity and employment. The Government are committed to promoting regional policy over the longer term and this proposal reflects the Government's strong and enduring commitment to decentralisation and devolution and to ensuring that economic disparities between our nations and regions are identified and addressed.

  In the consultation exercise the Government conducted earlier this year, most of those who commented on the overall aim for reform of EU regional and cohesion policy supported our key objectives. But many of the respondents felt they did not have enough information to make a proper judgment and requested further details on how the proposed approach would operate in practice. This statement aims to provide that further information, while recognising that we cannot provide a definitive blueprint at this stage. Details will inevitably change as negotiations progress. The statement refers to a more detailed paper that I have deposited in the Library of the House today.
  94WS
  OPERATION OF THE EU FRAMEWORK

  We envisage that the EU Framework would be established by agreement in the European Council of a set of high level, outcome-focused objectives which support the achievement of the Lisbon and Gothenburg agendas. Member States would then develop with their nations and regions, consistent with their respective constitutional arrangements or devolution arrangements, Devolved Strategies for Regional Policy which would be subject to a peer review process facilitated by the Commission. More details are given in section 1 of the accompanying paper.

  THE FINANCIAL GUARANTEE

  The Government's guarantee that the nations and regions of the UK will not lose out if the EU Framework approach is agreed is based upon the amount of Structural Fund receipts that could be expected if, in 2007, the current allocation system were applied but in the context of an enlarged EU. This is explored further in section 2 of the accompanying paper.

  POSSIBLE DELIVERY MECHANISMS

  The Government stressed in the consultation document that we want regional policy to respect devolution in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, and in future possibly in some English regions, and to be locally led with decisions taken as close as possible to local people, thereby supporting civil renewal. We also wanted to retain the strengths of the Structural Funds, such as multi annual funding and partnership working, but achieve significantly simplified delivery mechanisms. The ways in which such delivery in support of Framework objectives might work must take into account current devolved and decentralised arrangements and the views of stakeholders.

  In addition to seeking reassurance about their future role in decision-making on regional policy, many respondents also wanted to be reassured that the agendas supported by the Structural Funds would continue to be supported through domestic funding under the proposed approach. This applied particularly in the areas of skills and employment, social inclusion and regeneration and for rural and urban areas. Although it is not possible now to say exactly what the domestic institutional arrangements will be in 2007, nor exactly how increased domestic funding would be distributed or on what it would be focused, the direction of our thinking on these areas is set out in section 3 of the accompanying paper. This focuses on arrangements in England given that, as outlined in the consultation document, Devolved Administrations would continue to devise and implement their own regional policies.

  LINKS BETWEEN EU REGIONAL POLICY REFORM AND OTHER EU POLICIES

  The UK Government is a firm advocate of the need to transfer more funding from Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) production support and income subsidy to the CAP rural development budget. The aims of CAP rural development to effectively assist in conversion of the EU agriculture industry to a more sustainable structure and to tackle the social, economic and environmental consequences in rural areas of change in the sector, and our objectives for EU and domestic regional policy, need to be mutually supportive. Among other things, this means that the range of instruments available at EU, national or regional level needs to make

  95WS
  a proper and well co-ordinated contribution to the Government's productivity agenda in rural areas as well as elsewhere. This is discussed further in section 4 of the accompanying paper.

  Since the Lisbon Council in March 2000, successive European Councils have called on Member States to
  "further their efforts to promote competition and reduce the general level of state aids."

  The Stockholm Council in March 2001 established the target that Member States should demonstrate a downward trend in state aid in relation to GDP by 2003. More recently, the Barcelona Council in March 2002 restated that aid should he directed to
  "horizontal objectives of common interest, including economic and social cohesion, and to target it to identified market failures. Less and better-targeted state aid is a key part of effective competition."

  The UK Government firmly supports these conclusions.

  In the context of regional policy, the Commission announced on 2 April 2003 that it would conduct a thorough review of its rules on regional state aid for the period after 1 January 2007. In line with the European Council conclusions on state aid, the UK will be seeking a modernised state aid system which is more efficient and which allows Member States to tackle the market failures which cause regional underperformance, while bearing down on distortive aids.

  Under an EU Framework, the objective of Structural Funds would be to aid development in the poorest Member States, while the state aid rules would allow all Member States to provide support to address regional and sub-regional/area underperformance, consistent with the need to ensure state aid discipline.

  EU BUDGET

  We believe that our proposal benefits all Member States by focusing scarce EU Budget resources where they will have the greatest effect. It also supports regional policy across the EU, by providing a shared policy framework for all Member States—whether recipients of funding or not—linked to the Lisbon goals and objectives. Our proposals, by providing a solution that is sustainable in the long-term (both for the Financial Perspective starting in 2007, and beyond), will bring lasting benefits shared by all Member States.

  The UK also believes that, like other elements of the budget, spending on regional policy should achieve a fair budgetary deal for the UK taxpayer. As a net contributor to the Structural and Cohesion Fund (SCF) budget, additional receipts from a larger SCF budget would only come at a net cost to the UK taxpayer, reducing the amount of potential funding available for UK regional policy. Further details on the budgetary aspects of reform are contained in section 5 of the accompanying paper.

  CONCLUSION

  The Government have already reformed domestic regional policy in England to enable all regions to reach their full potential, based on their indigenous strengths, and devolved substantial power to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. If the Government is to meet its ambitious domestic goals, and if EU cohesion policy is to be both sustainable, effective and fair for all Member States, radical reform is needed. In particular, we believe that EU regional policy should be substantially devolved
  96WS
  and decentralised. The Commission has committed to examining in detail the options that have been put forward so far in its 3rd Cohesion report due next month and we await this analysis with interest. We, in turn, are committed to continuing to consult with domestic stakeholders and our EU partners as the debate develops with the aim of producing the best outcome for the new Member States, for Europe and for the nations and regions of the United Kingdom.

CABINET OFFICE

  Digital Television Policy Paper
  The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Douglas Alexander)
  A new policy framework for Digital TV, which has been developed by the Office of the e-Envoy within the Cabinet Office, has been published today.

  This new set of policies will provide guidance and co-ordination to central and local government in developing digital TV as a viable channel for delivering e-Government services to the consumers. It is the result of extensive work and consultation with key stakeholders across government, industry, and the public.

  The DTV channel is an important tool in contributing to the Government objective of delivering all services electronically by 2005, with high levels of take-up. Currently, more than 11 million households in the UK have DTV, and the numbers are growing. DTV gives people the opportunity to access electronic government services in new ways, using the unique interactive and informational features of the medium.

  The framework document encourages all tiers of government, industry, broadcasters and other leading bodies to work together on a co-ordinated approach to ensure DTV succeeds in delivering its potential.

  Copies have been placed in the Libraries of the House.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Local Government Finance Settlement 2004–05
  The Minister for Local Government, Regional Governance and Fire (Mr. Nick Raynsford)
  Further to the Pre-Budget Statement made by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I am today announcing the proposed allocation to English local authorities of an extra £340 million of revenue support grant for 2004–05.

  The Government are clear that it is right to provide this extra support to authorities to help them to improve public services. We are particularly conscious of the pressures for improvements in the areas of the environment and social services for children. The additional support will be provided as revenue support grant, which is not ring-fenced, and so can be used for any purpose.

  The increase in grant distributed by formula will now be 5.5 per cent. compared to 2003–04, on a like-for-like basis: overall grants to local authorities will increase by 7.1 per cent.
  97WS
  The floors and ceilings on grant increases will change for authorities with education and social services responsibilities, to 4 per cent. and 7.5 per cent. respectively. In some cases, however, authorities will receive more than 7.5 per cent. because we are continuing to provide support for increased capital investment outside the floors and ceilings system.

  For shire districts, the additional grant is sufficient to raise the floor to 3 per cent. so all districts will get an above inflation increase. There will be no effective ceiling for districts, giving grant increases of up to 12.2 per cent. for individual authorities.

  There will be no changes in floors or ceilings for police and fire authorities.

  This will mean that for the second year running, every local authority will get at least an above inflation increase, with many getting substantially more.

  Tables showing grant totals and the revised provisional allocation of formula grant to all English local authorities for 2004–05 have been placed in the Vote Office and are also available in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Given the scale of this change, the consultation period on our proposals will be extended and will now end on 9 January 2004. The House will then have the chance to debate the Government's final proposals in late January or early February. As is normal, the detailed allocations to individual authorities may still change as data on council tax base and capital allocations are updated.

  Given the scale of the investment in local services and the scope for efficiency improvements in local government, the Government believe next year local authorities must aim to deliver council tax increases in low single figures. Unreasonably large council tax increases will be neither justified nor acceptable.

  So the Government are prepared to use targeted capping powers next year if that proves necessary.

  When considering whether to cap authorities, the Government will look at a range of factors including the level and increase in the council tax and the level of the budget. In areas where there is a combined fire authority, budgets for 2004–05 will not be comparable with 2003–04 because the combined fire authority is precepting for the first time in 2004–05. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is today issuing a consultation document which sets out the proposed methodology and the notional budget figures as a result of this change. A copy of this will be made available in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Draft Fire and Rescue Framework 2004–05
  The Minister for Local Government, Regional Governance and Fire (Mr. Nick Raynsford)
  In June the Government published the White Paper, "Our Fire and Rescue Service". It set out a package of reforms designed to improve the service and to save more lives. Today the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is publishing a draft fire and rescue national framework that will outline how to implement the White Paper's proposals. It sets out the Government's objectives for the Fire and Rescue Service and what Fire and Rescue Authorities should do to achieve these outcomes. It also sets out what the Government will do to improve the service and what support it will provide to Fire and 98WS
  Rescue Authorities. In due course, the expectations in the Framework will also help to shape the Audit Commission's fire and rescue Comprehensive Performance Assessment.

  The Framework is based on a partnership approach. The Government is committed to giving Fire and Rescue Authorities adequate support and flexibility to help them meet the specific needs of their local communities. For this reason we are initially issuing it in draft form and welcome comments and suggestions by 12 March 2004 both on the proposals in the draft Framework and on how to make the future versions as helpful and relevant as possible. We aim to publish the first National Framework in Spring 2004.

  The legislation announced in the Queen's speech will place the Framework on a statutory footing. It will require the Government to report to Parliament on the extent to which Fire and Rescue Authorities are acting in accordance with the National Framework and any steps the Government has taken to ensure that they do.

  We are also today publishing Mott MacDonald's most recent study into fire and rescue control rooms, and HM Fire Service Inspectorate's review of the subject. The study reinforced the report's conclusions that regional control rooms would significantly enhance national resilience. The Government is persuaded by the conclusions of the study and proposes to establish regional control rooms in England, including the one already established in London, working closely with Fire and Rescue Authorities through their Regional Management Boards. We have written to the Practitioners Forum asking for their views on our proposed approach.

  The Fire and Rescue Service is, rightly, widely admired for its professionalism and the dedication of its staff. The White Paper made clear, however, that it was also in need of urgent reform. Publication of the draft National Framework sets out the Government's expectations of the Service, what Fire and Rescue Authorities should do and the support the Government will provide. It demonstrates the Government's continued commitment, in partnership with Fire and Rescue Authorities, to driving down the number of fire deaths and injuries, improving fire and rescue services and saving more lives.

  Copies of the Draft Fire and Rescue National Framework 2004/05, the full Mott MacDonald report, the summary of the Mott MacDonald report, and the HM Fire Service Inspectorate review are available in the libraries of both Houses.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  BBC Charter
  The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Tessa Jowell)
  The BBC's Royal Charter—the seventh in the history of the corporation—is due to expire on 31 December 2006. I have today launched the first phase of a process of review that will result in a strong BBC, independent of Government, from the end of the current Charter and beyond. That period will be marked by continuing rapid advances in technology, and changes in society, culture and practice—the way people receive and make use of broadcast content. Charter review will
  99WS
  be characterised by our openness, our efforts to engage as broad a section of the population as we can, and our commitment to listen to what people have to say. And I am being helped in this by Lord Burns, who will provide me with independent advice throughout.

  Charter review is not a single process. It will take in a range of existing and planned work, including Ofcom's review of public service television, the independent review of BBC online and the forthcoming reviews of the BBC's new digital services.

  But it will also feature widespread public involvement, built around a three-phase process of consultation. Phase one starts today, based on a very broad consultation document—The Review of the BBC's Royal Charter—which I have published today. I have placed copies of the document—and a supporting leaflet—in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Phase two, timed to begin around the end of 2004, will aim to bring together the results of phase one, the conclusions of various reviews taking place over the course of next year and the findings of our own programme of research into a green paper, which will be published for a further stage of consultation.

  A White Paper will follow, with a further round of consultation. We will conclude the process with a full and formal opportunity for both Houses to contribute their views.

  Today's publication forms the central plank of phase one. It sets out a framework for consultation—based on a series of key themes—within which there is plenty of room for discussion of all aspects of the BBC's role, structure and function. The consultation will be supported by a programme of survey research and direct engagement with the public and stakeholders.

  The BBC belongs to everyone. It is one of our most valued institutions. In many ways, it reflects what is best about the values, culture and society of the United Kingdom, at home and abroad. Charter review gives the whole country an opportunity to have its say about the kind of BBC it wants for the future.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Water Framework Directive
  The Minister for the Environment (Mr. Elliot Morley)
  The Government is today laying regulations1 before Parliament which transpose the Water Framework Directive in England and Wales. Defra is also publishing on the Defra web-site a final Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA)2 as well as a summary of the views of those who commented on the most recent consultation on the Directive, and a Government response to their comments3.

  The regulations provide the framework for delivery of the Directive's demanding environmental objectives. The quality of rivers, lakes, estuaries, coastal waters and groundwaters must be protected and enhanced by 2015. In addition, wetlands depending on groundwater must be safeguarded and water related requirements of other Community legislation taken into account.

  All this action must be integrated into packages of measures and plans based on river basins, which must be drawn up with full public participation.
  100WS
  The regulations comprise one set covering England and Wales (which have already been approved by the National Assembly for Wales) and a further set covering the Northumbria river basin district which crosses slightly over the England/Scotland border.
  1 The Water Environment (Water Framework Directive) (England and Wales) Regulations 2003 and
  The Water Environment (Water Framework Directive (Northumbria River Basin District) Regulations 2003 can be found at http://www.legislation.hmso.gov.uk/si/dsis2003.htm and a transposition note can be found at http://www.defra.gov.uk/corporate/ria/default.htm
  Maps showing the district boundaries for each set of Regulations can be found at http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/water/wfd/index.htm
  1The Regulatory Impact Assessment can he found at http:// www.defra.gov.uk/corporate/ria/default.htm
  3Summary of third Framework Directive consultation paper responses and Government response/commentary on regulations can be found at http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/water/wfd/index.htm

  TRANSPOSITION IS ONLY THE FIRST STEP

  The Water Framework Directive is of exceptional importance in setting the objectives for our policies towards the water environment for years to come. The Government is fully committed to these objectives. Transposition of the Directive through these regulations is a significant stage in its implementation. But it is important to recognise that it is only one step along the road. Full implementation will depend on a wide range of further decisions and actions to be taken over the coming years. The transposition regulations should be seen as enabling and requiring these further steps to take place. But they are by no means all that is needed to put the directive into practice. Key issues, as currently envisaged, on which further decisions and action will be needed, in order to achieve this, are summarised in the annex.

  The overall effect of the regulations is that in England, the Secretary of State has ultimate responsibility for the Directive's implementation; this responsibility includes:
  an explicit role in approving environmental objectives, programmes of measures and river basin management plans;
  the power to issue guidance to the Agency and other relevant bodies, to which they are bound to have regard.
  The Environment Agency has responsibility to:
  Characterise river basin districts;
  Identify bodies of water used for the abstraction of drinking water;
  Prepare, review and keep up to date a register of protected areas for each river basin district;
  Establish programmes to monitor water status, so as to establish an overview of water status within each river basin district;
  Prepare and submit to the 'appropriate authority' (i.e. Secretary of State and/or National Assembly for Wales) environmental objectives for each body of water and programmes of measures;
  Prepare and submit to the appropriate authority a river basin management plan for each district (including consultation, publicity and taking account of views) and supplementary plans.
  101WS
  The Government has greatly appreciated the input made through the comments of those who have responded to consultation. The Government is setting out its response to them today on the Defra website. A very wide range of comments were received and a wide range of changes have been made to the draft regulations published in August this year. These include revisions to provisions dealing with programmes of measures, river basin management plans, public participation and publication of information.

  A FRAMEWORK FOR ACTION

  The regulations set the framework for further implementation action by both the Government and the Environment Agency, as competent authority for the Directive. There is much more action to come. The regulations achieve transposition; but the Government will be building on the regulations by bringing forward a range of proposals dealing with such issues as controls on diffuse pollution, River Basin Management Plan guidance and the development of a Water Framework Directive communications strategy.

  Discussions continue in Brussels on linked proposals for new Directives on groundwater and priority substances, building on Water Framework Directive requirements. Further work is underway at Community level to develop guidance packages to support implementation of the Directive. The UK will continue actively to support such work, including through its pilot river basin scheme based on the river Ribble in the North-West. The regulations need to be seen therefore in the context of this further future action.

  KEY EARLY ACTIONS

  The EA, as competent authority in England and Wales, will consult in 2004 on a public participation strategy. This will in turn inform the formal mechanisms that will ensure full and proper participation of wider society at the river basin level. It is not just the Government that must ensure that all are aware of and fully engaged in this process—there is also an important role for all agencies and organisations that wish to see a better quality water environment. To this end Defra and the EA are already developing, in close consultation with stakeholders, a WFD communication strategy for England to raise awareness of both the WFD and water quality issues.

  The benefits and opportunities the Directive will provide—economic and social regeneration, biodiversity, integration of land-use and sectoral planning, flood management, fisheries/marine, health and amenity—must be explained and seized upon. For its own part the Government has instituted much of this integration within its own structures already, building on the principles outlined in its 2002 statement of priorities for water policy, "Directing the Flow". This will continue, as will the focus on delivery at the regional and sub-regional level.

  Meeting the good ecological and chemical status requirements in the directive will be a challenge. A key analysis of impacts of human activity on water bodies must be completed by December 2004. Diffuse pollution from agricultural and urban sources will need to be tackled as a priority to meet the Directive's objectives, as well as further reductions in point source discharges. The costs of the measures required to meet "good status" will need to be apportioned to water users and
  102WS
  other sectors in a transparent and rational way. A robust economic analysis is a core requirement of this Directive and will ensure that the benefits of the measures employed justify the costs involved. (Defra will assess the scope for updating the final RIA from 2005). Costs must, as far as possible, adhere to the polluter pays principle. Defra is leading this analysis in England, in conjunction with Ofwat and the Environment Agency. The results will underpin the identification of the most effective suite of measures be they regulatory, fiscal, incentive or voluntary. Each of these measures will be formulated with the full engagement of the wider public both within the auspices of the WFD stakeholder forum for England and at the regional and local level through the active

  HELPING TO CARRY FORWARD THE DIRECTIVE WITH THE WIDER WATER AGENDA

  Alongside action to carry forward implementation of the requirements of the Directive through these regulations, the Government will actively be pursuing linked actions, consistent with the overall policy objectives of "Directing the Flow" and the aims and spirit of the Directive.

  These will include: work to carry forward and implement the provisions of the Water Act 2003 that will
  further the sustainable use of water resources;
  promote water conservation; including a requirement for mandatory water company drought plans which up until now have been voluntary.
  completion of the current Periodic Review of water prices and related environmental investment programmes to protect and enhance surface and groundwater water quality, including the water needs of important wetlands and other important biodiversity sites;
  work within the context of the Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North-East Atlantic (OSPAR) on hazardous substances and nutrients and work to help deliver the Government's vision for the marine environment as set out in "Seas of Change";
  work on establishing effective integration and linkages between river basin management plans (including supplementary plans) and other plans with a bearing on them, including abstraction plans, flood management plans and land use plans.
  Annex—Key further decisions and action likely to be taken in the implementation of the WFD

  (Note: all key decisions will be subject to prior consultation with stakeholders)

  Year

  Activity

  2004

  Defra consults on measures to tackle diffuse pollution from agriculture, and on priorities for action to tackle urban diffuse pollution.

  Consultation on diffuse pollution regulatory enabling powers.

  1st phase of characterization of water bodies (including identification of heavily modified water bodies), review of environmental impacts and pressures and economic analysis for each river basin district completed. (This will be refined from 2005 onwards).

  103WS

  Year

  Activity

  Defra completes economic analysis work necessary for 2004 on cost recovery, economic importance and dynamics of water use and the preparation of a methodology for cost effective analysis.

  WFD communications strategy for England launched.

  EA consults on draft strategy for River Basin Planning (RBP) including public participation. Defra assesses need to amend WFD regulations in clued further bodies under a duty to exercise relevant functions so as to secure compliance with the requirements of the Directive

  Defra/Scottish Executive assess whether further regulatory provisions needed for England/Scotland cross border river basin districts Defra assesses adequacy of existing powers to ensure hydromorphological conditions are consistent with meeting water status objectives 2004 Periodic Review of Water Price Limits sets the investment by water companies to improve water quality and water resource management for the period 2005–10. This will deliver substantial environmental quality improvements that will help achieve "good status".

  EA completes register of WFD "protected areas" with input from others including English Nature and Countryside Council for Wales. Establishment of arrangements for linkage between Strategic Environmental Directive and WFD.

  EU Environment Council consideration of daughter directive on groundwater EU Commission publishes proposals for daughter directive on priority substances

  2005

  Defra consults on River Basin Planning (RBP) guidance to EA (including the scope and use of "supplementary plans")

  Defra issues guidance to EA on RBP. EA launches national RBP strategy, including plans for public participation and administrative structures.

  2005 onwards

  Refinement of characterization to reduce uncertainty in risk assessments.

  Assess scope for updating final RIA

  2006

  Defra consults on and brings into force water status classification regulations.

  Intercalibration results published by European Commission.

  Formal monitoring of sites starts.

  EA publish for consultation the timetable/work in progess for the production of each River Basin Management Plan (RBMP).

  2007

  EA to publish and make available for comment an interim overview of significant issues identified for each RBMP.

  Preparation of a prototype River Basin

  FEES FOR REGISTRATION AND INSPECTION 2004/05

  (2003–04 fees in brackets)

  REGISTRATION FEES

  Service

  Unit

  Current fee

  New fee

  Provider registration

  home

  £1320*

  £1584

  Provider registration small homes and adult placements

  home

  £360*

  £432

  Manager registration

  manager

  £360*

  £432

  Minor variation

  application

  £60

  £72

  Variation requiring visit

  application

  £660*

  £792

  104WS

  Year

  Activity

  Management Plan and Programme of Measures for the Ribble Pilot.

  2008

  EA to publish and make available for comment first round of draft RBMPs, including summaries of Programmes of Measures (PoMs) and other material specified in Annex VII of the WFD.

  2009

  EA to publish finalized RBMPs, including summary of PoMs. After approval by SoS/NAW

  Programmes of Measures established.

  2012

  Programme of Measures operational

  2013

  Freshwater Fish, Shellfish, Groundwater, Surface Water Abstraction and (partly) Dangerous Substance Directives repealed by WFD.

  2014

  EA to publish draft of second round of RBMPs for consultation

  2015

  Environmental objectives of WFD met. PoMs reviewed and, if necessary, updated.

  2015 onwards

  RBMPs and PoMs reviewed every 6 years.

HEALTH

  Care Service Regulatory Fees
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Dr. Stephen Ladyman)
  The fees for care services currently regulated by the National Care Standards Commission (NCSC) will be increased in April 2004. A table of the new fees is as follows.

  Regulatory fee income is to assist with the funding of the NCSC, with the intention of achieving full cost recovery after five years, with a review in 2004. The policy on regulatory fees—including the intention of full cost recovery and the consequences for later years—was established following consultation in 2001. The fee structure also makes the costs of regulation transparent and borne by those who stand to benefit from more consistent national minimum standards so that pressures will apply to the regulatory process to ensure that it continues to be effective and efficient.

  Next April, the Commission for Social Care Inspection will take on the NCSC's role of regulating independent social care providers. The regulation of private and voluntary healthcare providers will move from the NCSC to the Commission for Healthcare Audit and Inspection. The new Commissions will further strengthen the system for inspecting those services.

  Individual letters are being sent to all providers of care services regulated by the NCSC to notify them about the increases.
  105WS

  FEES FOR REGISTRATION AND INSPECTION 2004/05

  (2003–04 fees in brackets)

  REGISTRATION FEES

  ANNUAL FEES

  Approved Place

  Approved place

  Service

  Flat rate

  from 4th—29th

  over 30th

  Care homes & hospices

  £21 6 (£180)

  £72 (£60)

  £72 (£60)

  Small care homes and adult placements

  £114 (£120)

  N/a

  N/a

  Acute and mental health hospitals

  £ 3600 (£3000)

  £144 (£120)

  £72 (£60)

  Prescribed techniques clinics

  £1080 (£900)

  £144 (£120)

  £72 (£60)

  Independent hospital

  £1440 (£1200)

  £144 (£120)

  £72 (£60)

  Other independent healthcare

  £1440 (£1200)

  N/a

  N/a

  Children's homes

  £720 (£600)

  £ 72 (£60)

  £72 (£60)

  Small children's homes

  £720 (£600)

  N/a

  N/a

  Boarding schools and further education

  £360 (£300)

  £21.60 (£18)

  £10.80 (£9)

  Residential special schools

  £576 (£480)

  £57.60 (£48)

  £28.80 (£24)

  Fostering agencies and local authorities

  £1440 (£1200)

  N/a

  N/a

  Residential family centres

  £ 480 (£400)

  £60 (£50)

  £60 (£50)

  Domiciliary care agencies

  £ 900 (£750)

  N/a

  N/a

  Small domiciliary care agencies

  £ 450 (£375)

  N/a

  N/a

  Nurses agencies

  £ 600 (£500)

  N/a

  N/a

  Voluntary adoption agencies

  £ 600 (£500)

  N/a

  N/a

  Voluntary adoption agency branches

  £ 300 (£250)

  N/a

  N/a

  Small nurses agencies

  £ 300 (£250)

  N/a

  N/a

  *Domiciliary care agencies, voluntary adoption agencies, nurse agencies and residential family centres pay 2003–04 prices

TREASURY

  Aspire IT Services Contract
  The Paymaster General (Dawn Primarolo)
  The Inland Revenue is today announcing that Cap Gemini Ernst & Young (CGEY) has been selected as the Department's preferred supplier for the Aspire IT services contract.

  Aspire will provide a range of Information Technology/Information Systems and related services including voice. These services are intended to support current and new business channels (including e-business) as the Department faces the challenges of the future. Because no one single supplier can provide the full range of IT services the Inland Revenue requires, CGEY will act as the Prime supplier with responsibility for integrating Inland Revenue systems and supporting transformation, supported by co-partners.

  The initial term of the contract will be 10 years, with options to extend, potentially in a number of stages, for up to 18 years.

  The competition sought to identify the bidder which delivers the most economically advantageous tender. Two preferred bidders were announced on 16 July 2003. Cap Gemini Ernst & Young and Revenue Professional Services (RPS—an alliance of EDS and Accenture). The Project developed a comprehensive and exhaustive evaluation process that commenced with the receipt of responses to the Invitation to Tender (ITT) in March 2003. The technical fit of each proposition was tested against specific criteria for:
  strategic partnership potential
  ability to deliver IT services
  ability to innovate and deliver technology enabled change
  ability to manage transition to the new contract effectively.
  106WS
  In parallel with this activity there was a financial and commercial evaluation.

  CGEY proved themselves across the range of evaluation criteria and demonstrated their capacity to act as strategic partner. In addition, the contract prices quoted by both bidders were compared with each other and with a baseline established through the use of professional benchmarking advisers (a "Should Cost Model").

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Social Security Benefits Uprating 2004
  The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr. Andrew Smith)
  The proposed rates of benefit for 2004 are set out in the table below. The annual uprating of benefits will take place for State Pension and most other benefits in the first full week of the tax year. In 2004, this will be the week beginning 12 April. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland proposes to introduce similar changes for Northern Ireland.

  (Weekly rates unless otherwise shown)

  Rates 2003

  Rates 2004

  ATTENDANCE ALLOWANCE

  higher rate

  57.20

  58.80

  lower rate

  38.30

  39.35

  CARER'S ALLOWANCE

  43.15

  44.35

  COUNCIL TAX BENEFIT

  Personal allowances single

  18 to 24

  43.25

  44.05

  25 or over

  54.65

  55.65

  lone parent—18 or over

  54.65

  55.65

  couple—one or both over 18

  85.75

  87.30

  Dependent Children

  from birth to September following 16th birthday

  38.50

  42.27

  from September following 16th birthday to day before 19th birthday

  38.50

  42.27

  107WS

  (Weekly rates unless otherwise shown)

  Rates 2003

  Rates 2004

  Pensioner (from October 2003)

  single—60–64

  102.10

  105.45

  couple—one or both 60–64

  155.80

  160.95

  single—65 and over

  116.90

  121.00

  couple—one or both 65 and over

  175.00

  181.20

  Premiums

  family

  15.75

  15.95

  family (lone parent rate)

  22.20

  22.20

  pensioner

  single

  47.45

  49.80

  couple

  70.05

  73.65

  pensioner (enhanced)

  single

  47.45

  49.80

  couple

  70.05

  73.65

  pensioner (higher)

  single

  47.45

  49.80

  couple

  70.05

  73.65

  disability

  single

  23.30

  23.70

  couple

  33.25

  33.85

  enhanced disability premium single rate

  11.40

  11.60

  disabled child rate

  16.60

  17.08

  couple rate

  16.45

  16.75

  severe disability

  single

  42.95

  44.15

  couple (lower rate)

  42.95

  44.15

  couple (higher rate)

  85.90

  88.30

  disabled child

  41.30

  42.49

  carer

  25.10

  25.55

  bereavement

  22.80

  23.95

  Allowance for persona] expenses for claimants in hospital

  higher rate

  19.35

  19.90

  lower rate

  15.50

  15.90

  Non-dependant deductions aged 18 or over and in remunerative work

  — gross income: £308 or more

  6.95

  6.95

  —gross income: £247—£307.99

  5.80

  5.80

  —gross income: £144—£246.99

  4.60

  4.60

  —gross income less than £144

  2.30

  2.30

  others, aged 18 or over

  2.30

  2.30

  Alternative maximum Council Tax Benefit second adult on IS, JSA(ib) or Pension Credit

  25% of Council Tax

  25% of Council Tax

  second adult's gross income:

  —under £144

  15% of Council Tax

  15% of Council Tax

  —£144 to £185.99

  7.5% of Council Tax

  7.5% of Council Tax

  Capital

  upper limit

  16,000.00

  16.000.00

  amount disregarded

  3,000.00

  3,000.00

  upper limit (claimant/partner 60 or over)

  16,000.00

  16,000.00

  upper limit (PC guarantee) from Oct 2003

  No limit

  No limit

  amount disregarded (clmt/ptner 60 or over)

  6,000.00

  6,000.00

  child disregard

  3,000.00

  3,000.00

  upper limit of RC/NH

  16,000.00

  16,000.00

  amount disregarded of RC/NH

  10,000.00

  10,000.00

  Tariff income

  £1 for every complete £250 or part thereof between amount of capital disregarded and capital upper limit

  Tariff income (claimant/partner 60 or over) from October 2003

  £1 for every £500 or part thereof between amount of capital disregard and capitalupper limit

  Earnings disregards

  where disability premium awarded

  20.00

  20.00

  various specified employments

  20.00

  20.00

  lone parent

  25.00

  25.00

  where the claimant has a partner

  10.00

  10.00

  single claimant

  5.00

  5.00

  where carer premium awarded

  20.00

  20.00

  childcare

  94.50

  135.50

  childcare charges (2 or more children)

  140.00

  200.00

  Other income disregrads

  maintenance disregards

  15.00

  15.00

  war disablement pension and war widow's pension

  10.00

  10.00

  certain voluntary and charitable payments

  20.00

  20.00

  student loan

  10.00

  10.00

  stident's covenanted income

  5.00

  5.00

  108WS

  (Weekly rates unless otherwise shown)

  Rates 2003

  Rates 2004

  income from boarders: disregard the fixed amount (£20) plus 50% of the balance of the charge

  20.00

  20.00

  30/16 hour disregard

  11.90

  12.32

  Expenses for subtenants

  furnished or unfurnished

  4.00

  4.00

  where heating is included, additional

  9.65

  9.80

  DEPENDENCY INCREASES

  Adult Dependency Increases for spouse or person looking after children, with;

  retirement pension on own insurance,

  46.35

  47.65

  long term incapacity benefit, unemployability supplement

  43.15

  44.35

  severe disablement allowance

  25.90

  26.65

  carers allowance

  25.80

  26.50

  short-term incapacity benefit if beneficiary over pension age

  41.50

  42.65

  maternity allowance/short-term incapacity benefit

  33.65

  34.60

  Child Dependency Increases, with; retirement pension, widowed mothers allowance, widowed parents allowance, short-term incapacity benefit at the higher rate & long term incapacity benefit, carers allowance, severe disability allowance, higher rate industrial death benefit, unemployability supplement and short-term incapacity benefit if beneficiary over pension age

  11.35

  11.35

  NB—The Overlapping Benefits Regulations provide for the rate of child dependency increases to be adjusted where the increase is payable for the eldest eligible child for whom Child Benefit is also payable. The weekly rate of the increase is reduced by the differential (less £3.50 from April 2000) between the rate of Child Benefit payable for the oldest eligible child and that payable for a subsequent child.

  DISABILITY LIVING ALLOWANCE

  Care Component

  Highest

  57.20

  58.80

  Middle

  38.30

  39.35

  Lowest

  15.15

  15.55

  Mobility Component

  Higher

  39.95

  41.05

  Lower

  15.15

  15.55

  EARNINGS RULES

  Carers Allowance

  77.00

  79.00

  Limit of earnings from councillor's allowance

  67.50

  72.00

  Permitted work earnings limit

  67.50

  72.00

  Industrial injuries unemployability supplement permitted earnings level (annual amount)

  3,510.00

  3,744.00

  Adult dependency increases with short-term incapacity benefit where claimant is

  (a) under pension age

  33.65

  34.60

  (b) over pension age

  41.50

  42.65

  maternity allowance

  33.65

  34.60

  retirement pension, long-term incapacity benefit, severe disablement allowance, unemploy ability supplement where dependant

  (a) is living with claimant

  54.65

  55.65

  (b) still qualifies for the tapered earnings rule

  45.09

  45.09

  retirement pension,

  46.35

  47.65

  long-term incapacity benefit and unemployability supplement where dependant not living with claimant

  43.15

  44.35

  severe disablement allowance where dependant not living with claimant

  25.90

  26.65

  carers allowance

  25.80

  26.50

  Child dependency increases level at which CDIs are affected by earnings of claimant's spouse or partner

  for first child

  160.00

  165.00

  for each subsequent child

  20.00

  21.00

  HOSPITAL DOWNRATING

  20% rate

  15.50

  15.90

  38% rate

  29.45

  30.25

  HOUSING BENEFIT

  Personal allowances single

  16 to 24

  43.25

  44.05

  25 or over

  54.65

  55.65

  109WS

  (Weekly rates unless otherwise shown)

  Rates 2003

  Rates 2004

  lone parent

  under 18

  43.25

  44.05

  18 or over

  54.65

  55.65

  couple

  both under 18

  65.30

  66.50

  one or both 18 or over

  85.75

  87.30

  dependent children from birth to September following 16th birthday

  38.50

  42.27

  from September following 16th birthday to day before 19th birthday

  38.50

  42.27

  pensioner (from October 2003)

  single—60–64

  102.10

  105.45

  couple—one or both 60–64

  155.80

  160.95

  single—65 and over

  116.90

  121.00

  couple—one or both 65 and over

  175.90

  181.20

  Premiums

  family

  15.75

  15.95

  family (lone parent rate)

  22.20

  22.20

  pensioner

  single

  47.45

  49.80

  couple

  70.05

  73.65

  pensioner (enhanced)

  single

  47.45

  49.80

  couple

  70.05

  73.65

  pensioner (higher)

  single

  47.45

  49.80

  couple

  70.05

  73.65

  disability

  single

  23.30

  23.70

  couple

  33.25

  33.85

  enhanced disbility premium single rate

  11.40

  11.60

  disabled child rate

  16.60

  17.08

  couple rate

  16.45

  16.75

  severe disability

  single

  42.95

  44.15

  couple (lower rate)

  42.95

  44.15

  couple (higher rate)

  85.90

  88.30

  disabled child

  41.30

  42.49

  carer

  25.10

  25.55

  bereavement

  22.80

  23.95

  Allowance for personal expenses for claimants in hospital

  higher rate

  19.35

  19.90

  lower rate

  15.50

  15.90

  Non-dependant deductions rent rebates and allowances aged 25 and over, in receipt of Income Supporter income-based Job Seekers Allowance aged 18 or over, not in remunerative work or in receipt of Pension Credit

  7.40

  7.40

  —gross income less than £97 aged 18 or over and in remunerative work

  7.40

  7.40

  —gross income: less than £97

  7.40

  7.40

  —gross income: £97 to £143.99

  17.00

  17.00

  —gross income: £144 to £185.99

  23.35

  23.35

  —gross income: £186 to £246.99

  38.20

  38.20

  —gross income: £247 to £307.99

  43.50

  43.50

  —gross income: £308 and above

  47.75

  47.75

  Service charges for fuel

  heating

  9.65

  9.80

  hot water

  1.15

  1.20

  lighting

  0.80

  0.80

  cooking

  1.15

  1.20

  Amount ineligible for meals three or more meals a day single claimant

  19.50

  19.85

  each person in family aged 16 or over

  19.50

  19.85

  each child under 16

  9.85

  10.05

  less than three meals a day single claimant

  12.95

  13.20

  each person in family aged 16 or over

  12.95

  13.20

  each child under 16

  6.55

  6.65

  breakfast only—claimant and each member of family

  2.40

  2.45

  Capital

  upper limit

  16,000.00

  16,000.00

  amount disregarded

  3,000.00

  3,000.00

  upper limit (claimant/partner 60 or over)

  16,000.00

  16,000.00

  upper limit (PC guarantee) from Oct 2003

  No limit

  No limit

  amount disregarded (claimant/partner 60 or over)

  6,000.00

  6,000.00

  child disregard

  3,000.00

  3,000.00

  upper limit of RC/NH

  16,000.00

  16,000.00

  amount disregarded of RC/NH

  10,000.00

  10,000.00

  110WS

  (Weekly rates unless otherwise shown)

  Rates 2003

  Rates 2004

  Tariff income

  £1 for every complete £250 or part thereof between amount of capital disregarded and capital upper limit

  Tariff income (claimant/partner 60 or over) from Oct 2003

  £1 for every £500 or part thereof between amount of capital disregard and capital upper limit

  Earnings disregards

  where disability premium awarded

  20.00

  20.00

  various specified employments

  20.00

  20.00

  lone parent

  25.00

  25.00

  where the claimant has a partner

  10.00

  10.00

  single claimant

  5.00

  5.00

  where carer premium awarded

  20.00

  20.00

  childcare charges

  94.50

  135.00

  childcare charges (2 or more children)

  140.00

  200.00

  Other income disregards

  maintenance disregard

  15.00

  15.00

  war disablement pension and war widow's pension

  10.00

  10.00

  certain voluntary and charitable payments

  20.00

  20.00

  student loan

  10.00

  10.00

  student's covenanted income

  5.00

  5.00

  income from boarders: disregard the fixed amount (£20) plus 50% of the balance of the charge

  20.00

  20.00

  30/16 hour disregard

  11.90

  12.32

  Expenses for subtenants furnished or unfurnished

  4.00

  4.00

  where heating is included, additional

  9.65

  9.80

  Maximium rates for recovery of overpayments ordinary overpayments

  8.25

  8.40

  where claimant convicted of fraud

  10.80

  11.20

  INCAPACITY BENEFIT

  Long-term Incapacity Benefit

  72.15

  74.15

  Short-term Incapacity Benefit (under pension age)

  lower rate

  54.40

  55.90

  higher rate

  64.35

  66.15

  Short-term Incapacity Benefit (over pension age)

  lower rate

  69.20

  71.15

  higher rate

  72.15

  74.15

  Increase of Long-term Incapacity Benefit for age

  higher rate

  15.15

  15.55

  lower rate

  7.60

  7.80

  Invalidity Allowance (Transitional)

  higher rate

  15.15

  15.55

  middle rate

  9.70

  10.00

  lower rate

  4.85

  5.00

  INCOME SUPPORT

  Personal Allowances single

  under 18—usual rate

  32.90

  33.50

  under 18—higher rate payable in specific circumstances

  43.25

  44.05

  18 to 24

  43.25

  44.05

  25 or over

  54.65

  55.65

  lone parent

  under 18—usual rate

  32.90

  33.50

  under 18—higher rate payable in specific circumstances

  43.25

  44.05

  18 or over

  54.65

  55.65

  couple

  both under 18

  32.90

  33.50

  both under 18, one disabled

  43.25

  44.05

  both under 18, with responsibility for a child

  65.30

  66.50

  one under 18, one 18–24

  43.25

  44.05

  one under 18, one 25 +

  54.65

  55.65

  both 18 or over

  85.75

  87.30

  dependent children

  birth to September following 16th birthday

  38.50

  42.27

  from September following 16th birthday to day before 19th birthday

  38.50

  42.27

  Premiums

  family

  15.75

  15.95

  family (lone parent rate)

  15.90

  15.95

  pensioner couple

  70.05

  73.65

  pensioner (enhanced) couple

  70.05

  73.65

  pensioner (higher) couple

  70.05

  73.65

  disability

  single

  23.30

  23.70

  couple

  33.25

  33.85

  enhanced disability premium single rate

  11.40

  11.60

  111WS

  (Weekly rates unless otherwise shown)

  Rates 2003

  Rates 2004

  disabled child rate

  16.60

  17.08

  couple rate

  16.45

  16.75

  severe disability

  single

  42.95

  44.15

  couple (lower rate)

  42.95

  44.15

  couple (higher rate)

  85.90

  88.30

  disabled child

  41.30

  42.49

  carer

  25.10

  25.55

  bereavement

  22.80

  23.95

  Allowances for personal expenses for claimants in hospital:

  higher rate

  19.35

  19.90

  lower rate

  15.50

  15.90

  Housing costs deduction for non-dependants aged 25 and over, in receipt of Income Support or income based Job Seekers Allowance aged 18 or over, not in work or in receipt of Pension Credit

  7.40

  7.40

  aged 18 or over and in remunerative work

  —gross income: less than £97

  7.40

  7.40

  —gross income: £97 to £143.99

  17.00

  17.00

  —gross income: £144 to £185.99

  23.35

  23.35

  —gross income: £186 to £246.99

  38.20

  38.20

  —gross income: £247 to £307.99

  43.50

  43.50

  —gross income: £308 and above

  47.75

  47.75

  Deduction for direct payments, arrears of housing, fuel and water costs council tax and fines default

  2.75

  2.80

  Deductions for child maintenance (standard)

  5.50

  5.60

  Deductions for child maintenance (lower)

  2.75

  2.80

  Arrears of Community Charge

  court order against claimant

  2.75

  2.80

  court order against couple

  4.30

  4.40

  Third party deductions personal expenses allowance

  17.50

  18.10

  Maximium rates for recovery of overpayments ordinary overpayments

  8.25

  8.40

  where claimant convicted of fraud

  10.80

  11.20

  Reduction in benefit for strikers

  29.50

  30.00

  Capital

  upper limit

  8,000.00

  8,000.00

  amount disregarded

  3,000.00

  3,000.00

  upper limit (claimant/partner 60 or over)

  12,000.00

  12,000.00

  amount disregarded (claimant/partner 60 or over)

  6,000.00

  6,000.00

  child's limit

  3,000.00

  3,000.00

  upper limit (care home)

  16,000.00

  16,000.00

  amount disregarded (care home)

  10,000.00

  10,000.00

  Tariff income £1 for every complete £250 or part thereof between amount of capital disregarded and capital upper limit

  Disregards

  standard earnings

  5.00

  5.00

  couples earnings

  10.00

  10.00

  higher earnings

  20.00

  20.00

  war disablement pension and war widow's pension

  10.00

  10.00

  voluntary and charitable payments

  20.00

  20.00

  student loan

  10.00

  10.00

  student's covenanted income

  5.00

  5.00

  income from boarders: disregard the fixed amount (£20) plus 50% of the balance of the charge

  20.00

  20.00

  Expenses for subtenants furnished or unfurnished

  4.00

  4.00

  where heating is included, additional

  9.65

  9.80

  INDUSTRIAL DEATH BENEFIT

  Widow's pension

  higher rate

  77.45

  79.60

  lower rate

  23.24

  23.88

  Widower's pension

  77.45

  79.60

  INDUSTRIAL INJURIES DISABLEMENT PENSION

  18 and over, or under 18 with dependants

  100%

  116.80

  120.10

  90%

  105.12

  108.09

  80%

  93.44

  96.08

  70%

  81.76

  84.07

  60%

  70.08

  72.06

  50%

  58.40

  60.05

  40%

  46.72

  48.04

  30%

  35.04

  36.03

  20%

  23.36

  24.02

  Under 18

  100%

  71.55

  73.55

  90%

  64.40

  66.20

  80%

  57.24

  58.84

  70%

  50.09

  51.49

  112WS

  (Weekly rates unless otherwise shown)

  Rates 2003

  Rates 2004

  60‥

  42.93

  44.13

  50%

  35.78

  36.78

  40%

  28.62

  29.42

  30%

  21.47

  22.07

  20%

  14.31

  14.71

  Maximum life gratuity (lump sum)

  7,760.00

  7,980.00

  Unemployability Supplement

  72.15

  74.15

  plus where appropriate an increase for early incapacity

  higher rate

  15.15

  15.55

  middle rate

  9.70

  10.00

  lower rate

  4.85

  5.00

  Maximum reduced earnings allowance

  46.72

  48.04

  Maximum retirement allowance

  11.68

  12.01

  Constant attendance allowance

  exceptional rate

  93.60

  96.20

  intermediate rate

  70.20

  72.15

  normal maximum rate

  46.80

  48.10

  part-time rate

  23.40

  24.05

  Exceptionally severe disablement allowance

  46.80

  48.10

  JOBSEEKERS ALLOWANCE

  Contribution based JSA—Personal rates

  under 18

  32.90

  33.50

  18 to 24

  43.25

  44.05

  25 or over

  54.65

  55.65

  Income-based JSA—personal allowances

  under 18

  32.90

  33.50

  18 to 24

  43.25

  44.05

  25 or over

  54.65

  55.65

  lone parent

  under 18—usual rate

  32.90

  33.50

  under 18—higher rate payable in specific circumstances

  43.25

  44.05

  18 or over

  54.65

  55.65

  couple

  both under 18

  32.90

  33.50

  both under 18, one disabled

  43.25

  44.05

  both under 18, with responsibility for a child

  65.30

  66.50

  one under 18, one 18–24

  43.25

  44.05

  one under 18, one 25+

  54.65

  55.65

  both 18 or over

  85.75

  87.30

  dependent children from birth to September following 16th birthday

  38.50

  42.27

  from September following 16th birthday to day before 19th birthday

  38.50

  42.27

  Premiums

  family

  15.75

  15.95

  family (lone parent rate)

  15.90

  15.95

  pensioner

  single

  47.45

  49.80

  couple

  70.05

  73.65

  pensioner (enhanced) couple

  70.05

  73.65

  pensioner (higher)

  single

  47.45

  49.80

  couple

  70.05

  73.65

  disability

  single

  23.30

  23.70

  couple

  33.25

  33.85

  enhanced disability premium single rate

  11.40

  11.60

  disabled child rate

  16.60

  17.08

  couple rate

  16.45

  16.75

  severe disability

  single

  42.95

  44.15

  couple (lower rate)

  42.95

  44.15

  couple (higher rate)

  85.90

  88.30

  disabled child

  41.30

  42.49

  carer

  25.10

  25.55

  bereavement

  22.80

  23.95

  hospital

  higher rate

  19.35

  19.90

  lower rate

  15.50

  15.90

  Housing costs

  deduction for non-dependants aged 25 and over, in receipt of Income Support or income based Job Seekers Allowance aged 18 or over, not in remunerative work or in receipt of Pension Credit 0.00

  7.40

  7.40

  aged 18 or over and in remunerative work

  —gross income: less than £97

  7.40

  7.40

  —gross income: £97 to £143.99

  17.00

  17.00

  —gross income: £144 to £185.99

  23.35

  23.35

  —gross income: £186 to £246.99

  38.20

  38.20

  —gross income: £247 to £307.99

  43.50.

  43.50

  113WS

  (Weekly rates unless otherwise shown)

  Rates 2003

  Rates 2004

  gross income: £308 and above

  47.75

  47.75

  Deduction for direct payments Deductions from JSA (IB) arrears of housing, fuel and water costs council tax and fines default, and

  2.75

  2.80

  Deductions for Child Maintenance deductions for child maintenance (standard)

  5.50

  5.60

  deductions for child maintenance (lower)

  2.75

  2.80

  Arrears of Community Charge

  court order against claimant

  2.75

  2.80

  court order against couple

  4.30

  4.40

  Third party deductions personal expenses allowance

  17.50

  18.10

  Deductions from JSA (continued)

  Arrears of Community Charge, Council Tax, fines & overpayment recovery

  Age 16–17

  10.96

  11.16

  Age 18–24

  14.41

  14.68

  Age 25+

  18.21

  18.55

  Maximum deduction for arrears of Child Support Maintenance

  Age 16–17

  10.96

  11.16

  Age 18–24

  14.41

  14.68

  Age 25+

  18.21

  18.55

  Maximium rates for recovery of overpayments in JSA(ib)

  ordinary overpayments

  8.25

  8.40

  where claimant convicted of fraud

  10.80

  11.20

  Reduction in benefit for strikers

  29.50

  30.00

  Capital

  upper limit

  8,000.00

  8,000.00

  amount disregarded

  3,000.00

  3,000.00

  child's limit

  3,000.00

  3,000.00

  upper limit (care home)

  16,000.00

  16,000.00

  amount disregarded (care home)

  10,000.00

  10,000.00

  upper limit (claimant/partner 60 or over)

  12,000.00

  12,000.00

  amount disregarded (claimant/partner 60 or over)

  6,000.00

  6,000.00

  Tariff income £1 for every complete £250 or part thereof between amount of capital disregarded and capital upper limit

  Disregards

  standard earnings

  5.00

  5.00

  couples earnings

  10.00

  10.00

  higher earnings

  20.00

  20.00

  war disablement pension and war widow's pension

  10.00

  10.00

  voluntary and charitable payments

  20.00

  20.00

  student loan

  10.00

  10.00

  student's covenanted income

  5.00

  5.00

  income from boarders: disregard the fixed amount (£20) plus 50% of the balance of the charge

  20.00

  20.00

  Expenses for subtenants

  furnished or unfurnished

  4.00

  4.00

  where heating is included, additiona

  9.65

  9.80

  MATERNITY ALLOWANCE

  Standard rate

  100.00

  102.80

  MA threshold

  30.00

  30.00

  PENSION CREDIT

  Standard minimum guarantee

  single

  102.10

  105.45

  couple

  155.80

  160.95

  Additional amount for severe disability

  single

  42.95

  44.15

  couple (one qualifies)

  42.95

  44.15

  couple (both qualify)

  85.90

  88.30

  Additional amount for carers

  25.10

  25.55

  Savings credit

  threshold—single

  77.45

  79.60

  threshold—couple

  123.80

  127.25

  maximum—single

  14.79

  15.51

  maximum—couple

  19.20

  20.22

  Capital

  Amount disregard

  6,000.00

  6,000.00

  Amount disregard—care homes

  10.000.00

  10,000.00

  Deemed income £1 for each complete £500 or part thereof in excess of above amounts

  Housing costs

  Deduction for non-dependents

  —aged 18 or over, not in work or in work and in receipt of Pension Credit

  7.40

  7.40

  —aged 18 or over and in work: aged 18 or over and in remunerative work

  —gross income: less than £97

  7.40

  7.40

  —gross income: £97 to £143.99

  17.00

  17.00

  114WS

  (Weekly rates unless otherwise shown)

  Rates 2003

  Rates 2004

  —gross income: £144 to £185.99

  23.35

  23.35

  —gross income: £186 to £246.99

  38.20

  38.20

  —gross income: £247 to £307.99

  43.50

  43.50

  —gross income: £308 and above

  47.75

  47.75

  Amount for claimant and first spouse in polygamous marriage

  155.80

  160.95

  Additional amount for additional spouse

  53.70

  55.50

  Disregards

  Standard earnings

  5.00

  5.00

  Couples earnings

  10.00

  10.00

  Higher earnings

  20.00

  20.00

  War disablement pension and War widows pension

  10.00

  10.00

  Widowed Parent's Allowance

  10.00

  10.00

  Income from subtenants

  20.00

  20.00

  Income from boarders (disregard the fixed amount (£20) plus 50% of the balance of the charge)

  20.00

  20.00

  Third Party Deductions arrears of housing, fuel, water costs, council tax and fines default

  2.75

  2.80

  Arrears of Community Charge

  court order against claimant

  2.75

  2.80

  court order against couple

  4.30

  4.40

  Maximum rates of recovery of overpayments

  —ordinary overpayments

  8.25

  8.40

  —where claimant convicted of fraud

  10.80

  11.20

  Third party deductions personal expenses allowance

  17.50

  18.10

  PNEUMOCONIOSIS, BYSSINOSIS, AND MISCELLANEOUS DISEASES SCHEME AND THE WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION (SUPPLEMENTATION)

  Total disablement allowance and major incapacity allowance (maximum)

  116.80

  120.10

  Partial disablement allowance

  43.15

  44.35

  Unemployability supplement plus where appropriate increases for early incapacity

  72.15

  74.15

  higher rate

  15.15

  15.55

  middle rate

  9.70

  10.00

  lower rate

  4.85

  5.00

  Constant attendance allowance

  exceptional rate

  93.60

  96.20

  intermediate rate

  70.20

  72.15

  normal maximum rate

  46.80

  48.10

  part-time rate

  23.40

  24.05

  Exceptionally severe disablement allowance

  46.80

  48.10

  Lesser incapacity allowance

  maximum rate of allowance

  43.15

  44.35

  based on loss of earnings over

  57.20

  58.80

  RETIREMENT PENSION

  Category A or B

  77.45

  79.60

  Category B (lower)—husband's insurance

  46.35

  47.65

  Category C or D—non-contributory

  46.35

  47.65

  Category C (lower)—non-contributory

  27.70

  28.50

  Additional pension

  Increase by

  2.8%

  Increments to:

  Increase by

  Basic pension

  2.8%

  Additional pension

  2.8%

  Increase to AP where Contracted out deduction

  2.8%

  (COD) relates to pre-April 1988 earnings

  2.8%

  Graduated Retirement Benefit (GRB)

  2.8%

  Increase to AP where COD relates to April 1988 April 1997 earnings [3.0% paid by schemes]

  Nil

  Graduated Retirement Benefit (unit)

  0.0937

  0.0963

  Graduated Retirement Benefit (Inherited)

  Increase by

  2.8%

  Addition at age 80

  0.25

  0.25

  SEVERE DISABLEMENT ALLOWANCE

  Basic rate

  43.60

  44.80

  Age-related addition (from Dec 1990)

  Higher rate

  15.15

  15.55

  Middle rate

  9.70

  10.00

  Lower rate

  4.85

  5.00

  STATUTORY ADOPTION PAY

  Earnings threshold

  77.00

  79.00

  Rate

  100.00

  102.80

  STATUTORY MATERNITY PAY

  Earnings threshold

  77.00

  79.00

  Standard rate

  100.00

  102.80

  115WS

  (Weekly rates unless otherwise shown)

  Rates 2003

  Rates 2004

  STATUTORY PATERNITY PAY

  Earnings threshold

  77.00

  79.00

  Rate

  100.00

  102.80

  STATUTORY SICK PAY

  Earnings threshold

  77.00

  79.00

  Standard rate

  64.35

  66.15

  WIDOW'S BENEFIT

  Widowed mother's allowance

  77.45

  79.60

  Widow's pension

  standard rate

  77.45

  79.60

  age-related

  age 54 (49)

  72.03

  74.03

  53 (48)

  66.61

  68.46

  52 (47)

  61.19

  62.88

  51 (46)

  55.76

  57.31

  50(45)

  50.34

  51.74

  49 (44)

  44.92

  46.17

  48 (43)

  39.50

  40.60

  47 (42)

  34.08

  35.02

  116WS

  46 (41)

  28.66

  29.45

  45 (40)

  23.24

  23.88

  Note: For deaths occurring before 11 April 1988 refer to age-points shown in brackets.

  BEREAVEMENT BENEFIT

  Bereavement payment (lump sum)

  2,000.00

  2,000.00

  Widowed parent's allowance

  77.45

  79.60

  Bereavement Allowance

  standard rate

  77.45

  79.60

  age-related

  age 54

  72.03

  74.03

  53

  66.61

  68.46

  52

  61.19

  62.88

  51

  55.76

  57.31

  50

  50.34

  51.74

  49

  44.92

  46.17

  48

  39.50

  40.60

  47

  34.08

  35.02

  46

  28.66

  29.45

  45

  23.24

  23.88

Preamble
The House met at eleven of the clock: The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Salisbury.

Energy Bill [H.L.]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Whitty): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
This Bill supports the Government's commitment to a sustainable energy policy for the future, while also taking responsibility for cleaning up the nuclear legacy from the past. The Government's strategy was set out in the Energy White Paper earlier this year. The Bill provides many of the legislative requirements to deliver that policy and the policy set out in the Government's White Paper, Managing the Nuclear Legacy. The Bill will also create the single wholesale electricity market for Britain—BETTA—improving competition and delivering greater choice for Scottish consumers. The BETTA element of the Bill was published for pre-legislative scrutiny in January 2003 and the draft Nuclear Sites and Radioactive Substances Bill, which contained provisions about the NDA, was published for pre-legislative scrutiny in June 2003.
The Energy White Paper restated the Government's commitment to competitive energy markets, supported by effective independent regulation, to deliver secure and reliable energy supplies. That will be even more important when we move from self-sufficiency to being a net importer of gas and oil. Renewables and distributed energy sources such as CHP will help us to avoid over-dependence on imports and make us less vulnerable to security threats.
In the electricity generating mix, gas is important now and will remain so in the future, but renewables will play an increasing role supported by measures we outlined in the energy White Paper. Existing nuclear stations will continue to contribute for many years yet, as will some coal-fired stations. The market is already preparing to supply us with the gas that we will need to import in future—through increased investment in inter-connectors and through long-term gas supply contracts, for example.
The Bill looks ahead to the long term, setting in place arrangements for decades to come, and has three main themes: improving arrangements for cleaning up the public sector civil nuclear legacy; underpinning our ambitious targets for exploiting renewable energy; and prudent market regulation to ensure that competitive energy markets continue to deliver reliable supplies at affordable prices.
Chapters 1 and 2 of Part 1 of the Bill implement our commitment in last year's Managing the Nuclear Legacy White Paper to make radical changes to
830
arrangements for the decommissioning and clean up of the UK's civil public sector nuclear sites, continuing to be funded by the taxpayer. Current estimates put the total cost of this clean up at £48 billion. It is important that the task is completed as effectively as possible. The Bill therefore provides for the establishment of a Nuclear Decommissioning Authority, referred to in the Bill as the NDA, as a non-departmental public body by April 2005. The NDA will provide strategic management and direction to the task of securing decommissioning and clean up. In carrying out its functions it is to have particular regard to safety, security and the need to safeguard the environment. The NDA will be funded directly by the Government, with resources provided within the usual budgetary process. However, we recognise the long-term nature of the clean up task—more than 100 years—so we have provided for the establishment of a statutory account, the Nuclear Decommissioning Funding Account, to demonstrate our commitment to meet the costs of cleaning up the public sector nuclear legacy for future generations.
The NDA will operate in an open and transparent manner. It will promote engagement with its stakeholders, and, by promoting competition for the management of sites, it will bring the best skills available to the task of clean up and deliver it effectively. The NDA will also have a function in encouraging and supporting socio-economic regeneration in the regions where it has responsibility for sites. Indeed, the NDA will be part of the strategic task force, for example, that the Government announced today for West Cumbria. The task force will be led by the North West Development Agency and will include central and local government, the private and social sectors. It will be charged with developing a sustainable vision and a plan for the long-term economic and social regeneration of that area of West Cumbria.
The setting up of the NDA was supported during our consultations on the 2002 White Paper and on the draft Nuclear Sites and Radioactive Substances Bill that we published in June, and which is now part of this broader Bill. We have therefore worked closely with all stakeholders in developing the Bill. In its report, following pre-legislative scrutiny, the Trade and Industry Committee of another place acknowledged that it would,
"provide the correct framework to give effect to the Government's plans for a coherent strategy for the decommissioning and clean up of the UK civil nuclear liability".
The Government will respond to this constructive report in the Commons before the House rises for Christmas.
In the context of establishing the NDA, I would like to take this opportunity to mention that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry is today announcing in another place the conclusions of a strategic review of BNFL. That review, jointly carried out by the Government and BNFL itself, has addressed the future strategy and optimum structure for those parts of BNFL that will not become the NDA's responsibility. The detail of the recommendations is available in the Library of the

831
House, but, broadly, the review has concluded that, in order to meet the Government's priority of cleaning up the nuclear legacy, a new parent company should be established in 2005. It will focus on the management of clean up activity through a group of subsidiary companies. The other businesses that are not directly contributing to this priority will be managed to deliver value and to limit risk to the taxpayer. In relation to the other BNFL businesses, steps will be taken, when appropriate, to open up possibilities for private sector participation.
Chapter 3 also implements proposals set out in the White Paper, Managing the Nuclear Legacy. The United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority (UKAEA) Constabulary will be separated from the authority and reconstituted within a modern framework under a newly created statutory police authority.
The Civil Nuclear Police Authority will be responsible for the efficiency and effectiveness of the constabulary. The present UKAEA Constabulary will be renamed the Civil Nuclear Constabulary. Officers and staff will transfer from the UKAEA. The constabulary's jurisdiction will be largely unchanged and within its jurisdiction its officers will have the powers generally available to constables. The Bill also contains provisions about the employment arrangements for the new constabulary. They largely maintain existing arrangements and are intended to ensure that the conditions of service continue largely to mirror those of other police forces.
Chapter 4 amends the Radioactive Substances Act 1993 to streamline the process for the transfer or variation of discharge authorisations. The changes are intended to improve efficiency and effectiveness while reducing costs. Chapter 5 contains clauses to enable the implementation of changes to the UK's international obligations governing third party liability in the event of nuclear accidents; to address minor gaps in existing law on the regulation of security of equipment and software relating to uranium enrichment, and of sensitive nuclear information; and to give the Government explicit financial authority to incur expenditure under a range of options negotiated as part of the restructuring of British Energy.
I now turn to the second part of the Bill, which deals with offshore renewable energy sources-wind, wave and tidal energy. The Energy White Paper recognises the real contribution that this country's abundant wind, wave and tidal energy resources can make to meet the nation's energy needs in a more sustainable way. Wind energy will make a significant contribution to meeting our target that 10 per cent of UK electricity will be supplied by renewables by 2010 and, beyond that, the aspiration to double that percentage by 2020 and put us on the road to meeting our goal of cutting C02 emissions by a full 60 per cent by 2050.
The foundations of a new offshore wind sector are already in place. Last month, the first large-scale offshore wind facility at North Hoyle began generating electricity. A second project at Scroby Sands has begun construction and consents have been given to a further 10 projects around the coast. We
832
need to keep up the momentum and to expand our domestic manufacturing base in order to create new jobs and export potential. The Government have recently agreed to extend the level of renewables electricity expected under the obligation to March 2016 to give the industry the security and confidence that it needs to mobilise investment in new projects.
Part 2 of the Bill fulfils the commitment in the energy White Paper to create a comprehensive legal framework to support future renewable energy developments further offshore beyond territorial waters. That could enable developments harnessing not only the significant wind resources there but also the wave and tidal power that, without the Bill, cannot legally be exploited. Before Christmas, the Crown Estate will be announcing the outcome of the competition for the second round of site leases for offshore wind farms. We anticipate that one-third of the site offers will be outside territorial waters.
I mentioned that the Bill provides for the future. In doing so, it provides not only for present technology but also for wave and tidal energy technologies where the UK should have the potential to be a world leader. As a result of the Bill, we will have a comprehensive legal framework already in place for wave and tidal projects when they become commercially viable.
Also of critical importance to the success of offshore power generation from renewables is to have the right infrastructure in place to bring the electricity on shore. We shall bring forward amendments to the Bill at later stages to provide for a cost-effective and efficient offshore transmission system with minimal impact on the marine environment.
Part 2 also allows us to move to a UK-wide system of tradable certificates for renewables once certificates can be issued in Northern Ireland and once Northern Ireland has implemented a corresponding system of mutual recognition. I am pleased to say that the renewables obligation is expected to come into effect in Northern Ireland in April 2005.
Part 3 of the Bill deals with a number of provisions relating to the effective regulation of our energy markets. Part 3, Chapter 1 introduces the single wholesale electricity market for Britain-BETTA- that will bring greater choice for Scottish domestic and business customers, who currently do not benefit from the same levels of competition already established in the England and Wales market. It will also provide all generators and suppliers with access to a strong, open and competitive GB-wide market. That will help to increase the competitiveness of British companies and will enable us to compete more effectively in an increasingly liberalised European energy market. It will also create the right regulatory backdrop to deliver the White Paper commitments for electricity generated by renewables.
The Government fully appreciate that smaller generators, including renewables and the CHP industry, continue to have concerns about the operation of the current NETA. However, a number of modifications have been made that have helped smaller generators to operate more effectively in the

833
market. For example, the reduction in the gate closure time from three-and-a-half hours to one hour has enabled smaller and intermittent generators, in particular, better to manage the risks associated with exposure to electricity imbalance prices. We expect Ofgem to continue to work with smaller generators to ensure that the administrative procedures for the Balancing and Settlement Code under NETA, and under the new system, will be fully accessible to smaller generators.
My colleague, the Minister for Energy, Mr Stephen Timms, announced today that we intend to bring forward an amendment which would enable the Secretary of State to make an order which would have the effect of subsidising distribution costs in the north of Scotland. This will replace a licence condition known as "hydro benefit", created in recognition of the higher distribution charges in the remote Highlands and Islands as a result of the harsh terrain. It is intended that the order will, as far as possible, prevent these costs being passed on to consumers in the north of Scotland.
Chapter 2 extends current licensing regimes to electricity and gas interconnectors as the best way of implementing the new EU electricity and gas legislation and of ensuring fair third party access. Interconnectors will be increasingly important in meeting UK gas demand as we become dependent on imported gas supplies. They will help to improve our security of supply by adding to the diversity of our sources of gas and electricity.
Chapter 3 provides for an energy administration regime to be available in the event of the actual or threatened insolvency of a protected energy company; that is, a regulated monopoly company that is licensed to operate a physical network transporting gas or electricity.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, I notice that that provision is to apply only to network companies. Does it also deal with the problem of the hole in the buy-out fund following the passage into administration by companies such as TXU? Some £23 million is missing as a result. Is that to be covered?
Lord Whitty: No, my Lords, this provision deals with network companies which are in a monopoly position. It does not address generators or other companies which operate in the competitive sector.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: Perhaps it should.
Lord Whitty: No doubt the noble Lord will pursue that point both today and at later stages of the Bill, but as the legislation stands, it deals with protected monopoly situations and not the area open to competition.
The measure to ensure continuity of network operation represents prudent contingency planning to protect consumers, business and the wider economy. The insolvency of a protected energy company is very unlikely, but were it to occur or the threat of it to arise,
834
leading to the normal administration process, then we need to have in place special administration procedures because the normal process might result in part of or, indeed, the whole of the network being closed down. I do not need to spell out the consequences of that. Under our proposals for energy administration, this remote but potentially very serious outcome will be prevented. The energy administrator will have an overriding duty to ensure that there is no interruption to the safe and efficient delivery of gas or electricity which might otherwise arise from insolvency. These measures were supported by responses to a DTI consultation conducted earlier this year. They are similar to existing provisions in the water and railway sectors.
Chapter 4 provides for an appeals mechanism to the Competition Commission against any GEMA decisions on modifications to the main energy Network Codes providing the detailed rules governing activities in the gas and electricity markets. This will increase the accountability of decisions with economic and commercial significance without unduly increasing regulatory uncertainty or delay. Again, respondents to the DTI consultation supported a proportionate appeals mechanism and the Bill intends to deliver just that. We have provided for a tightly constrained right of appeal to prevent trivial and vexatious appeals, and a tightly defined process to ensure a swift outcome.
The remaining clauses in Chapters 3 and 4 cover a number of smaller, market-related items including correcting an anomaly in the current definition of electricity supply by bringing electricity conveyed over the transmission network within the scope of the definition; streamlining the process for public inquiries in connection with applications for consent for power stations and overhead lines under Sections 36 and 37 of the Electricity Act 1989, allowing lead inspectors to be assisted by further inspectors to consider issues concurrently rather than the present system of considering them sequentially; enabling the Scottish Executive to provide additional support for renewables, corresponding to a similar power for England and Wales provided in the Sustainable Energy Act 2003; enabling the Secretary of State to charge a fee to recover the costs incurred in providing specific services to the oil, gas and electricity generating industries; and enabling modifications to the Petroleum Act 1998 to give effect to certain provisions in existing or future international bilateral agreements relating to offshore installations or pipelines.
This Bill provides sustainable solutions to a number of legislative problems related to parts of our energy strategy. It also provides the basis on which we can move forward on the clean up of the nuclear industry, on renewables and on the regulation of gas and electricity supply. It safeguards the reliability and security of energy supplies to business and household consumers alike, and provides the basis on which the objectives of the White Paper-economic, environmental and social-can be met. I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.- (Lord Whitty.)
11.25 a.m.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, perhaps I may begin by first thanking the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, for his explanation of this massive Bill and, secondly, say what a pleasure it is for me to face him for the first time across the Dispatch Box.
Although his brief includes, "Energy issues (including energy efficiency," hitherto I have dealt with such matters with his colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury of Turville, from whose brief, according to a recent publication from the Cabinet Office, the subject of energy appears to have been removed. However, I note also that "energy and sustainable development" remain, as now, in the DTI brief of the Minister of State in the other place.
When he replies, I wonder if the Minister can tell us the reason for the division of this same responsibility between two different departments in the two Houses, and to which Secretary of State he has to report on the Bill before us if and when, as I am sure he will, he makes decisions and concessions as it progresses through the House. To whom will he go to check that such decisions are in order?
In asking that important question, I hasten to add that in no way do I have any doubts about the considerable ability of the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, or about our ability to work together on this Bill. Indeed, I look forward to it. We have no overriding objections to what is proposed in the Bill, subject to our examination of the detail, although we do have serious concerns about what has been left out.
Perhaps this is the appropriate place to mention that my noble friend Lady Byford will wind up this debate for the Conservative Opposition. I should also mention, by way of another prefatory observation, that although the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, has certified that this Bill is compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights, we believe that there are circumstances in which public rights of navigation may be "possessions" within the meaning of the First Protocol. For example, they may be crucial to the commercial success of a maritime enterprise that can obtain entry to and exit from its premises only by using such public rights. To the extent that compensation under Article 1 of the First Protocol is required to be paid to an individual as a consequence of the extinguishment of a public right of navigation, doubts must be raised about the adequacy of the procedure provided in Schedule 8 to the Electricity Act 1989 with respect to Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. We may need to explore this much further during the course of the Bill.
I have just described this legislation as "massive", and indeed it is. It covers four different topics, each of which could have been the subject of a separate Bill. There is the civil nuclear industry, including the establishment of a Nuclear Decommissioning Authority. It addresses sources of renewable energy and I believe that I heard the Minister correctly when he referred to bringing forward amendments to that part. Although the noble Lord shakes his head, I was sure that I heard him refer to amendments. That is
836
extraordinary. On the day after the Queen's Speech and just preceding the first day of the debate in reply, an announcement was made that there was to be another Bill. Further, on the very day that this Bill receives its Second Reading, we hear that an amendment is to be brought forward. A long time has passed between the publication of the White Paper and the production of the Bill. What is the matter with the Government that they need to bring forward amendments to their own legislation? They do not wait for us to do it; they bring forward amendments themselves.
The third part of the Bill concerns energy markets and regulation, including the creation of a single, national wholesale market for Britain, the British Electricity Trading and Transmission Arrangement, known by the acronym BETTA. The fourth topic, not highlighted in the excellent Explanatory Notes produced by the DTI but just mentioned by the Minister, is security and policing. My noble friend Lady Anelay will give us the benefit of her expertise in this field when we reach the appropriate part.
Although the Bill is intended to extend,
"to the whole of the United Kingdom",
the Government will have to seek the approval of the Scottish Parliament to a number of functions devolved to Scotland. This highlights, if anything does, the problems caused by the Government's vote-catching exercise of devolving major legislative powers to Scotland. What happens if, for whatever reason, the Scottish Parliament does not agree with the parts of the Bill relating to functions devolved to it?
While on the subject of Scotland—although this has nothing to do with devolvement but with the word "Scotland"—I am sure I also heard that the energy Minister in another place, Stephen Timms, will be bringing forward amendments on that issue. I repeat, surely we are not really bringing forward amendments just as we begin.
I return to the West Lothian question: in the event of such a disagreement, will the Scottish Members of the other place vote with their democratically elected MSPs or in accordance with the instruction of their Westminster Whips?
We will need to examine carefully the provision for the reversal of proof in cases of certain alleged offences. This is another erosion by this authoritarian Government of the traditional position in criminal cases where the onus of proof is on the prosecution. Even though I acknowledge there have been instances of the reversal of the burden of proof by previous governments of both parties, the Government will need to provide convincing reasons for its application in this case. Similarly, we may wish to examine the need for the strict liability offences created by Part 2, Chapter 2, albeit with the defence of the exercise of due diligence.
Clause 106 gives the Secretary of State power to modify licences granted under the new trading and transmission arrangements. Again I inquire, which Secretary of State are we talking about? The Secretary

837
of State at the DTI or the Secretary of State at Defra? Perhaps the definitions clause in the Bill should clarify this.
The Explanatory Notes airily dismiss this power as a mere "exercise of policy" and suggest that the remedy of judicial review is sufficient to comply with Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Government are well aware of the huge mountain that a litigant has to climb to secure a hearing, let alone win a judicial review, to say nothing of the enormous costs involved. The availability of a judicial review is a longstop, not an excuse for the Government to avoid defining acceptable criteria for granting, refusing or amending licences, which can have a huge financial impact on the licensee.
If this were accepted as a precedent for future legislation it would be the means of the Government refusing to accept a defined liability to be responsible in any secondary legislation or licensing activity. The provision as drafted is an excuse for not defining the basis of the exercise of this very important economic power.
In the same clause, the Secretary of State is given power to modify standard conditions of licences or the specific conditions of particular licences. That is fair enough. However, subsection (5) authorises him to publish any modifications,
"in such manner as he considers appropriate".
Here we go again. We went through this same exercise in the Employment Act, where the Government wanted power to legislate through primary or secondary legislation "or otherwise". It took the intervention of two Law Lords to persuade the Minister to drop "or otherwise". In this case, the Minister could decide that it is appropriate to publish a modification by posting details on a lamp-post in the Outer Hebrides. This provision will certainly need to be amended in the interests of what the Government frequently call "transparency".
The White Paper, Managing the Nuclear Legacy, commits the Government to improving the way in which the nuclear clean-up is managed but notes that many of the,
"legacy facilities were built and used at a time when regulatory requirements and operational priorities were very different from those that apply today".
The White Paper also reported a consultation in 2001 about the responsibility for sealed sources and other radioactive wastes. Perhaps in his reply the Minister will inform the House about the outcome of that consultation and advise us of how and where the Government's conclusions are reflected in the present Bill and whether the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority will be given that responsibility.
The White Paper asks whether the creation of the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority is a kind of back-door route to more nuclear power stations. I can confidently endorse the White Paper's denial. I believe that the whole tenor of the Bill is to push the question of the development of new nuclear power stations to
838
replace the existing ones into the background. This is borne out by a little phrase hidden away in the White Paper, where the Government state:
"The NDA's focus will be squarely on the progressive reduction of liabilities".
Your Lordships will note that there is nothing about assuming responsibility for future liabilities.
The Government admit that the present contribution of 21 per cent of our power from nuclear generation will reduce to a mere 7 per cent by 2020. My noble friend Lord Peyton of Yeovil asked what the Government meant by their statement that they were,
"keeping the nuclear energy option open".-[Official Report, 17/11/03; col. 1769.]
He received only the vaguest and uninformative of replies.
The Government claimed in the White Paper that,
"The initiative [for any new nuclear build] lies with the market".
This is the most specious and disingenuous of suggestions. It is no more possible for the commercial market to decide to build a new nuclear power station, with all the attendant planning problems and so on, than it is for someone to commission a new aircraft carrier.
In fact, the Minister of State, Mr Stephen Timms, when speaking at the All-Party Nuclear Energy Group dinner as recently as 3rd December, said:
"We need the possibility of new nuclear build".
I understand that he made the same remark elsewhere in the same week. Aside from the fact that that is not the kind of statement that should be made in an after-dinner speech as a throwaway line, the question is not whether we need the possibility of new nuclear build but whether or not the Government are going to grasp the nettle and do something about it.
There is a misconception held by the public that nuclear waste consists of spent fuel. In fact, one nuclear power station produces only about half a cubic yard of such material a year. It would fit under an ordinary card table. This compares with half a ton of ash a minute and the vast quantities of CO2 that are produced by power stations powered by coal. The real problem lies in the large quantities of other waste, ranging from soiled clothing to the entire reactors and the buildings that house them. This is what the Nuclear Decommissioning Agency is being set up to deal with.
The decision about whether new nuclear power stations are to be built, with the attendant future decommissioning liabilities, rests with the Government as part of the national infrastructure to ensure diversity and continuity of the domestic supply of electricity without leaving Britain totally in the hands of foreign generators. This decision rests with the present Government, not any future one, because of the long lead time between the date when a project is planned and the date when the new station can join the grid. While the Government continue to dither and bury their heads in the sand, time is inexorably slipping away as the amount of nuclear power available steadily reduces.

839
There would, of course, be a future cost of decommissioning any new nuclear power stations. Although it would be commercially uneconomic to include this in the generating costs, the Government have to make a decision whether strategically it ought to be charged to general taxation as a means of reducing our dependency on foreign fuel supplies. If site clean-up is charged to general taxation, this could be done by linking the cost directly with the half-life of the atomic material. At the moment, it is French taxpayers who enjoy the benefit of our maximising the use of their equally uneconomic power stations.
Can the Minister tell the House-if he cannot do so today, perhaps he will write to me-what assessment the Government have made of the situation in both France and Finland, where they take into account the benefits of less reliance on foreign, and not necessarily secure, sources of supply? If such studies have been made-as indeed they ought to have been-will the Government publish them, as they have done in the case of studies into higher education?
A great deal has been said in recent debates and Parliamentary Questions about renewable sources of energy, the Government definition of which excludes nuclear energy. I do not wish to detract from the renewable source that the Government are placing so much store by-wind power. At best, however, this is irregular and can serve only to reduce demands on other sources of power. Even then, it can provide only a minute fraction of our power needs. The environmental impact of the giant windmills, both on land and offshore, gives rise to no less controversy than do nuclear power stations. The first site in Wales was linked to the grid only two weeks ago.
The Government have extended their renewables obligation to 2015, as it is clear that their objective of reaching 10.4 per cent by 2010 was stretching it, to put it mildly.
The Bill creates a single wholesale electricity market for Britain-the British Electricity Trading and Transmission Arrangements, to be known by the acronym of BETTA. This joins the alphabet soup of organisations including NETA, Nirex and Ofgem, to name but three affecting the industry. However, BETTA, as the Bill points out, is only a trading market, and will not itself produce enough electricity to light a single bulb. It is to be hoped, however, that a single electricity market will ensure a consistency of supply.
I referred at the beginning of my remarks to our concerns about what is left out of this huge Bill. I have to ask why it does not include combined heat and power. The Government have admitted that their policies for delivering the United Kingdom target for the development of high efficiency combined heat and power schemes are failing.
Less than a year ago, the Government's energy White Paper reconfirmed the United Kingdom's combined heat and power targets of 10 gigawatts of electricity by 2010. Achieving this would deliver a large proportion of the UK's carbon reductions and boost the competitiveness of British industry. A few weeks
840
ago, the Government published their latest modelling work by Cambridge Econometrics, which confirmed that Britain will be at least two gigawatts of electricity short of its 2010 target.
With the widespread job losses across the CHP sector since the introduction of NETA, Ofgem creating a legal challenge to the Government's long-awaited decision to exempt CHP from the climate change levy and new regulatory costs being imposed on the CHP sector by the extension of the renewables obligation, the Energy Bill should have given a unique opportunity to create a far more viable market for combined heat and power.
High level policy conflicts in the Government have sent the CHP industry into a downward spiral. The Bill can reverse that trend and ensure that CHP becomes the centrepiece of policy, not an afterthought. We will be introducing amendments to achieve that end.
I now turn briefly to the part of the Bill dealing with the new Civil Nuclear Police Authority. It is vital that our police and security services have the support they need to ensure that they are able to work to the highest standards to provide security for our communities throughout the United Kingdom. This is especially so at a time of heightened concern about terrorist activity. It is therefore appropriate that the new police authority should be accountable to the Home Secretary and the expertise of the Home Office. But in establishing this new police authority, the Government should reconsider our proposal that there should be a Minister for homeland defence so that all security services can be effectively co-ordinated.
I ask the Minister to confirm that the new police authority will cover not only UKAEA but also BNFL and URENCO. We would also like confirmation that, as I understand has been previously agreed, the DTI will fund the transition costs of the current, non-statutory police force when it turns into the Civil Nuclear Police Authority. I believe these costs will be in the region of £1 million.
An answer from the Minister, either during this debate or very soon after, is urgently needed, because the transition will take time to achieve, and BNFL will need to start spending money very soon. We shall be scrutinising this very important part of the Bill and my noble friends and I will be putting down some constructive amendments to make it more effective.
I would like to give your Lordships a few abbreviated quotations from experts in the industry regarding the energy supply. The Institution of Civil Engineers warns that,
"the energy industry is at its lowest ebb since privatisation with many generators in serious financial difficulty and little new investment in new generation".
Dieter Helm of Oxford University says that we are extremely close to the margins. Professor Ian Fells, a former government adviser on energy, says that adequate spare capacity is essential, despite the expense, and that our current margin is inadequate. PowerGen has warned the Government of the possibility of power

841
cuts. Transco also warns about a severe lack of generating capacity. There have been many more such views, but that is enough for now.
Finally, reverting to the question of the future of nuclear power, if there is to be one, both the White Paper and the Bill have ducked the issue-as, indeed, has the Minister when asked about it in your Lordships' House. If the Bill is very important-and it is-and if its principles are deserving of cross-party support-and they are-it is nevertheless only part of the picture. In the past few years, we have heard references in your Lordships' House, in a completely different context, to stage two, to follow stage one. The Bill is but stage one of dealing with the looming energy crisis. The Government must have the courage to produce a viable stage two before it is too late.
11.46 a.m.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, in speaking in this debate, I wish to declare that I have been actively and continuously involved in the energy sector since 1947 and am currently chairman of Micropower, which promotes the small-scale generation of electricity.
As we have heard from the Minister, the Bill deals with three major aspects of energy policy. While they are all of importance, they are by no means the most important issues raised in the energy White Paper of February 2003. In that connection, I consider that the short title of the Bill is somewhat misleading. It gives the impression that this is a much more wide-ranging piece of legislation than it really is. A more appropriate title would be the "Energy (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill", which would leave room for the further Bill to which the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Hendon, referred. Perhaps we can explore that at the next stage.
While the Bill is important and will command widespread support as far as it goes, my general reaction to it is one of sad disappointment. When reference was made in the Queen's Speech to the introduction of legislation on energy matters which would aim to,
"promote secure, sustainable supplies and a safer environment",
I looked forward to the Bill with eager anticipation. I thought that here would be a statutory endorsement of the main courses of action and aspirations set out in the energy White Paper of February 2003. Instead, we have three disparate pieces of legislation rolled into one, which, although important and significant, are by no means the main issues raised in the White Paper.
Part 1 of the Bill deals primarily with nuclear decommissioning and the setting up of the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority. There will be widespread support for that. The full cost of decommissioning over time is enormous; it is estimated that it will be of the order of £50 billion during the next century. We need to know the likely costs over the next decade, bearing in mind that all but three of the existing nuclear power stations are due to close in that period. How are these large sums to be accounted for? In responding to that, perhaps the Minister can also enlighten us on the relationship which is likely to develop between the different nuclear
842
agencies-the newly established NDA, Nirex, BNFL and the UKAEA. I know that my noble friend Lord Maclennan of Rogart will refer to that issue later.
The Bill does not deal with two matters of over-riding importance in the nuclear sector. First, there is the long-term management of nuclear waste, which is very relevant to the setting up of the NDA, has been under discussion for many years and is as yet unresolved. I asked a Question on that subject the other day. Secondly, there is the over-riding issue of the future of the nuclear industry itself, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Hendon, referred. That will have a substantial impact on energy policy as a whole. So long as it remains unresolved, it is difficult to see how a coherent and effective future energy policy can be devised.
Part 2 deals with renewable energy sources in a limited context. It covers the exploitation of renewable energy outside territorial waters, and the decommissioning of such offshore installations. Perhaps the Minister can advise us how many offshore renewable energy installations beyond territorial waters the Government anticipate and what the cost will be, bearing in mind the long transmission distance that will have to be covered.
The Bill deals, too, with the mutual recognition of the renewables obligation regime in Northern Ireland. While that is a desirable measure, the opportunity has surely been lost of dealing with a root problem in the renewables issue. I refer to the relatively slow progress so far made in the development and use of renewable energy, and the need to widen the range of eligible fuels and processes that can contribute to carbon abatement. At present, the Government's target of 10 per cent of electricity generated from renewable sources by 2010 is unlikely to be reached, despite what the Minister told us. The aspirations beyond that date are even more in doubt, so it is regrettable that the Bill does not cover the urgent issues that are now called for.
First, further measures should be taken to stimulate the production and use of renewables as presently defined, and, secondly, there is a need to extend the principle of the renewables obligation to fuels and processes that can significantly reduce the amount of carbon going into the atmosphere. For example, as the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Hendon, rightly said, combined heat and power, the principle of which the Government fully support, is going through a very difficult period and is likely to be at least 20 per cent short of the 2010 target. Measures to relaunch that proven energy-saving process need urgently to be taken. Perhaps we could suggest some of those measures in Committee.
A variant of CHP, called micro-CHP or micropower, in which I have declared an interest, is a newly emerging process that takes electricity generation right into the home. That would increase efficiency, eliminate transmission and distribution losses and reduce carbon emissions. The process needs to be vigorously supported in its build-up period.
The Government have also given insufficient support to the recovery and treatment of the methane from coal mines and have refused to apply to it the

843
renewables obligation principle. In Germany, coal-mine methane has been treated as a renewable energy source and is making much more vigorous headway than in the UK. Indeed, some leading companies involved in that process have extended their operations to Germany because of the more favourable inducements. That is hardly a good reflection of the way in which British industry is being supported.
We do not yet have in the UK a clean coal technology plant, even though the process is now well established and can be associated with carbon extraction, thus virtually entirely eliminating the CO2 emissions from the use of coal. The construction of such plants could be substantially assisted if the process came within the terms of the renewables obligation or its equivalent.
The third part of the Bill extends the new electricity trading arrangements-NETA-to include Scotland as well as England and Wales. Indeed, it is desirable that there should be a competitive wholesale electricity market based on the same rules throughout England, Scotland and Wales, bearing in mind the interpenetration of the power companies across borders. However, why has the opportunity not been taken to remedy the defects of the existing NETA system in dealing with renewables and CHP, which continue to suffer under the balancing and settlement procedure? It is for the simple reason that they cannot precisely predict their electricity output in any given period and are penalised accordingly. While some steps have been taken to lessen the adverse impact of the settlement procedure on smaller generators, it remains an obstacle that could surely have been dealt with in the Bill.
My conclusion is that the Bill covers important issues of energy policy arising from the energy White Paper. However, in spite of its excessive size, it is limited in its scope and does not deal with the major unresolved issues of energy policy. It is a Bill of missed opportunities.
11.56 a.m.
Lord Christopher: My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, whose measured contributions are always well worth listening to, I must declare an interest. Since before I came into your Lordships' House, I have been a consultant for BNFL plc. However, I wish the House to know that the speech is mine and that BNFL did not ask me to make it. I shall have to face the music from the latter if I say things that it does not like.
I am also in the unusual position, in speaking so early, of having to edit what I say as I go along, when all that we have heard so far has come from the Benches opposite. I have to say that I found much of it agreeable, so I shall do my best not to weary noble Lords by too much repetition.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Hendon, said, central to the criticisms that many of us would make about the Bill is that it does not take a long enough view about energy security supplies for
844
Britain. If a long view is taken, it is illogical that nuclear does not in fact face a more positive approach in the paper. I believe that to be somewhat dangerous.
I do not know whether my noble friend the Minister will be able to tell us what security risk assessments have been made with regard to energy, but it would be fascinating to know whether they have been made and, if so, what they say. I have always been a staunch supporter, as has the Trades Union Congress, of a balanced energy policy. Notwithstanding the historical sentiments about coal, there was support for renewables and nuclear. Yet we are taking serious risks with UK supplies ahead, although perhaps not immediately. We must not overlook the fact that the newer forms of energy have a long lead time-a much longer lead time than the older forms.
We can all here remember the problems of shortages of supply of a wide range of goods during the war. I put it to noble Lords that the current situation with energy is not so significantly different, although the causes may be. There will certainly be aggressive competition for energy across the world, and prices will rise. Indeed, we learned only this week that wholesale gas prices rose 15 per cent in 2003, and forward pricing increases are signalled at between 17 per cent and 21 per cent. British Gas domestic supplies of electricity and gas are scheduled to rise by around 6 per cent.
Stating the obvious, we live on an island, or two islands. We are a serious distance offshore of mainland Europe and far, far away from the energy sources that we shall be seeking. The solutions that Europe may find will not necessarily meet the issues which we shall face. It is foolish to neglect the possibility of sabotage of pipelines if you do not have a balanced policy. Energy supplies are affected by weather. France, indeed, is facing that at the present time, first due to heat and latterly to flood.
There is a risk that the energy flow from renewables may not be on the scale that we plan and hope for. Experience from Denmark, which at 18 per cent of electricity production has the highest percentage of wind power of any EU country, is that load factors have generally been well below the UK estimate of 35 per cent. Hugh Sharman of Danish company, Ecoteco, made that point recently. In fact, a figure of around 25 per cent is closer to the Danish average. This means that installed capacity would have to be four times that of the desired output, always assuming that the wind is blowing somewhere in the United Kingdom! To be sure of avoiding power cuts, equivalent generating capacity, probably utilising gas, would have to be provided on standby at considerable expense. I am not sure that relying on that is a sensible policy.
Danish experience also shows that at any one time roughly 13 per cent of wind turbines are out of commission. On the basis of that experience the Danish Government recently announced that they were ending subsidies to new wind power installations. The Times quoted on 9th December that UK wind power is two-and-a-half times the cost of conventional power.

845
My anxiety about all this arose a long time back when an elderly professor from Korea forecast China's future energy requirements. I am still endeavouring to obtain an authoritative assessment of the energy demands of China, India, Russia and South America when their energy requirements in terms of use per capita match those of OECD countries. That, I believe, is the time scale involved in the planning that we need to carry out over the next few years.
I wonder whether noble Lords are aware of the current position in China, which has one of the fastest-growing, if not the fastest-growing, economies in the world. It presently has 11 per cent less generating capacity than it needs, and its capacity is based on only 1 per cent of nuclear, although I believe that it is building another four power stations, partly supported by France and, I believe, by Japan. Today electricity is rationed in China. Coca-Cola and China National Cereals, Oils and Foodstuffs Import and Export Corporation Company have no electricity on one in four working days a week. Hunan Province, which relies for 50 per cent of its power on hydro electricity, has serious shortages following drought. If ever there was an example of the folly of not having a fully balanced mixed energy policy, Hunan Province provides it. Shanghai's major shipyards are now working only at night and at weekends because of energy shortages.
I turn to the issue of jobs and to Cumbria in particular. Refocusing sites such as Sellafield on decommissioning is all very well but that type of work will inevitably employ significantly fewer and less skilled workers than the current reprocessing operations. In remote areas such as west Cumbria it will be extremely difficult to re-employ those redundant skills locally, having a massive effect on the region's economy. What provision will the Government make for retraining and redeploying the workers who will be thus affected?
I feel that I must ask the Minister the following question. Given that we shall have government-owned companies on both sides of the table, how will they ensure that BNFL will not be disadvantaged in the competitive tendering for a variety of operations? There will be conflicting objectives and a longer-term strategy should not be based exclusively on cost but on future purposes.
In my opinion we need to create a climate, particularly, but not exclusively, in Cumbria, for long-term storage as I do not believe that the relevant material will go anywhere else. Unless and until the Government buy into "compensation"-financial inducements to make people love nuclear-Cumbria is the only location that would be likely cheerfully to accept a waste disposal storage unit. Exactly the same considerations should be addressed right across the nuclear game board. We are most likely to find sites for new nuclear power stations where there is clean-up.
The Bill's focus on decommissioning and reassigning the associated liabilities is necessary but in my judgment misses the point that new nuclear build is essential if, as the Government would have it, the nuclear option is to
846
remain fully open. In contrast, the United States administration are streamlining their regulatory processes and encouraging investment in preparation for the replacement of their nuclear fleet-something which was forecast to me when I asked the American energy Secretary a few years ago a tongue-in-cheek, cheeky question regarding when a new nuclear power station would be built. Instead of saying, "Never", he took the question seriously and said, "Before too long".
Finland and France have announced that they will not permit themselves to become ever more dependent on unreliable external sources of fossil fuels and are engaging in new nuclear construction. Moreover, they have shown conclusively that nuclear power represents a very cheap option.
Since the present Government, and previous governments, have signally failed to make progress on the thorny issue of where and how to dispose of the nation's high and medium level radioactive waste— which, as has been stated, is not a terribly large problem in volume terms, and will be less so in the future as the new stations will produce only about 10 per cent of the waste of the older stations-will the Government undertake to support the new NDA by accelerating the essential process of consultation and decision-making? We in this country are falling a long way behind countries such as Finland, Sweden and France which have taken the difficult decisions and are embarking on national programmes of research and demonstration that will lead to operational repositories within a generation.
I hope that I have not been overlong in seeking to make these points but I believe it is important that they are made. I hope that the Government-which I fully expect to be in power in 2020, when all these problems are likely to arise-will take what I have said seriously.
12.8 p.m.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, it is almost 20 years to the day that I had to stand up in the House of Commons and make a Statement about a very serious discharge of radioactive effluent from the Sellafield works into the Irish Sea. I had to announce the closure of the beaches along the coast for 20 miles on either side of that factory. It was many weeks before they were declared safe for public access.
Every week I made a series of Statements in the House of Commons-I see the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, nodding-to report progress on the clean-up. Eventually a report on the accident was published and was given very wide circulation.
I mention that for three reasons, all of which are of great significance to the Bill. First-this is not generally known-I came under pressure at that time from my colleagues in the DTI, who complained that I was undermining confidence in the nuclear industry by my frequent Statements. My reply was that, on the contrary, by seeking to be open and transparent I was trying to restore confidence in an industry that had a notorious reputation for being far too secretive. In the event, the dispute had to be referred to the Prime Minister-informally, I have to say. She ruled in my

847
favour, and in favour of openness. That was a turning point. Much more importantly, openness is an integral part of the Bill. I think that the industry and successive governments have recognised since that day the huge importance of openness and transparency.
The second reason why I mention that episode is again something not widely known. Over the past 20 to 30 years, the polluting discharges from Sellafield have been reduced to one thousandth of what they were in the 1970s-0.1 per cent. That is a remarkable achievement. The company has never been given the proper credit for what it has succeeded in doing. As a result of that and the experience of various other firms in the industry, the issues of safety are now part of the culture and deeply embedded in how they conduct their businesses. I hope that the Bill reflects that, but we may need to pursue it.
The third reason is that at the heart of that culture of safety lies the recruitment, training and retention of the scientists, engineers, technicians and other skilled staff that both that industry and its regulators will need to do their jobs. At this stage, there are very serious concerns about that. That is directly relevant to the duties placed on the NDA in the Bill. I shall return to that matter in a few moments.
I want to make two comments on the speeches made so far. The noble Lord, Lord Christopher, was a little unfair to the governments of whom I was a member. My right honourable friend John Gummer brought forward a perfectly respectable proposal for a rock characterisation facility at Sellafield, only to have it rejected by a public inquiry about which there have been a good many criticisms. For goodness' sake, he was trying. By comparison, last night I heard a very distinguished member of the Cross Benches say that the present Government had taken the question of nuclear waste and kicked it into the long grass, and then gone looking for it in order to kick it into still deeper grass. I fear that that is what has happened, and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Christopher, will recognise the contrast.
My noble friend on the Front Bench made an absolutely outstanding speech. As a result, mine may be a little shorter than it otherwise would have been, as she made some of the points that I would have made.
Before I discuss the Bill itself, we deserve an answer to one question. Why is the Bill being introduced into this House? I ask that because Ministers have made much of the intention that the Bill should be through by July, and that the NDA should be up and running by April 2005. The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, will have to appoint chairmen and directors, who will have to appoint staff, and a great deal of work is to be done. He will be aware of the Treasury convention that Ministers may not spend a single penny under a new Bill until it has received a Second Reading in another place. By introducing the Bill to this House, Ministers have pushed back that timetable by several months. Why? I put that to Mr Timms the other day, and did not get a very clear answer. Clearly it was not his decision. The noble Lord may be able to give us an answer.
848
I shall move straightaway to the Bill. I share the disappointment of the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, that it does not contain much of what it should. As will become apparent, and like other noble Lords, I shall ask many questions about matters that are not in the Bill but ought to be. I welcome the Bill, although it will require careful debate and a good many additions during its passage through the House. Indeed, the Minister has already announced this morning that there will be several additions.
A Statement is being made in another place today, and a paper has been placed in the Library today. That is treating this House with contempt. If we are to debate the Second Reading, why is it not possible to have the documents at least a day before? I have searched for the reply to the report of the Commons Select Committee in the Library and on the web, but it does not exist. Why? It has not been issued yet. We are told that it will be issued before Christmas. At least we will have it for Committee, but that is not good enough. If the noble Lord is to get collaboration and co-operation on the Bill, he has to treat this House with more respect.
I should like to follow other noble Lords and say that the Bill does not stand alone but is only part of a whole. Therefore, I shall say a word or two about the context of the overall energy "policy". I put that word in quotation marks because very many people would not regard the White Paper as a statement of policy, but as a whole series of aspirations. As the noble Lord, Lord Christopher, pointed out, the UK has enjoyed near self-sufficiency in energy for several decades, but that comes to an end shortly. In three years, we will be a net importer of gas, and in seven years a net importer of oil. By 2020, we will be dependent on imported energy, mostly gas, from distant and unreliable sources for three quarters of our primary energy needs.
As the Institution of Civil Engineers stated in its recent report, the situation is about to change "dramatically" with profound implications, not least for the security and continuity of power generation. Perhaps I can add to what the noble Lord, Lord Christopher, said. He did not make the point that, on the eastern seaboard of the United States, several terminals to import liquefied natural gas are being built, for which there will be competition for gas in exactly the same markets as those in which we shall be seeking supplies. That is bound to have an overall impact on the price of natural gas.
Another point that has not so far been made is what happens if one becomes dependent on other countries for one's primary energy supply. Go and ask the Italians. They had a massive blackout all over Italy. Why? Someone talked about trees falling on transmission lines, but it was rubbish. The French turned them off. They needed their energy. The French are huge exporters of energy based on nuclear power, and they needed to use it all so they turned the Italians' supplies off. Ministers need to pay more attention to such issues.

849
Then there is the Government's policy at the heart of their White Paper concerning the large reductions in greenhouse gas emissions-20 per cent CO2 reduction by 2010 and, in that lambent phrase, "on a path to" 60 per cent CO2 reduction by 2050. It is not the moment for a detailed analysis of that, because it could be quite lengthy. However, I am extremely doubtful about those aspirations-that is what they are. A very general view is that there is little prospect, despite what the Minister said, of hitting the 2010 CO2 target. Moreover, it is my view, and that of many well informed people outside, that the 60 per cent target will be unattainable if the existing carbon-free sources of power are closed down and not replaced by new nuclear build.
It is pure fantasy to imagine that the renewables of wind, wave and tidal can possibly fill the gap as the existing nuclear stations reach the end of their lives. In any event, as the noble Lord, Lord Christopher, pointed out, there has to be back-up for wind power. As he said, that is extremely expensive. It will be very difficult for the power companies to raise the capital to build back-up gas-fired plants that will come into operation only if the wind stops blowing.
Wind is not reliable, sustainable or controllable. I agree that it has a part to play, but it is pure fantasy to imagine that it can replace other energy sources. The other energy source that is mentioned in the White Paper is biomass: coppicing. Is the House aware that if one wanted to replace Dungeness B nuclear power station in Kent, one would have to cover the entire area of Kent, other than the built-up areas, in short-term willow coppicing? That is fantasy. It adds nothing to the question of keeping the lights on. There an; huge gaps in the Government's overall energy policy, with real risks ahead for the security of supply to homes, offices and factories.
Like other noble Lords who have spoken, most of my questions will be about what is not in the Bill. The Government have said that they "will keep the nuclear option open". Therefore, my first question to the Minister-and I echo other noble Lords-is: what is there in the Bill to help to keep the nuclear option open? That phrase was used in the Government's White Paper last February. This is the first major Bill intended to implement the policy of the White Paper, as we heard this morning. What is there in the Bill to deal with that? The answer is nothing.
When Ministers gave evidence to the Select Committee in another place, they fell over backwards to appease the anti-nuclear lobby and to convince them that there was nothing in the Bill about new nuclear build. I find that almost incredible. One would have thought, to use a nautical metaphor, that they would at least have tried to have some kind of anchor out to windward, so that if it does become necessary to build-and many of the Minister's colleagues think that it will be-they will be able to go ahead with it quickly. That raises the question of research and so on, which I do not have time to address today.
I shall stay for a moment with the Select Committee report. I know that we should receive the Government's response before Christmas, but today is 1lth December
850
and we are entitled to answers in this debate. The Select Committee made the following recommendation in paragraph 8 of its report:
"We recommend that the Department produce a fuller estimate of the cost implications of this Bill before its presentation to Parliament".
It also referred to the need for the usual regulatory impact statement. When will we receive that? Will we receive it before Committee? Will we able to debate it when we debate the Bill in Committee? The report continued thus in paragraph 13:
"We consider that a clear and unambiguous statement of the overarching principles with which the NDA will work would be a useful addition to the draft Bill. Such a statement would have most force if it were given in the main body of the Bill".
It is not there. Will the Government accept that and amend the Bill appropriately? We deserve an answer.
I return briefly to the question of the disposal of radioactive waste. I cannot add much to what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Christopher. There is a definition of "treatment" and "hazardous material" in the definition clause of the Bill. There is no definition of "disposing", yet it speaks about "disposing" of long-term nuclear waste in a depository. The Explanatory Notes revealingly state that Clause 3(1)(d) also covers the Drigg low-level waste depository. If it covers Drigg, does the Bill intend to cover the disposal of medium-level and high-level waste?
That leads to another question. Will the NDA be the body that eventually takes forward the process, if it can find the ball in the long grass, of moving towards long-term disposal of waste? I sat on the Science and Technology Select Committee that looked at the matter five years ago. We are still waiting for progress on that front. Or do the Government envisage yet another authority? The Bill has been published for several days. I have spoken to people in the industry, such as those at BNFL, and they do not know the answer to that question. They have not been told whether the NDA will be the authority for long-term waste. We must have an answer when the noble Lord replies this evening. I recognise that a considerable process of gaining public acceptability must be embarked on, but we need to know whether that authority will carry out that role.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, we are all grateful for the noble Lord's expertise and his contribution is valuable, but he will know that the Companion indicates that speeches in all debates should be about 15 minutes long.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, I asked the Government's Whips' Office this morning whether there would be any limit and I was assured that there was none. I shall finish in a very short time so that the noble Lord can go for his lunch.
I shall ask again about the hole in the buy-out fund. I hope that the noble Lord will reply to that. He kindly gave way to my intervention in his speech. The hole is £23 million.

851
I return to the future supply of scientists and engineers. Such people are essential, not only for the NDA, but also for many other bodies-not least, to keep the nuclear option open. Last June, I received a Written Answer from the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton of Upholland, in the Department for Education and Skills. I asked her how many undergraduate and postgraduate university courses there are for nuclear scientists and engineers. She answered that,
"no universities currently offer undergraduate courses specifically in nuclear science and engineering".-[Official Report, 26/6/03, WA42;
She listed a number of universities that offer postgraduate courses and I have been going into that. It appears that that answer was already more than two years out of date. I have been in touch with the Health and Safety Executive, which rather surprisingly keeps the details of them, and it appears that there are now a few more modules being offered for nuclear engineering and science. One of the professors who is running a course at Imperial College told me that that is a very long way from providing the trained nuclear scientists and engineers that this country will need if we are to keep that industry going. There is a great deal that we will wish to explore in Committee about that.
I am told that the Chief Scientific Advisor is compiling a report. Will the Minister tell us if Sir David King's report will be available to the Standing Committee on the Bill? It is a hugely important question.
I have not spoken about offshore wind farms or about regulatory matters. I shall conclude with one more point. I am told that the cost of electricity from offshore wind farms will be three-and-a-half times the cost of power generated from a conventional gas-fired power station. That is 350 per cent more. Some of that will be covered by subsidy. In the end, it will all have to be covered by subsidy. The Government recently announced substantial increases in that.
When I hear Ministers talk about wind power being the solution to all our problems, I am reminded of that wonderful Peter Sellers character, the communist shop steward, in the film "I'm All Right Jack". He was fantasising about the marvels of Soviet Russia-
"'all that waving corn and the Ballet at night".
Ministers seem to be similarly mesmerised by "all those waving wind farms-and the lights miraculously staying on all night".
12.30 p.m.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, I am delighted to be able to follow the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, in that speech. I think that it is absolutely right that your Lordships should devote as much time as necessary to Second Reading speeches on Bills of this nature and this importance. I would particularly say to the noble Lord and to your Lordships that I take very seriously the points that he has been making about the national security of energy supplies. It is one of the Government's most important responsibilities. I realise that, in meeting that responsibility, they may often clash with the stance
852
that I have taken as a member of and spokesman for the Green Party with our emphasis on renewables. I do not in any way sideline those problems. They are ones that I and everyone else will have to face.
It is a big Bill. We are obviously going to have a great many amendments to it and spend a lot of time on it. The noble Baroness, Lady Miller, promised us a certain number of amendments. I do not think that she will get very far with the amendment she proposes to define a "Secretary of State". She may think that there are lots of Secretaries of State but there are not. Platonically and constitutionally, there is but one Secretary of State. We cannot start dividing them up in Bills. That may not be very sensible, but it is what actually happens.
I turn to the provisions that I think need amendment and that I shall do my best to help your Lordships to amend. There is government funding for the liabilities of British Energy and British private operators. The Bill, if enacted, will allow the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority to take on British Energy's liabilities, at an estimated cost of £3.3 billion over the next 10 years, since British Energy did not set aside enough to cover its liabilities before it went bankrupt. The Bill is also worded to allow for liabilities of future private nuclear companies to be picked up by the public purse.
We believe that we should remove provisions, such as Clause 7(2), that allow for public funding of the liabilities of private operators. Given British Energy's failure to account properly for its liabilities, the Government must legislate to ensure that future private operators establish segregated funds for nuclear waste before commencing operation of nuclear facilities. There should be a legal requirement on private investors, if they decide to build new stations, to have a segregated liabilities fund large enough to avoid repeating the mistakes made by British Energy. Knowing that the liabilities could be picked up by the Government would in fact prove a major incentive to private investors to build new reactors. We and Greenpeace, which has been advising me on this, do not think that any new or existing nuclear stations are necessary. However, despite calls for segregated funds, it is expected that the Government will not legislate to make that obligatory, as I think they should.
The Nuclear Decommissioning Authority clauses raise an issue of new building. The NDA will be given powers to operate electricity generating stations. Clause 10(2), taken with Clauses 3(1)(a) and 3(1)(d), could give the NDA the option to build and operate certain types of nuclear power stations such as plutonium-burning reactors-perhaps to dispose of the UK's embarrassing plutonium stockpile under the guise of waste management. We believe that Clause 10(2) should explicitly exclude the construction of new nuclear stations under the NDA and that the NDA should conduct research into immobilising plutonium as a waste form.
As for the justification of facilities which continue to create waste, the Bill contains no provision for the annual review on the rationale for continuing to keep

853
nuclear facilities open, as promised in the White Paper at paragraph 5.27. Clause 3(1)(a) allows the NDA to operate BNFL's ageing, loss-making Magnox reactors. Clause 3(1)(d) allows it to continue operating the Sellafield reprocessing plants and Mox plant. As recommended by the Trade and Industry Committee, the legislation should make compulsory annual reviews of the continued operation of these facilities.
We also feel strongly about the lack of environmental principles. Clause 9(2) confers duties on the NDA in uncompromising terms, apart from its environmental duties. The NDA needs a clearly defined set of environmental principles, enshrined in legislation to avoid inappropriate methods of nuclear waste management being promoted. The NDA needs a clear set of overarching principles and should take into account protection of the health and safety of people and the environment from the harmful effects of radiation. Environmental and sustainability concerns should be given primacy over commercial or economic ones.
I turn to statutory public consultation. There is only "no constraint" on the NDA consulting the public at large and national stakeholder groups such as NGOs. As far as it goes, that is okay. However, the Bill gives a limited list of stakeholders who must be consulted. We believe that consulting NGOs and the public should be made a statutory requirement in the Bill.
I move from sins of commission and turn to the sins of omission. I shall do so only briefly, your Lordships will be glad to hear. My protest about the time on speeches which I delivered at the beginning of my speech was more on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, and others than of myself.
We were very disappointed, as were farmers generally, at the Chancellor's recent failure to announce rebates on duty levels on green fuels such as biocthanol, a petrol substitute derived from sugar beet, and biodiesel. The National Farmers Union said that the failure left the industry in limbo and meant that there was no way that British farmers can meet the European Union's target of 2 per cent biofuel usage by 2005. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, would have spoken on this subject had he been present. He has, quite rightly, been banging away on the subject.
I turn to three very short points raised by Energywatch, one or two of which concern itself almost alone. However, the first point does not concern Energywatch alone-it is an absolutely basic point in which I believe and in which I believe your Lordships will believe; I hope that the Liberal Democrat Benches will take it on board. The opportunity should have been taken in the Bill to end energy disconnection due to debt. Such a practice should be banned. I shall not go further into the point now, but I look forward to expounding the reasons for it in Committee. The reasons are probably self-explanatory.
Energywatch also believes that, if it is to do its job properly, it should be given greater information-gathering powers. Again, that is something to be explored in Committee, as is the matter of the information-gathering powers of the regulators.
854
This is a big Bill. It is something of a curate's egg, although it is not quite a curate's egg because the traditional curate's egg was, in fact, bad all through, which this Bill is not. But various parts of it are not as good as they should be. It seems to me to be very muddled, and the speeches that I have heard in your Lordships' House today have gone no way towards dispelling that thought. However, I am sure that we shall all do our best, and I hope to contribute to improving the Bill in Committee and on Report before it goes to another place.
12.41 p.m.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, the Bill is welcomed not only for its content, which is, in effect, part of a solution to a very great problem that this country faces; it is also welcomed in the wider sense because of the debate to which it has given rise today. That debate has already spread its tentacles, if I may express it that way, rather wider than the subject of the Bill itself. That is very important. The only depressing issue for me on a purely personal level is the speed with which I have been reduced to an echo of what so many noble Lords have already said. The subject matter involved in the Bill is fairly tight and fairly focused. The issues, which are very important and absolutely fundamental to the future security and development of our community, are small and detailed and will be repeated over and again.
I make no apologies for giving a resume across the energy spectrum. We keep hearing about the issue a little here and a little there. But the situation that this country now faces is very serious and it is dramatically different from the energy environment that we have enjoyed over the past 30 or 40 years.
We are soon to be a net oil importer, moving rapidly from the position that we were in in previous decades of being a net exporter. Our natural gas production, which, again, has more than met our requirements in previous decades, will meet only 50 per cent of our consumption by 2010. Subsequently, it will probably fall to approximately 20 per cent of our requirements by 2020. We have heard that by 2020 nuclear-produced electricity generation will have decreased from approximately 20 per cent to about 7 per cent of total generation. All those factors come together when there is, above all, a need to diminish CO2 emissions in response to global warming and Kyoto.
Behind all that is the priority of the consumer, which I believe is still security of supply and, after that, price. We have had a very efficient energy-pricing system because of our fortunate situation vis-à-vis domestic supply and the administrative arrangements that have been put in place. But the reality is that we are moving from decades of low energy prices into a period of high energy prices and cost to the consumer. That issue must be faced.
I want to raise a number of points in relation to the part of the Bill which deals with nuclear energy. We must remember that the Bill follows a White Paper, which my noble friend Lord Jenkin called "a statement of aspirations". That is what it was and is. The

855
question that arises for me is whether the Bill is the same thing. The responsibilities of the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority are set out but they are all subject to a direction or designation from the Minister. Those responsibilities do not exist without that direction or designation. The question that must be asked is: do the Government intend to issue those directions and designations?
That applies to all the functions of the authority and it applies, in particular, to the question of the disposal of nuclear waste-a subject which, again, has already been touched on by noble Lords. Does the Minister intend to issue the authority for the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority to get on with those functions? The way that I read the Bill, without a designation from the Minister, the functions are nonexistent. I am sure that, when he responds to the debate, the Minister will correct me if I am wrong, but I do not believe that 1 am. That is fair enough; there is no problem about that. I am sure that it is entirely appropriate that the detail of the decisions and the ensuing action should be initiated by government. As I see it, in the Bill we are establishing the opportunity for the Government to act. The question is whether the Government will do so.
That question is also important in relation to the possibility of future nuclear generation. I do not intend to repeat all the arguments that have been made so far today in favour of that. But we must face the fact that, without future nuclear generation, we shall not be able to give the public of this country the security of energy supply that they rightly demand. That is absolutely fundamental.
It is very interesting to see the second part of the Bill, which deals with the establishment of what I call "deep-sea wind farms". By coincidence, it appears that they could replace the nuclear-generating capacity, which I suppose they could. Bearing in mind that nuclear generation accounts for 20 per cent of our current electricity generation and bearing in mind also the Danish experience, in order to guarantee security of supply we should have to put 80 per cent of the present total nuclear-generating capacity out to sea in order to guarantee security of the 20 per cent that we require. However, we would still not be certain that it would be there when it was required. One has only to consider a heavy anticyclone in the middle of the winter, which brings extreme cold and, often, very still periods for days on end. If we build a system that is dependent on the wind in order to produce 20 per cent of our electricity-generating capacity, we shall fail our electorate because the wind may well not blow. It is all very well to assume that if we have stations in the southern North Sea, the mid-North Sea, the northern North Sea and the Irish Sea that the wind will blow somewhere. There are conditions when it does not, so there is a problem. We cannot rely on wind as a major source of supply so we have to turn to other sources.
What has not been said as regards renewable energy is what will happen about tidal energy. This country has what is probably the greatest European estuary with the capacity to generate electricity; namely, the
856
Severn estuary. The noble Lord, Lord Hooson, has tabled an Unstarred Question on this topic and I apologise to him for raising the point here. That form of supply is secure. Courtesy of the gravity pull of the moon, the tide keeps going in and out. There is therefore the possibility of producing a renewable energy source that is a guaranteed form of generation.
I understand that the Government are considering in an entirely different field-this is not related to this debate but becomes pertinent-the possible need for yet another road crossing on the river Thames lower down than Dartford. Linked to that is the possible need-I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, will be familiar with all these issues-for a replacement of the Thames Barrier, which is already becoming vulnerable, partly due to global warming but also because the east coast of the United Kingdom is gradually sinking. It seems to me that there is an opportunity there to meet those requirements together with the requirement for reliable sources of renewable energy. The Thames estuary, which also has a very big tidal variation, could perhaps be used. The opportunity for using tidal energy is not mentioned in the Bill.
There are all sorts of other sources of renewable energy. As mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, has pursued the issue of biofuels and biomass. He is correct in principle; it is a very good carbon-neutral form of energy. However, if we are serious about energy production, plants are very inefficient converters of the sun's energy into usable power. If we want to talk about using energy from the sun, which is what plants do for us, it would be much more energy efficient to convert it using photo-electrics. Do we need to consider energy farming in that context rather than in the context of biofuels? I ask the question; I do not pretend to know the answer at this stage.
There is another aspect to the question of photovoltaics. When I was in Germany about eight years ago, plenty of houses were built with photovoltaics in the construction and there were times when electricity production was greater than electricity consumption. In that situation, it was supplied back to the grid. Are we sure-I hope the Minister will be able to answer this question-that our existing structures and arrangements are sufficient to permit and encourage that? Already, major office projects and, indeed, many prototype houses are being built with electricity-generation capacity. If we are serious about green energy, that has to be encouraged. I am not clear that we are giving that sufficient encouragement.
One can go on from there to matters such as combined heat and power, and so forth, all of which again are not properly addressed in the Bill, although a great deal of work is going on in that regard. The problem I have with the Bill is the problem that existed with the White Paper. It appears to me to be a statement of aspiration. What I do not know, and the question the Government must answer, is whether they will turn it into action.
12.55 p.m.
Lord Bridges: My Lords, the Bill before the House today is a very large item. It covers an extensive range of issues and will call for most careful scrutiny in Committee. I shall therefore confine my remarks to some of the broad questions which I believe we need to consider.
The first matter I want to mention is the Government's general approach to the somewhat precarious imbalance between generating capacity and projected demand. Looking at the Bill, one would not suppose that this is a particularly serious problem, but I do believe that to be the case. In the days of the former CEGB, according to the press there was a margin of more than 20 per cent between capacity and likely demand, and sometimes more. They may have erred on the side of caution at great public expense, but let us compare that with the situation that prevails today. Again, according to what I read in the newspapers, which I suppose may be wrong, the margin is as low as 10 per cent and may be a good deal less in a few years' time. That seems to me to be at the heart of the energy problem today, but it is not addressed as such in the Bill, nor did it feature in the White Paper. It seems to me very odd that such an extensive Bill on energy does not refer openly to our most serious power problem.
Instead, pride of place is given to decommissioning of existing nuclear power stations. Of course, it is prudent to give thought to the problems likely to arise before decommissioning occurs, although I note that several Magnox reactors have already been retired without the full panoply of precautionary legislation in the Bill.
It appears that the Government are determined to show that despite their commitment to reduce CO2 emissions, they do not like nuclear power and they want to proceed to its abandonment as soon as they can get round to it if circumstances permit. However, there seems to be little likelihood of that happening in the near future. Indeed, as I have explained, the gap between capacity and likely demand is so tight that we shall be heavily dependent on nuclear power stations in the foreseeable future.
It seems to me that the priority of place given to the NDA in the Bill is based on a somewhat false understanding of our needs and current capacity to meet them. The Government will no doubt say that the driving force is to honour our international commitment to reduce CO2 emissions but that that should be done with due regard to our existing national policies to protect designated sites of particular value in the landscape context. They may not find that that circle can readily be squared without the continued use of nuclear energy.
To replace the nuclear stations, the Government look to stations generating power from wind and tide. In particular, they want to maximise wind power as a major new source. We have seen what some of our continental neighbours have done, and very sensibly want to do likewise. This does seem to be a likely source of useful new generating capacity. But this is
858
not altogether straightforward. The existing grid will need to be adapted and rebuilt to channel the power to the consumers. Some noble Lords will recall the long period it took to obtain permission recently to improve part of the grid in North Yorkshire. Nor is it clear to me from the text of the Bill how this system would operate. I do not see any references to the selection of companies to build such stations and how that would be done. Would they be built and operated by the state or by an official agency? Will bids be sought from commercial undertakings? Or are the Government thinking of establishing an offshoot of the state such as the old CEGB?
I also wonder whether there are likely to be problems in Brussels if we assert our right to build wind stations on the Continental Shelf, and to prevent vessels getting too close to them. It is important that careful thought is devoted to the legal status of offshore power stations, particular if they are to be beyond the Continental Shelf, before we proceed down that road.
Then there are the problems regarding the landscape environment, to which I referred briefly. One aspect of wind power of particular concern to me is the possible siting of large wind power stations in areas which at present enjoy special landscape protection under existing legislation, notably in the national parks and the areas of outstanding national beauty.
There are some passages in PPS22,I believe, which have given rise to some apprehension about the Government's intention. When I raised the matter at Question Time recently, I was not reassured by the Minister's reply. I hope it is clear to the Government that any move to implant large wind installations in areas that enjoy protection at present-or damagingly close to them-will encounter firm and perhaps implacable opposition from bodies such as the CPRE, the National Trust and the Council for National Parks. These bodies are capable of mounting an effective campaign and any move in that direction without proper safeguards would, I fear, be bound to tarnish the Government's environmental credentials.
Finally, I urge the Government to look at some areas where they might be more active. We would consume less energy if we promoted the widespread use of solar panels. Many people doubt whether they are of much use in our climate, but, as the proud owner of a panel for the past 20 years, I have to say that I am agreeably surprised by its contribution.
If the Government really believe that global wanning is happening, they should buy some solar panels themselves. Did they remember to build some into the recent palatial reconstruction of the government offices in Great George Street? Not having a personal helicopter, I have not been able to verify that, but I doubt it. The Gladstonian tradition of saving on such small matters, ignoring sometimes the wider picture, is still alive and kicking in the Treasury.
We could also persuade more people to use their domestic washing machines and so on at night, when the generating margin is under less pressure. After all, the cheapest way of not having an energy crisis is to use less power, and to use it more prudently.

859
In short, we have a great deal of work to do on the Bill. The main problem I have with it is the emphasis given to decommissioning the nuclear stations. I understand the Government's motives, but I doubt whether this is the right approach. We certainly cannot afford to adopt it at present when the power provided by the nuclear stations is so important to us. If the Government in a headlong way are so rash as to proceed with this policy, I expect that we shall become seriously short of generating capacity at certain moments; and a few cold winters in the years ahead would not be very good for their credibility.
It is not very often that we have an opportunity to improve scripture, but we may have an opportunity to do so at the moment. I refer to the well-known phrase:
"The wind bloweth where it listeth".
I would add,
"and the wind bloweth when it listeth".
We need a contribution to ensure the base loads of a power generation in this country. I do not see it in this Bill as drafted.
1.3 p.m.
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, when the Bill completes its Second Reading today and proceeds to Committee-or, unfortunately, Grand Committee- the first question that will be asked is that the Title be postponed. A much better question would be, "Should the Title be changed?" as I believe, the Title is a misnomer. I am not alone in that thought; it has already been referred to on two previous occasions. It creates the expectation that the Bill is an Energy Bill; that is, a Bill to bring forward proposals to deal with the supply of energy to ensure that industry and commerce and domestic life in this country will be able to rely on a continual, consistent supply of electricity in the years to come. This Bill, my Lords, certainly does not do that.
When I spoke in the first day's debate on the gracious Speech on 27th November I had not seen the Bill. I must say that I was not frightfully optimistic and drew attention to the fact that the lines in the Queen's Speech dealt only with the decommissioning of waste and some weasel words about the promotion of,
"secure, sustainable supplies and a safer environment".-[Official Report, 26/11/03; col. 3.]
That is a nice alliterative turn of phrase but not exactly reassuring to those of us who worry about the lights being turned off.
On reading through the Bill, my worst fears have been confirmed. It really should be called a waste Bill; it is certainly a wasted opportunity to do something to reassure the country that what has happened recently in California and in continental Europe is unlikely to happen here. Given the Title of the Bill one could be misled into believing that it would address the significant challenges facing the sector, and, by extension, the economy as a whole. Sadly, that is far from the case, as
860
the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, has already suggested. He suggested that it should be called the Energy (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill.
The proposed legislation dealing with the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority is a major part of the Bill. It comprises 74 clauses out of a total of 162 and 14 schedules out of a total of 23. All deal, in effect, with waste.
The Bill's objective is the need to introduce competition into the management of waste and decommissioning as the financial numbers involved are so large. I would go along with that absolutely. I thought the figure was approximately £50 billion but the Minister today quoted £48 billion. Even a 1 or 2 per cent saving would be very significant and amount to £500 million or £1 billion, whichever figure one takes. That is to be applauded. But it does not do much to safeguard "secure, sustainable supplies". I repeat, it is a waste Bill, not an energy Bill.
I am told that the nuclear industry welcomes the proposed legislation involving the formation of the NDA. The sooner the better. Since 1997 the industry has been drifting. It is essential to get rid of the uncertainty. Why has it taken so long?
Sadly, for the nuclear industry, it appears that there is to be yet another delay on top of the six-and-a-half years. That delay is being built into the system. The resolution of the problems of waste disposal depends solely on funding. Because the Bill has been introduced in your Lordships' House there will be no release of funds until the Members in the other place give it a Second Reading. My noble friend Lord Jenkin has already referred to that fact. The appointment of a chairman, staff and even the provision of accommodation cannot go ahead, as we have been told, because we have no locus to deal with money matters. That delay results in yet further delay in getting action. We are now told that there will be no action until April 2005.
However, this long period of indecision and delay affecting the issue of the NDA is compatible with the delay that has permeated so many areas of economic life in this country recently. In the case of energy, the Government's supposition must be that the lights will always function, otherwise they would have to take action on future energy supplies now and not just concentrate on waste. Energy I suppose is not sexy; it is not a vote-winner when the lights are still on and functioning; it will not grab the headlines in the press; and it probably is too complicated for superficial spin merchants. But it is a real serious problem.
On another issue, like my noble friend Lady Miller, I am somewhat confused where the responsibility for the Bill actually lies. The NDA will be a non-departmental public body reporting into the DTI, yet the body is being discussed and debated in a Bill being led by Defra.
If the press are to be believed, and the Government seem to lay great store in briefing-hanging on their every word and having knee-jerk reactions to all that is published-the future existence of the DTI and Defra is not exactly a reassuring foregone conclusion.

861
Perhaps I am too reliant on the BBC's "Farming Today" programme, to which I listen every weekday morning, but it does appear that Defra is in the sickbay-not with the Minister, thank goodness, but certainly his department-alongside the DTI which apparently no longer has a job. This is a dog's dinner; it is certainly not joined-up government. Only this morning we have been informed that the Government will table amendments to Parts 2 and 3. We are falling into the habit of a draft Bill being called a Bill. This is being paraded as a Bill, but it is a draft Bill. That is not good enough. An Energy Bill? I do not think so. In order to make it respectable, all sorts of things have been bolted on to the waste issue, not least the need to introduce the electricity trading arrangements, which, I am informed, have been hanging around in the DTI for at least two years. It is lucky that it has now found a vehicle to get them into the legislative programme.
My main concern is not that we are fiddling while Rome is burning but that it should not be beyond the wit of man-and for man read woman-employed in either the DTI or Defra to produce policies that would truly guarantee,
"secure, sustainable supplies and a safer environment"
-note, nothing is said about an acceptable aesthetic environment.
I know that coming so far down the list of speakers in this debate, there is a risk of being repetitive, but this bears repetition. I feel that I must return to the theme that I adopted in the debate on the gracious Speech on 27th November. Nuclear power is the only option if we are to safeguard our supplies. We cannot rely on about 70 per cent of our electricity generating supplies being imported. Secondly, we must promote sustainable supplies, with the sub-text of reducing carbon emissions. We all agree on that. The Performance and Innovation Unit paper laid out a Utopian view of a country powered by windmills with no dirty coal nor nasty nuclear in sight.
Do we ever look across the Channel and see how it is done elsewhere? About 80 per cent of electricity generation in France is now produced by nuclear power. It is ironic that we are actually importing 5 per cent of our electricity supplies from France, which generates them from nuclear power. However, is even that a reliable source, bearing in mind what my noble friend Lord Jenkin described as the switch-off by France of supplies to Italy earlier this year?
My noble friend also referred to the renewable energy application of coppice and gave us a wonderful picture of the whole of Kent being coppiced just to supply the energy currently supplied by Dungeness. I also have a Kent story. I am told that it has been estimated that if we were to meet our long-term emissions target, the number of windmills required would cover the whole of Kent. Being a resident of West Sussex, I guess that that would not bother me too much, but I am not a nimby at heart and parts of Kent are almost as beautiful as parts of West Sussex, and must remain so. The pursuance of windmills is truly a bonkers policy—or am I just tilting at windmills?
862
The Bill is a logical follow-on from the White Paper. The DTI is almost obliged to do something to meet the policy decisions contained in the White Paper, so this is the result. The Bill lays out the legal framework for offshore wind, but offshore wind will not deliver 10 per cent renewables or any substantial carbon reduction, because the non-carbon generating facilities-namely, nuclear power stations-are being run down. The policies will only replace the non-carbon element currently provided by nuclear with other supplies which have noxious effects either in their manufacture, to which I referred in our debate on 27th November- voltaics are manufactured with some pretty noxious materials-or their production, such as biomass.
Let us remember that we get 25 per cent of our electricity from nuclear at present. What will happen if the nuclear industry is allowed to wind down without any replacement programme in sight? Sadly, thinking of the few cases that I mentioned, it appears that the delaying tactics of the Government will continue.
The noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham, told us on 2nd December that the nuclear option will be kept open until the last nuclear power station shuts down in 2035. The inference is that just because we know how to operate certain types of nuclear power stations, we will continue to know how to build and operate one 70 years later.
That is a little like saying that no action is required to save an endangered species until the last pair is dying and past its breeding years. I know that the noble Lord is a football fan. I wish that I had been here that day to ask him whether he could envisage maintaining the Football League if there was only one team left. Or, to be perhaps more up to date, I should provide a neater analogy: just because we know how to operate a computer does not mean that we know how to build one.
We are in serious danger of losing our skill and knowledge base, not investing in keeping up to date with all the new developments taking place in the current construction of nuclear power stations in nine other countries. Something must be done about the nuclear option now. There is no other option if we are to,
"promote secure, sustainable supplies and a safer environment".
I hope that we get some indication today about the Government's view of the nuclear option; if not I shall attempt to use the Committee stage of the Bill to nail them.
1.15 p.m.
Lord Gray of Contin:My Lords, we have before us today a very substantial Energy Bill, which has come about largely as a result of the White Paper that the Government published in February this year. It is disappointing, to say the least, that we have not had an opportunity to discuss that White Paper prior to the presentation of the Bill. One would have thought that the Government would have welcomed the views of your Lordships' House. Indeed, they would have found areas where their own ideas were echoed, while at the same time, they would have heard criticisms and

863
suggestions, some of which they might just have found useful. Pre-legislative scrutiny is important but should complement rather than replace debate in this House.
The Government have attracted unto themselves a rather unenviable reputation for producing legislation that has not been thought through. I was going to add to that criticism until the Minister rather stole my fox, because the afterthought that he introduced to his announcement during today's debate that consumers of electricity in the Highlands and Islands of Scotland would not have extra charges levied on them as a result of extra distribution costs is very welcome. To that extent, he will get away without some of the criticism that I might otherwise have levied at him.
Much of what the Bill contains was predictable. Decommissioning of nuclear power stations at the end of their lives and waste management legislation were certainly likely starters from the outset, as was a legal framework for offshore renewable structures. The setting up of a single wholesale electricity market is new but interesting and will require careful thought. I envisage many discussions on all those issues.
However, most of the detail of the Bill will be dealt with in Committee and this Second Reading debate provides us with the opportunity to give some thought to the wider energy scene. Had the Government been prepared to tackle realistically the disposal of nuclear waste, the whole future of power generation could have been outlined. The White Paper is a sadly missed opportunity. By not giving a firm indication of support for nuclear power in the short term, doubt has been raised and suspicions aroused with the result that the Government could be left with the worst of all worlds.
Disposal of nuclear waste is far and away the most important problem. It screams out for attention at the highest political level. It is no exaggeration to suggest that if a satisfactory solution to that problem were to be found, the attitude of the public to nuclear power would change overnight-not that the public are by any means wholly opposed even now. There is a strong body of support that would become vocal in favour of nuclear power once that proviso were overcome. I shall return to that subject later.
Renewable sources of energy have an important role to play but I fear that the Government have a blinkered view and are wildly over-optimistic in their anticipation of the contribution of renewables, especially wind power. It is unlikely that targets for energy efficiency or security of supply, allegedly to be delivered by renewables, can be met. In any event, an increase in renewable energy in line with targets in the White Paper will not solve the dilemma of reducing carbon emissions, because they will replace the existing nuclear capacity only as it cuts out-regrettably, with much less certainty, such is the dependence of renewable sources on weather.
This year has been a very good example of the unpredictability of our climate. There has been low rainfall, much sun, little wind, various records broken in many different parts of the country and promises of more
864
weather peculiarities due to global warming. There is all that dependency on uncertain sources of energy while our fossil fuels are depleting and our nuclear reactors ageing. It is imperative that an R & D programme be established to ensure that our nuclear technology is maintained and developed further so that, as the more senior members of our nuclear industry retire-and this applies at all levels-their younger successors will be properly trained and available in this country, not tempted overseas where nuclear power is thriving in order to help their nuclear industry, but remaining here for the future of our new nuclear industry. The nuclear industry will not fade away; it is essential to our future, and we must ensure that the raw deal that nuclear power gets in the White Paper is countered.
An excellent commentary on the White Paper was prepared for the influential body Trade Unionists for Safe Nuclear Energy by Malcolm Grimston, honorary senior research fellow at Imperial College. On page two of that document, he says:
"It is difficult to assess why nuclear power should be written off on economic grounds-for example, the industry claims its total costs for new build to the latest designs will be below the subsidy offered to renewables in the White Paper".
Again, on page 13, he states:
"The absence of any appraisal of the economic claims being made on behalf of advanced passive reactor designs makes the statement that new power stations should be rejected on economic grounds impossible to assess".
That is the judgment of an expert in the field, who feels that the description in the White Paper does not give a fair crack of the whip to nuclear energy.
The truth is that the performance of the nuclear industry in many parts of the world is commendable. In the United States, for example, the figures of the Institute of Nuclear Power Operations show that the unit capability factors-that is to say, the percentage of time at full generating capacity-have been running at approximately 90 per cent for the past four years and were at an all-time record level of 91.2 per cent in 2002. It is worth noting that new nuclear power stations are being built in many parts of the world, including Russia and China. The total now operating approaches the 450 mark.
The gas situation in America has given great cause for concern, and the colossal power cuts there have raised fears elsewhere, not least in our own country. Unless we replace nuclear with nuclear, the British people had better get used to power cuts. Indeed, they may not have to wait that long: the safety cushion between available capacity and peak demand is down to 17 per cent, with the real margin likely to be substantially less-and that against a desirable spare capacity of over 20 per cent.
Disposal of nuclear waste is not an insurmountable problem. The Nuclear Decommissioning Authority faces a challenging future, and I wish it every success. Disposal has been resolved in other parts of the world, where the predominance of the alarmist lobby has been overtaken by reality. I agree with much of what the noble Lord, Lord Christopher, said this afternoon. If I repeat some of the points that he made, I hope that he will bear with me.

865
Over many years, successive governments in the United Kingdom have devised schemes to attract development to various parts of the country, sometimes to counter closures in dying industries or to stimulate new ventures in areas of high unemployment. Special development areas were created, where substantial tax breaks were available and various other monetary incentives offered. Perhaps some original thinking ought to be introduced to focus on ways of making safe disposal of nuclear waste acceptable in different parts of the country, with monetary benefits by no means excluded.
Finland is a very good example of a country where concern was acute but a considered and sensible approach by government, with open discussion and exchange of views, led to the present situation where nuclear energy accounts for 27 per cent of Finland's electricity. Finland's four principal nuclear reactors are among the best performing in the world, and last year its parliament voted to proceed with a fifth reactor. The case for that decision was based on economic grounds plus the potential reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. Spent fuel is kept in interim storage in water pools at power stations for several decades, until eventual disposal at a depth of 500 metres below a bedrock geological feature is achieved. That ongoing decision-making process has been managed with great care, and the consultation and co-operation of national and local politicians and the media have combined to reach a most satisfactory outcome.
Unless its problem of nuclear waste disposal is tackled and resolved, the United Kingdom is in real danger of falling increasingly further behind the more enlightened and progressive countries, from China to Eastern Europe and India to America, where those challenges are being confronted realistically. What a tragedy it would be if our once-great nuclear industry should perish through lack of ingenuity on the part of its political masters.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, this; seems like an appropriate time to adjourn our proceedings. Accordingly, I beg to move that the debate on the Second Reading of the Bill be now adjourned.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 1.29 to 2 p.m. for Judicial Business and to 3 p.m. for Public Business.]

Message from the Queen
Lord Luce: My Lords, I have the honour to present to your Lordships a message from Her Majesty the Queen signed by her own hand. The message is as follows:
"I have received with great satisfaction the dutiful and loyal expression of your thanks for the Speech with which I opened the present Session of Parliament. I take note of your representations".

Burma
3.1 p.m.
Baroness Coxasked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their policy towards the current situation in Burma (Myanmar) with regard to the State Peace and Development Council's policy towards opposition and ethnic national groups.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, United Kingdom policy is to bring pressure to bear on the Burmese military regime to enter into genuine and substantive dialogue with opposition and ethnic groups, leading to democracy, national reconciliation and respect for human rights in Burma. We work closely with our international partners, including Burma's regional neighbours, to press the regime on these issues. United Kingdom pressure will be maintained until Burma is irreversibly committed to substantive, lasting political change.
Baroness Cox: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. It will undoubtedly give great encouragement to countless people who are suffering at the hands of the brutal State Peace and Development Council regime. Is the Minister aware that I have recently returned from a visit, during which I obtained evidence of continuing and systematic violations of human rights by that regime, forcing hundreds of thousands of ethnic nationals, such as the Karen, the Karenni, the Chin and the Shan, to live as displaced people? Many are suffering and dying from hunger and disease, often with no access to healthcare. For example, I met a young mother whose three children had just died from malaria. Will Her Majesty's Government therefore please increase pressure on the SPDC regime to open all of Burma to humanitarian aid and human rights organisations?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for suggesting that Her Majesty's Government's policy gives encouragement to those that are suffering under the vicious regime in Burma. I thank her wholeheartedly for the superb work she undertakes there. She keeps the issue at the top of our mind in this House and does what she can to help the people of Burma, including the Karen, the Karenni and others.
The United Kingdom will continue to bring whatever pressure we can. We are the largest EU donor to Burma, as I am sure the noble Baroness is aware. We provide humanitarian assistance to the displaced people referred to by the noble Baroness and we fund the Burmese Border Consortium, the International Committee of the Red Cross, the World Health Organisation, UNICEF and the UN High Commission for Refugees through what we are doing with our colleagues in the EU and bilaterally.
We shall continue to do this, but already we have concerns about any direct aid because it is not clear that such aid would be dispersed in the way in which

867
we would wish to see it dispersed in Burma. Perhaps the noble Baroness and I can speak further about the difficulties that we have in that respect.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, I fully endorse the tribute paid by my noble friend to the noble Baroness, Lady Cox. Has it been explained to the SPDC that its proposal for a convention as a first step towards an inclusive democracy is not likely to achieve its objective when its principal opponents are excluded from the convention? The position is not improved by its insistence that the president should have military experience-a proposal clearly intended to ensure control by the army.
I fully accept the Government's work on the problem, but is there a possibility of a common EU position, bearing in mind the persuasive effects of a discriminatory investment policy?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the military regime has put together something it describes as a "road map". It is a small but completely inadequate step. It has no time lines; it is unclear who will be allowed to join the national convention process; and as long as Aung San Suu Kyi remains under house arrest she will be unable to represent the National League for Democracy, as will others who are barred from doing so.
My noble and learned friend raised, in particular, the issue surrounding the EU. He will know that, together with EU partners, we continue to prefer selective measures targeted at the regime rather than the kind of measures introduced by the United States of America, which we believe harm many of the poorer people. However, we should like to consider ways in which we can harden up the common position, which comes up for renewal in April 2004.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, while echoing the thanks that have been expressed already to the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, I should like to add my thanks to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office for the robust and clear stand it has always taken on these issues. Is there not one area in which interaction with the Burmese regime is possible-that is, the ILO? Can the Minister comment on the report recently made to the governing council of the ILO in Geneva? It is a very negative report, which includes an observation by the liaison officer that forced recruitment into the armed forces is continuing, including that of children. Can any additional work be done via the ILO to ensure that that obnoxious practice ceases-and indeed the practice of forced labour, which affects the minorities mentioned by the noble Baroness?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the noble Lord is right. The ILO and the whole question of forced labour is another pressure point on the Burmese regime. We fully support the ILO and call upon the Burmese authorities to end permanently the nasty practice of forced labour. Burma's general system of preferences was suspended by the European Union in 1997 in response to the concerns about forced labour.
868
I agree with the noble Lord about the use of child soldiers. These are but two of the disgraceful practices of the current regime in Burma. It is of course possible to exert pressure, not only bilaterally but through the international multilateral forums available to us.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House what steps have been taken to raise this issue at the UN Security Council? In doing so, would we expect to be able to suggest rather strongly to China, as a member of the Security Council, that it could have a part to play in bringing about a more honourable regime in Burma?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, this issue has been addressed in the United Nations through the General Assembly, rather than through the Security Council. The noble Baroness may know that the General Assembly mandated the UN Secretary-General to continue to provide his good offices and to pursue his discussions on the issue of human rights and restoration of democracy with the Government and people of Burma, including all relevant parties to the national reconciliation process.
The noble Baroness raised the question of the Security Council. As she will understand, the problem is that it has not been easy to get support from some of the Asian countries in finding sponsors. Sadly, only one Asian country would co-sponsor the motion at the General Assembly.
Lord Clarke of Hampstead: My Lords, are the Government taking any steps to endorse the initiative by the ethnic minorities' Committee for Democracy that has been set up? These people are trying to rebuild democracy in Burma. Have the Government done anything specific to assist the committee?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, we welcome the ethnic road map as opposed to the military regime's road map-two initiatives are going on side by side. We are supportive of all efforts to encourage the Burmese military regime to enter into the substantive and genuine dialogue that I mentioned in my initial answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Cox. It is difficult to give direct support when we have so little means of entry into Burma itself.
The Burmese Government have called a meeting on the issue in Bangkok in January, which they have described as a meeting of like-minded countries-although I am not sure whether countries such as Germany, Italy, Japan and France would like to be considered like-minded with the Burmese. Unfortunately, those countries will discuss the Burmese regime road map rather than the ethnic road map. However, I hope that they will take the opportunity to make their views about how things are operating very clear. The United Kingdom has not been invited.

House of Lords: Thursday Sittings
3.10 p.m.
Lord Carterasked the Chairman of Committees:
When new arrangements for Thursday sittings will start.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, in its first report of the Session, the Procedure Committee has recommended that the new arrangements for Thursday sittings should start from the beginning of 2004. The House will have the opportunity to debate the report and recommendations of the Procedure Committee next Wednesday, 17th December.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I thank the Chairman of Committees for his reply. Is he aware that I raised the possibility of a questionnaire on this subject in Starred Questions in July? The response to that questionnaire from 368 Peers showed a clear majority of almost 55 per cent in favour of starting at 11 a.m. with Starred Questions and going through to 7 p.m. The response was available on 10th October, so why has it taken so long and apparently two meetings of the Procedure Committee to produce a Motion to implement the change? Is the Chairman of Committees satisfied that the report of the Procedure Committee properly reflects the wishes of the clear majority who support the change? He will remember that there was a clear understanding at the time that working straight through meant that the new arrangements for Thursdays would reflect the procedure that we have on Thursdays before a Recess.
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I well remember the noble Lord, Lord Carter, raising the issue. That is one of the reasons why the Procedure Committee agreed to send out the questionnaire. As the noble Lord says, the result was extremely clear cut. Indeed, the Procedure Committee reported that, since there was a,
"clear majority for option 3… we … recommend that, from the start of 2004, the House should sit from 11 a.m. to about 7 p.m. on Thursdays. Starred Questions should be taken at the beginning of business".
The difficulty arose over whether there should be a dinner break type lunch break during the later stages of a Bill—in Committee, on Report or at Third Reading, but not on Second Reading or some other debate—for about an hour at 1.30 until 2.30 p.m. Unfortunately, the Procedure Committee was not able to come to any conclusion. That is why the report, which we will debate next Wednesday, gives the House the opportunity to decide the issue.
Lord Lea of Crondall: My Lords, given the clear result of the questionnaire to which my noble friend Lord Carter referred, is the Chairman of Committees aware that some of us have taken very careful note that referendums—which are the flavour of the month, especially on the Benches opposite—are apparently a fine thing when the Procedure Committee likes the
870
results, but not otherwise? We might logically approach the question of a referendum on the euro in the same spirit.
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, it would be unwise for me to enter into an argument on a referendum on either the euro or, indeed, the constitution, which was extensively debated yesterday afternoon. The Procedure Committee came to a clear conclusion on the wish of the House to start with Questions at 11 o'clock on Thursdays and work through. As I said earlier, the argument was whether there should be a break for lunch in which other business would be taken, but only during the latter stages of a Bill. Otherwise, Front-Bench spokesmen and others involved in the Bill would have to sit from 11.30 a.m. to 7 p.m. continuously. The House will have the opportunity to make its decision on this issue next Wednesday.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, will the Chairman of Committees confirm whether one reason for the break in the past was for party group meetings to be held at that time? Is that still a consideration? Is it not a fact that those involved in party group meetings are rather reluctant to change because parliamentary business would not be ready by Wednesday afternoon when many Peers would find it more convenient to have their party meetings?
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, very early on in this process, the original suggestion for a questionnaire that I put forward mentioned party meetings. I was then given a very firm steer from the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne—the Chairman of the Association of Conservative Peers, who I am sorry to see is not in his place—that the arrangements for party meetings were entirely a matter for them and nothing to do with me whatsoever.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I carefully noted what was said about the problem for Front-Benchers and others of taking part in a debate in Committee or on Report and not having time for a break. However, will they not balance that possible inconvenience? I cannot believe that it is beyond the wit or ingenuity of Front-Benchers and others to find time to slip out for refreshments for a short period between 12 noon and 2.30 p.m. when refreshments are available. The House would gain from having an hour and a half to complete or proceed with its business. I very much hope that those who would like things always to remain as they are will reflect that there are times when we should be prepared to try out new measures.
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, the Procedure Committee agrees with the noble Lord. Its firm recommendation is that we should change things. Hopefully, this will be the last Thursday under the present arrangements. We have sat at 11 o'clock until half-past one. We then had an enormous break in the middle of a Second Reading debate. We are now

871
in the middle of Question Time and we will have a Statement after this. We will probably not get back on to the Bill until half past four. Nearly everybody in the House thinks that that is not a good idea. As I said, the argument is about whether we should have a break. There are two alternatives-whether we should sit on government business from 11.30 a.m. to about half-past five with no break when we are in Committee or debating the latter stages of a Bill. That would be similar to other days of the week when there is no dinner break during Second Reading or a debate. We would adopt the same procedure. The alternative is that we should have a break for one hour for other business-not for sitting around doing nothing-at 1.30 p.m. to 2.30 p.m. and then continue with government business until 7 p.m. That is the choice that the House will have to make next Wednesday.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, the Chairman of Committees has explained the dilemma very carefully, but can he explain why there is this "orrible ole" in the middle of business on a Thursday that is proposed by the report?
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, there is no hole proposed by the report. The House would continue to do business from the time it sits at 11 o'clock until the time that it rises. The question is whether there should be other business, such as dinner break business-except that it would be called lunch break business-on Thursdays, as there is on Mondays, Tuesdays and Wednesdays.

Middle East: Peace Initiatives
3.17 p.m.
Lord Hyltonasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will take action to translate the Geneva Accord and the Ayalon-Nusseiba agreement into just and permanent peace arrangements for the Middle East.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, we commend the initiatives and the debates that they have stimulated among Israelis and Palestinians and, more widely, in the international community. However, we remain of the view that the road map is still the right route to a comprehensive settlement in the region. At the heart of that settlement, there would be a two-state solution-Israel secure within its borders and a viable contiguous state of Palestine.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her reply. Does she consider that, within the road map process, there is now scope for some secret but official diplomacy on the outstanding issues? Will Her Majesty's Government also encourage the European Union to offer incentives for negotiation and penalties for not negotiating? Finally, will the Government
872
encourage and urge the United States Government to continue and to persist with their mediation in the kind of way that only they can do?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the Government believe that those initiatives add value to the road map process because they set out the steps needed to move towards a comprehensive settlement. They expand on the road map's vision and complement what is in the road map. The noble Lord asked whether they offer scope for what he described as secret negotiations. There is scope anyway for negotiations, some of which will be more publicly articulated and some perhaps less so.
The noble Lord also asked about the position of the European Union and the United States. Both the European Union and the United States have given the kind of response that I articulated in my initial response; that is, they commend the efforts here and they think that this opens up some opportunities for further discussion. But I am unsure that, at this stage, any of us want to go quite as far as the sticks and carrots approach suggested by the noble Lord.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, does the Minister recognise that the agreement of Secretary of State Powell to meet the leaders of this unofficial initiative marks the recognition by the American Government that this is a useful way of reviving an almost deceased road map? Does she also recognise that the conventional wisdom in Washington is that between February and November 2004 the US presidential election campaign means that the US can do nothing as regards the Middle East? Therefore, we have a very short window of time in which to seize this opportunity.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, 1 do not entirely agree with the final point made by the noble Lord; namely, that, by definition, during an American election campaign, nothing will happen. That is a matter for the United States politicians involved to decide. I would point out to the noble Lord that perhaps there are different constraints in this election to previous elections: we can discuss how the mechanics of that would work.
I welcome the fact that Secretary of State Powell has said that he will meet those who have put forward this very useful approach. Of course, the question refers to two different papers that have been put forward. It is not only the Geneva Accord but also the Ayalon-Nusseiba agreement that is of interest.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, does the noble Baroness share with me-I am sure that she will- regret at the latest suicide bombing outrage in Tel Aviv and yet more pointless deaths? Will she help all who will listen to understand that suicide bombing will achieve nothing whatever to carry forward any kind of peace accord? Can the Minister tell us whether it is true that the Israeli Government are now considering- presumably under some kind of American pressure-

873
realigning the fence or wall that they have been erecting, which has been roundly condemned both in Washington and in London?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, on the question of the appalling incident this morning in Tel Aviv, I refrained from referring to that because in the immediate aftermath of what happened it is not clear that it was a suicide bombing. Reports are still very confused. There is some indication that, as horrible as the incident may have been, it may have been a criminal incident and not a suicide bombing in the way that, alas, we have come to recognise as being part of the Israel/Palestine conflict. We must wait to see how that unfolds.
As regards the issue of the routing of the security fence, of course we would welcome any reconsideration that the Israeli Cabinet would give to that. We have discussed this matter before in your Lordships' House. I have reiterated to your Lordships that it is a question not of the fence in itself but of the routing, which we believe to be unlawful because of the path that it takes over the land on the other side of the 1967 line.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the Geneva Accord is but one example of the Palestinians and Israelis getting together at grass-root level to discuss past peace? Does my noble friend agree that the work of organisations such as Three Faiths in Britain, One Voice in America and the joint Israeli and Palestinian schools and hospitals is a cause for optimism and a force for good?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: Yes, my Lords, I agree with that wholeheartedly. The organisations that are able to bring together-across the communities involved-those who are willing to talk about a way forward that is constructive and does not immediately move to the extremes of argument is very much to be welcomed. I reiterate the words of the Prime Minister when he asked the noble Lord, Lord Levy, to go on his behalf and issued a statement about the Geneva Accord. He said:
"I hope that this initiative will also show that Israelis and Palestinians remain capable of finding partners for peace and working together, and encourage a return to the negotiating table".
That is exactly the kind of sentiment that I believe your Lordships would support.

Yarl's Wood Detention Centre
3.25p.m.
Baroness Williams of Crosbyasked Her Majesty's Government:
What investigation is being made into the allegations published in the Daily Mirror of 8th December about the conduct of staff at Yarl's Wood detention centre.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, we take these allegations very seriously indeed. It is obviously of the
874
utmost importance that staff at immigration removal centres should carry out their duties professionally and sensitively. Our contractor at Yarl's Wood Immigration Removal Centre, Global Solutions Limited, has launched a full investigation into the allegations. That investigation will be conducted by a senior manager with no line management responsibility for Yarl's Wood.
In addition, the Minister for Citizenship, Immigration and Counter Terrorism, Beverley Hughes, has decided that there should be a full and independent investigation. She is considering urgently how best that might be conducted.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister, especially for his assurance about an independent investigation into these serious charges. Can he give the House an assurance that one of the rumours that ran around Yarl's Wood-to the effect that new control and restraint orders would enable officers of the contractors to kick, punch and, indeed, head butt future detainees-is completely without foundation? In addition, can the Minister tell the House how he would propose that an investigation should be conducted in such a way that the allegations that some detainees were beaten up out of view of CCTV cameras can be thoroughly looked into?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, as I made plain, it will be a full and independent investigation, the terms of which have yet to be determined. I can also confirm that that independent investigation and its findings will be made fully public. As regards the allegations to which the noble Baroness refers, it is most important that those matters are fully and properly investigated; that any wrongdoing that perhaps took place in the past-the extent of which should be revealed-is made plain; and that those people who are at fault are properly dealt with.
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: My Lords, would the Minister confirm that these detention centres fall within the remit of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons? Does he recall from the recent book of Sir David Ramsbotham that in 2001 he was ordered by the then Prison Minister, Mr Boateng, not to carry out a review jointly with the Commission for Racial Equality of the treatment of ethnic minorities in prisons, including detention centres? Do these reports not suggest that that was a thoroughly bad decision? Can the noble Lord indicate whether there is equal discouragement currently exerted on the present chief inspector?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I know of no such discouragement. I can confirm that the Chief Inspector of Prisons has a remit that covers removal centres. I am sure and I am confident that the chief inspector will take careful consideration of any allegations of racism or racist abuse or violence towards those detained within those centres. Additionally, there is the important role carried out by the statutory independent monitoring boards that have free and open access to all parts of those centres

875
and can also hear requests and complaints about particular matters, such as racism in any removal centre.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, can the noble Lord give the House an assurance that the results of the investigation will be published and made available to us? Are the Government sure that the abuse at Yarl's Wood was an isolated occurrence? If they are not convinced, should they not extend their inquiries to other institutions under Home Office control, particularly in view of the report in this morning's Guardian of brutality within the Prison Service at Wormwood Scrubs?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I think that I made it plain in one of my earlier responses that the results of the independent investigation would be brought fully into the public domain. Like the noble Lord I, too, was appalled at what I read in today's Guardian and I know that those matters figure highly in the thinking of the Home Secretary. He is keeping the position under close review.
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: My Lords, have the Government come to a final decision about the future of the Chief Inspector of Prisons?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the Chief Inspector of Prisons continues to do an excellent job. I was not under the impression that we had come to a final view about the chief inspector, other than to confirm that she is doing a first-rate job.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, gave a reassuring reply to my noble friend Lady Williams, but he did not refer to that part of her Question which, in turn, refers to a report in a national newspaper. Perhaps I may quote from it:
"I listened with horror as senior officers at Yarl's Wood sadistically relished rumours that they would soon be able to punch, kick and even headbutt difficult inmates under new control and restraint plans by [the] Home Secretary".
Is the noble Lord able to reassure the House that that is a load of nonsense?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I hope that it is a load of nonsense because it is certainly not something envisaged in the restraint measures available to officers in the removal centres. What has been described is not something that we would wish to see at all.
The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, following on from Yarl's Wood, have the Government decided to change the model of detention centres, in particular along the designs recommended by the Refugee Council?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, we greatly respect the work of the Refugee Council and we take careful cognisance of everything that it says about removal centres. No doubt some of the council's
876
comments will have been reflected in the redesign of Yarl's Wood that took place following the fire over a year ago.

Smoking in Public Places (Wales) Bill [H.L.]
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to prohibit the smoking of tobacco by any person in Wales while in a public place. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.- (Baroness Finlay of Llandaff .)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and ordered to be printed.

Business of the House: Standing Order 41
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 Standing Order 41 (Arrangement of the Order Paper) be dispensed with on Tuesday next to allow the Second Reading of the Justice (Northern Ireland) Bill to be taken after the Motion standing in the name of the Baroness Miller of Hendon.- (Baroness Amos.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Defence White Paper
3.32 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Bach): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall repeat a Statement made earlier today in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence. The Statement is as follows:
"I should like to make a Statement about the Defence White Paper and a report entitled Operations in Iraq: Lessons for the Future.
"It has been five years since the Strategic Defence Review was published by my predecessor, the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, who steps down at the end of this year as NATO Secretary-General. I am sure the House will join me in paying tribute to his determined contribution to modernising the alliance at a time of unprecedented challenges.
"The Strategic Defence Review concluded that we needed to move our Armed Forces into an expeditionary era and build greater flexibility to face increasingly diverse threats in both war fighting and peace support operations. Its conclusions have served us well in those five years, although it could not have anticipated the appalling events of 11th September 2001, nor their strategic impact. That is why we published a new chapter last year.

877
"The ability of our Armed Forces to conduct the full spectrum of operations has been well demonstrated since 1998. We have conducted operations-often concurrently-across three continents: in Kosovo, Macedonia, Sierra Leone, East Timor, Afghanistan and in the Democratic Republic of Congo. Our Armed Forces have been successfully engaged in combat operations in Iraq this year and are still heavily engaged in large-scale post-conflict activities.
"The Ministry of Defence is today publishing its full report into operations in Iraq, Operations in Iraq: Lessons for the Future. The House will recall that an initial report was published in July, which provided an authoritative account of the campaign and reflected on the early conclusions that we could draw from the combat operations.
"Since then, a detailed and comprehensive analysis of the operation has been undertaken within the Ministry of Defence. Evidence has been taken from those involved in the operation at all levels, assessing the effectiveness of the equipment we used and identifying from this work the lessons we can draw from the campaign.
"The operation was a significant military success, achieving almost all of its military objectives within only four weeks. Those are not my words, but the conclusion of the National Audit Office report into the operation, whose publication today I also welcome. Our people performed magnificently, the equipment was highly effective, the logistic support most impressive, and the revolution in strategy and doctrine that we set out in 1998 has again been vindicated.
"But, if we want to maintain the battle-winning capabilities of our Armed Forces, we must learn from the difficulties as well as the successes. There is no benefit in a lessons process that is bland or uncritical. I have encouraged an honest, unflinching report that rightly focuses on the future and outlines the areas where we want to continue to improve. Some changes have already been implemented. Other lessons have no quick solution, but will form the basis of work in the Ministry of Defence over the coming months.
"But it is important to emphasise that we have been successful in recent military operations because we have always looked ahead at the capabilities we need for future challenges. It is appropriate therefore that the detailed analysis of the Iraq operation is published on the same day as the White Paper. The title captures what it is about-Delivering Security in a Changing World. The document sets out how we expect to adapt to keep ahead of the challenges. It sets out a policy baseline against which we will make decisions to provide the Armed Forces with the structures and capabilities they require to carry out the operations they can expect to undertake in the future.
"The shadow of the Cold War, which has shaped our Armed Forces for two generations, may have receded, and the threat of a large-scale conventional
878
military attack on Europe may seem remote as a result, but new threats are emerging. We must respond to today's strategic environment and prepare for tomorrow's. The proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and the threat posed by international terrorism, coupled with the consequences of failed or failing states, presents us with very real and immediate challenges.
"Our experience of the recent pattern of military operations demonstrates the increasing frequency of the United Kingdom's involvement in small and medium-scale operations. The need for multiple, concurrent small to medium-sized operations will therefore be the most significant factor in force planning. Counter-terrorism and counter-proliferation operations in particular will require rapidly deployable forces able to respond swiftly to intelligence and achieve precise effects in a range of environments across the world.
"Regional tensions and potential conflicts are likely to create a sustained high demand for enduring peace support commitments, such as the extended deployments that we have seen in the Balkans. But we must also retain the capacity to reconfigure our forces at longer notice to undertake the less frequent, but more demanding large-scale operations of the type we saw in Iraq earlier this year.
"Expeditionary operations on this scale can effectively be conducted only if US forces are engaged. Where the UK chooses to be involved, we would want to be in a position to influence political and military decision-making. This will involve sharing the military risk, and require an ability for our Armed Forces to play an effective role alongside that of the United States. We were able to do this in Iraq by, for example, procuring additional communications equipment for our aircraft. More generally, the key to inter-operability with the US, for our European allies as well as for the United Kingdom, is likely to rest in the successful operation of NATO's new Allied Command for Transformation.
"Whatever the strategic planning and equipment, it is ultimately people who deliver success. Our people will need to possess exceptional skills to deal with the complexity of modern operations. We must continue to invest in their recruitment and training and reward them properly for the difficult tasks we ask them to undertake. The excellent contribution of our Reserve Forces in Iraq shows that they are an essential part of our defence capability and will continue to remain so.
"Resources must be directed at those capabilities that are best able to deliver the range of military effects required, while dispensing with those elements that are less flexible. It has historically been the fashion to measure military capability in terms of the weight of numbers of units or platforms-of ships, of tanks and of aircraft. That might have been appropriate for the attritional warfare of the past but, in today's environment,

879
success will be achieved through an ability to act quickly, accurately and decisively, so as to deliver military effect at the right time.
"What are the critical elements in delivering this military effect? The answer is threefold: sensors, to gather information; an effective network, to consolidate, communicate and exploit that information; and strike assets, to deliver the decisive action. Technology will be a key driver for change and will present us with new opportunities-for example, the means by which to link "sensor to shooter" through network enabled capabilities. And by thinking about capability jointly rather than as a collection of separate platforms, the effects that can be delivered can far exceed the sum of the parts. This will provide significant opportunities when we consider the requirements for future force structures and will place a premium on flexible and adaptable network enabled capabilities.
"It follows that we no longer need to retain a redundancy of capability against the re-emergence of a direct, conventional strategic threat to the United Kingdom. Our priority must now be on providing the capabilities to meet a much wider range of expeditionary tasks, at a greater range from the UK, and at an ever-increasing tempo. The heaviest burden in these circumstances will fall on those key enablers and force multipliers that deliver more rapid deployment, better intelligence and target acquisition, with ever-greater accuracy.
"The structure of each of the services will also need to evolve to optimise joint operations and provide greater flexibility and capability to project power to counter the threats we face.
"Our emphasis in the maritime environment is increasingly on delivering effect from the sea on to the land, supporting forces ashore and on securing access to the theatre of operation. The new amphibious ships coming into service over the next two years, together with our existing aircraft carriers, offer a versatile capability for projecting land and air power ashore. The introduction of the two new aircraft carriers and the Joint Strike Fighter early in the next decade will offer a step change in our ability to project air power from the sea while the Type 45 destroyer will enhance protection of joint and maritime forces and assist force projection. Some of the older ships can contribute less well to the pattern of operations that we envisage, and some adjustments will therefore be necessary.
"In the case of the Army, experience shows that the current mix of heavy and light capabilities was relevant to the battles of the past rather than the battles of the future. We need to move to a more appropriately balanced structure of light, medium and heavy forces, and place a greater emphasis on enabling capabilities such as logistics, engineers and intelligence. The Future Rapid Effects System family of vehicles that we are currently developing will help meet the much needed requirement for medium-weight forces. Over time, this will inevitably reduce our requirement for heavy armoured fighting vehicles and heavy artillery.
880
"The work in this area is continuing, but we judge that we can start this rebalancing by reducing the size of our heavy armoured forces. We therefore intend to establish a new light brigade, reducing the number of armoured brigades from three to two. This will be achieved by re-roling 4 Armoured Brigade in Germany as a mechanised brigade and re-roling 19 Mechanised Brigade in Catterick as a light brigade. We will announce further plans for future Army force structures next year.
"We want to be able to project more air power from both the land and the sea, offering enhanced capabilities across the range of air operations. Stormshadow missiles will provide a long-range precise-strike capability, and the increasing availability of 'smart' bombs, such as Paveway IV, ensure a higher degree of accuracy in our offensive capability than ever before. Around 85 per cent of RAF munitions used in Iraq in 2003 were precision guided, compared to only 25 per cent in Kosovo as recently as 1999. Additionally, Typhoon and the Joint Strike Fighter will offer much greater flexibility and balance in the air component of the future, reducing the need for single-role fast jets. Multi-role capability will also allow us to deploy fewer aircraft than previously thought necessary. We are therefore considering what these developments mean for the number of combat aircraft we require.
"The rapid deployment of land and air combat power is, of course, dependent on having a sufficient strategic lift capability. The core of the airlift capability will continue to centre on the C130 fleet, and the A400M when it replaces older C130s from 2011. We are considering the options for retaining a small force of C17s after A400M enters service, to carry the largest air deployable items. We also have a fleet of six roll-on/roll-off vessels that proved their worth in moving our forces to the Gulf and are crucial to achieving a rapid build up for medium-scale operations.
"Where military action is required, it will be most effective when it comes in the form of partnerships, alliances and coalitions. For the United Kingdom, the key organisations through which we act will be NATO and the European Union.
"NATO remains the basis for the collective defence of its members, and continues to play an important role in crisis management. It is a transatlantic organisation through which the US engages with its allies in planning and conducting military operations. The EU's European security and defence policy is complementary and provides a means to act where NATO as a whole is not engaged. The forthcoming intergovernmental conference is an opportunity to strengthen European security and defence policy and European military capabilities. As a result, we will strengthen NATO, without any unnecessary duplication.
"The security and stability of Europe and the maintenance of the transatlantic relationship are of fundamental importance to our defence. More

881
widely, our security and national prosperity depend on global stability, freedom and economic development. Our Armed Forces will continue to act as a force for good in the international community. We know that, ultimately, security cannot be delivered by military might alone, but involves changing attitudes and bringing security to those regions where there is a risk of instability. This is a challenge not just for those of us in defence but for all of us in government. The White Paper should be read in conjunction with the White Paper on UK international priorities that my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary published last week.
"Everything that 1 have set out involves change. The White Paper, by dealing with the policy context, will ultimately determine the shape of our Armed Forces. Within that overall shape, we will need to develop the details of individuals systems and structures. However, before we can do that, we need to be certain that we have the right procurement and development projects. That is why the Ministry of Defence is undertaking a significant examination of our capabilities and overheads. This is not a new defence review, nor does it need to be, but it is a final check on our planning to ensure that we have the right capabilities needed for the challenges ahead- that we are spending our finite funds in the most effective way. I shall make further announcements on the results of this work next year.
"This is a changing world and we must adapt if our Armed Forces are to stay ahead of potential adversaries. We must exploit new and emerging technologies, and we must be prepared to take tough decisions to ensure that our Armed Forces are able to carry out the difficult tasks we ask of them. It is only through this process of continuous change and improvement that we can ensure that our Armed Forces are equipped and structured to meet the challenges of the future".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
3.49 p.m.
Lord Vivian: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for repeating this Statement today. We welcome the fundamental thrust of the White Paper, which foretells very considerable change for the conduct of the Armed Forces' business across the board. Let your Lordships not forget that the Strategic Defence Review was never properly costed or funded, and the same must not be allowed to happen this time. There are a number of issues which stem from it, but before I get into any detail, I would like a definite assurance that the Government will find time to hold a full debate on this important subject next month in this House.
In the time that I have had to study the White Paper, I am disappointed that I have not been able to find any reference to financial or budgetary matters-a concern that is uppermost in our minds. On these Benches, we generally agree with the assessment of the strategic environment and the difficulties that flow from it. We believe that we have come to a decisive moment in
882
history, when a new and diverse constellation of threats has appeared that are not nearly as obvious as were their relatively certain predecessors. We assert that since the end of the Cold War the world has never been as dangerous or as unpredictable, nor the threats so serious.
An era of invulnerability is over; our adversary has changed. Terrorism is a technique. It is not an ideology or a political philosophy, let alone an enemy state. It is an exceptionally difficult threat to deal with. The proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and the means to deliver them represent a major threat. We welcome the Government's decision to continue to examine the issue of missile defence. We must therefore be prepared for the unexpected, as well as dealing with conventional military tasks.
We have also learned, and continue learning, from the experience of our forces in Afghanistan and Iraq. There are lessons on preparedness, jointness, precision, speed and agility, but there are clearly situations in which light forces might not be the best solution. We look forward to studying in more detail the MoD's Operation in Iraq: Lessons for the Future. We welcome the NAO report on operation TELIC, which makes the point that, while it is clear that British troops performed brilliantly, there were shortcomings in supply of chemical protection and other life-saving equipment. That cannot be allowed to happen again, and we look forward to hearing the Minister's response.
Measuring the capability by the number of units or platforms in their possession remains highly significant. The same unit or platform can never be in two places at the same time. Thus a combination of capabilities in numbers will continue to be of critical importance in any assessment of the potential effectiveness of our Armed Forces. Infantry and armour on the ground can be augmented by technical wizardry, but cannot be replaced by it. The peace in Basra today has been kept by some 10,000 soldiers on the ground. We underestimate at our peril the importance of the infantryman and the tank and all that they can do. We should not reduce our tank fleet until FRES comes into service.
We welcome the intention to enhance the strategic enablers of communication, logistics and intelligence. Furthermore, as the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Guthrie, pointed out, it is important that we do not concentrate our efforts to too great an extent on one emerging threat, in a knee-jerk reaction, forgetting that there are other threats that have not gone away and for which we should still be prepared. We believe such principles to be of the first importance.
We welcome the acknowledgement of the absolute need to continue robust and collective military training at all levels. We consider it vital to underpin the new doctrines with the single-service ethos and fighting spirit, as well as moving to improve arrangements for families and harmony, and rebalancing key support elements towards the brigade from the divisional levels.
The backdrop of the White Paper seems to be a crisis in the Government's defence budget. We on this side of the House, together with many retired and serving

883
military officers, have the greatest reservations about the Government's ability to sustain their current ambitions and equipment programmes. We believe that the defence budget is deeply in the red. Is it not a fact that the equipment budget is overspent in excess of £1 billion per year, and the personnel budget by £600 million this year? What programmes and activities does the Secretary of State expect to cut or defer to balance the books? Is it true that he has ordered cuts of £1 billion a year for four years? It is alleged that much of the so-called new money from last year's spending review-£3.5 billion-has already been earmarked for the new weapons programmes.
The reality is that the MoD will have to defer or cancel elements of major equipment programmes to balance the books to fund new equipment. We are concerned that a whole raft of decisions will start to leak out later, and we look to the Minister reporting back to the House in detail what is eventually proposed. For instance, is it true that programmes earmarked for cuts include Eurofighter, Nimrod, nuclear submarines, Type 42 frigates and some heavy armour?
I have a number of questions to ask the Minister. If he is unable to answer them, perhaps he would be kind enough to write to me. First, the new battlefield technologies will have to be paid for. Where is the funding for that going to come from? Secondly, I am sure that the Minister is aware that the defence research budget has been cut by 10 per cent, which is some £45 million. How can the Government be serious about digitised battlespace and continue with defence research cuts?
Thirdly, while paying the warmest tribute to the achievement of our TA and reserve forces in Iraq and elsewhere, we welcome the chapter on developing the reserves and the urgent need acknowledged in the White Paper to improve support for reservists and their families and employers. Will the Minister give the House some idea of the future manning levels of the TA and other reserves?
Fourthly, will the Minister comment on the future of the Northern Ireland troop deployment? Lastly, can he confirm that a covert defence review is now taking place?
In conclusion, we remain deeply concerned about the financial crisis in the MoD and the consequences that are flowing from it at this time of severe overstretch. We look forward to the MoD announcing its future intentions, thus removing many uncertainties for our servicemen, women and families. The Armed Forces are not afraid to cope with change, and they have always been highly adaptable and flexible. As is customary, I pay great tribute to our Armed Forces, for their bravery, loyalty and courage, for their dedication to duty and for their willingness to serve the country. I also praise their families, who steadfastly support their husbands. However, as I have said before, it is our duty to ensure that the Government do nothing to compromise the excellent success of our Armed Forces, which could put them at risk and result in operational failure.
3.58 p.m.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, I start with one minute left of the time allocated to these Benches, so I crave the leave of the House if I go on slightly longer than that. I also want to thank the Minister for repeating the Statement, which should be read in conjunction with the Foreign Office White Paper and the National Audit Office report, which has come out in the past couple of days. If noble Lords have not seen that report, it is well worth picking up from the Printed Paper Office.
A vast amount of information is included in those documents, and in the short time available I have not been able to pick out a great deal. However, I start with page 36 of the National Audit Office report, which refers to repeated, "identification of logistics lessons on previous operations".
Operation TELIC fell short in the area of poor asset tracking, poor logistic communications, stock shortages, priority deadlines not met and lack of control over coupling bridges. In other words, in all areas that were assessed, it fell short, which seems very unfortunate.
Although the White Paper is short of any guidelines on cost, and, indeed, is completely shorn of any estimates even, the issues raised in it indicate that we are moving to a different form of warfare focusing on high technology. Noble Lords on these Benches welcome that move in certain areas. It is obvious that some of the technologies, especially Smart bombs and the technology involved in communications, transport and air support saved lives not only of our own soldiers but, just as importantly, of civilians on the ground. However, we are particularly concerned that attention is focused on those areas at the expense of peacekeeping. Although the documents refer to war operations, peacekeeping is a far more difficult, costly and long-term operation.
Unfortunately, although money can be allocated to providing high-technology solutions, the peacekeeping operation will require manpower and reserves. Manning levels are of particular concern as we are so dependent at the moment on our regular soldiers. I refer to the short break they have between operations. Indeed, on Radio 4 this morning the Minister of State said that the period between operations is now down to 10 months, as opposed to the hoped for 24 months. That arises because we are relying very heavily on the reserve forces. The report examines the state of the reserve forces and ways in which they can best be supported. However, that raises the concern that these reserve forces may be being counted on to turn up again and again. I know from friends and from comments in press reports that the reserve forces members of Operation TELIC would think very seriously before they undertook such an operation again. That could have a significant effect on manpower levels given that 7,500 territorials and reservists took part in Operation TELIC.
The other issue of real concern is that of the Territorial Army. The White Paper mentions the specific skills of certain members of the Territorial Army. Reducing the size of the Territorial Army

885
always appears to be an easy, cost-cutting solution but it has an impact as, when you reduce the size of a unit, you often get rid of the most valuable people with the very expertise gained in civilian life-such expertise is highlighted in the document-that you most want to retain. Doctors are of particular concern in that regard, as has been pointed out in numerous debates.
As manning is an issue of such concern at the moment, has the MoD reconsidered the freeze on recruitment? One does not have to go back many years to the time when many noble Lords spoke of the need to increase the number of people in the Armed Forces. Despite the success of such recruitment, we now have a hiatus because of that subsequent freeze which could lead to a big dip in numbers further down the line when we might need a large number of troops.
I could discuss many other areas but I do not think that I should infringe further the time that is allocated to me. However, I wish to raise one further issue. Operations in Iraq, Lessons for the Future, refers to weapons of mass destruction. It appears that the only weapons of mass destruction that the report discusses, apart from the intention to produce them, are,
"strains of biological organisms concealed in a scientist's home, one of which could be used to produce biological weapons".
As I understand it, that was a vial of precursor chemical that was left over from before the previous Gulf War. That has to be a matter of real concern as weapons of mass destruction constituted the reason for going to war in Iraq in the first place. I ask about cost as it is specifically mentioned in the document. What has the cost been so far to the British Government of looking for weapons of mass destruction? Obviously, those are very wide costs, but if the Minister cannot give me the relevant figures today, perhaps he can give me an indication of what our component of the Iraq survey group has cost so far.
4.5 p.m.
Lord Bach: My Lords, I thank both noble Lords very much indeed for their contributions, in which they expressed general support for the tone and content of the White Paper. However, they of course reserved their positions, as they are absolutely entitled to do.
The noble Lord, Lord Vivian, has great experience in these fields-much more than I shall ever have. I thank him for the comments that he made about our Armed Forces, which I know that noble Lords on all sides of the House echo warmly. The noble Lord, Lord Vivian, asked a straight question about a debate. A debate is being discussed through the usual channels. I hope to be in a position to initiate a debate in January. I choose my words carefully. The noble Lord knows how the system works, as I do. However, I think that he will find that response fairly encouraging.
The noble Lord made some general points about the White Paper, many of them with great force. He referred to the comment made by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Guthrie, that we should ensure that we are ready for everything and should not focus just on one situation in which military force may be required. That
886
fits in with the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Vivian, regarding being ready for the unexpected. The whole intention of the White Paper's policy is to encourage flexibility to ensure that we are ready for the unexpected, as that is what we can expect. In the extremely dangerous world in which we live we do not know where and when our Armed Forces will be needed next. The White Paper says what it does for precisely that reason.
The noble Lords, Lord Vivian and Lord Redesdale, discussed lessons to be learnt. Of course, there are lessons to be learnt from the Iraq campaign. It would be absolutely astonishing if that were not the case. We should learn those lessons. The noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, mentioned the NAO report. He is right to point out that there has been some criticism of how things have worked out. We are already looking hard at the points that the NAO makes. However, it is only fair to say that, on balance, the NAO report comments extremely favourably on the way in which the war was won, the way in which our Armed Forces performed and how the equipment-some of which was roundly criticised before the war-performed extremely successfully during the conflict.
Both noble Lords invited me to answer certain questions either now or in writing. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Vivian, that the defence budget will provide the new equipment to bring in the network-enabled capability. However, we must understand that if we are to introduce that very valuable form of procurement, it may not always be possible to introduce other measures that we should like to introduce, either at the time that we want to introduce them or at all. Indeed, that is a fact of life, as it has been in defence for many, many years.
We need to consider carefully the resources dedicated to science and technology and research. Exciting plans exist to use the funds that are available for research and development. Noble Lords will be aware of the Towers of Excellence research initiative between the MoD, defence contractors and academia to consider certain crucial research and development plans.
I ought to say that the DSTL, the government-owned science laboratory, has a very high reputation for its outstanding work. The House will know that the old DERA was split in two, and QinetiQ effectively became a private company although the MoD still has a large shareholding in it. I praise the DSTL, which remains in the MoD, very warmly today for the important part that it played in the Iraqi conflict. Much has been made of the so-called computer games that went on at Fort Halstead, but they assisted us to win the battle for Basra in a way that would not have been possible without them. The methods used involved the modern technology and network-enabled capability that we have spoken of in the White Paper.
We all hope for the day when it is possible for the large number of British troops who do such an amazing job in Northern Ireland to come home and conduct normal Army life. However, we are not in that position yet. When we are, they will be very warmly received back into all the functions about which we have talked today.

887
We ought to keep financial difficulties in some kind of perspective. I do not want to say a great deal about them today, save to remind the House of something that I have reminded it of many times-that the spending review of last year represented the largest sustained increase in defence spending plans for 20 years. It added more than £3 billion to defence spending over the three years. Having said that, Defence Secretaries over the years have had to deal with fluctuating financial pressures and to live with their budgets. That happens with all departments of state, and it happens in the Ministry of Defence, too. There has been the complication of managing the impact of operating the resource accounting and budgeting for the first time.
However, I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Vivian, should be too depressed about the position. We have a large equipment programme. We spend a large part of taxpayers' money on our Armed Forces. I know that the view of this House is that that amount of money is well spent.
The noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, asked me to say something about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. He perhaps referred to Dr David Kay's statement of 2nd October. I would like to share with the noble Lord and the House examples of programmes that had been clearly concealed from the United Nations. They included a clandestine network of laboratories and safe houses within the Iraqi intelligence service suitable for chemical and biological weapons research, biological organisms concealed in a scientist's home, research and development on biological warfare-applicable agents and, of course and importantly, UAV and missile-development work that went far beyond the 150-kilometre maximum range permitted by the United Nations, including efforts to procure missile technologies from North Korea with a range of 1,300 kilometres.
The House will pay some attention to the fact that that has been found by the ISG. Those who suggest that Saddam had no WMD programme in Iraq are plainly wrong. However, I do not want to be driven into that field today. The Statement is about the White Paper. We hope that it shows the way forward for the Armed Forces in the years ahead and, as I said, I am very grateful to noble Lords who have spoken in favour of it.
4.14 p.m.
Lord Boyce: My Lords, one main theme of the White Paper promotes the idea that modern technology, such as network-enabled capability, may allow some reduction in the front line. I understand the thrust and convenience of such a line of thinking entirely. Will the Minister provide some reassurance that reductions in our front line will not happen until the technology is in place, or at least that reductions would be managed
888
very sensibly? If he cannot and the front line is raided, how will the ensuing hiatus be managed? Will our Armed Forces be put under still further pressure on the basis of some jam in the distant future?
I also notice that the Statement is long on the high-intensity end of the business, as is quite right and proper, but that is where all the high technology most pertains. However, the Statement is short on the routine day-to-day activities. It talks of a demand for enduring peace support commitments, or multiple small-scale concurrent operations. That is what makes up the significant proportion of our daily business, where the fact that we are actually a force for good comes home.
That is what occupies the vast majority of our Armed Forces' time and keeps them well stretched. How will they sustain such commitments if there are force reductions? For example, our destroyer frigate force is now fully engaged on peacetime tasks. We cannot make our people work harder or, as was already mentioned, endeavour to be in two places at the same time. Shall we see some sort of cut in commitments?
Lord Bach: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble and gallant Lord for his contribution. The House will know the important part that he played during the recent war in Iraq. He speaks with a huge amount of expertise, and I believe that that was his first contribution to such a Statement. Of course we have to be extremely careful in making sure that, when we consider how force structure should be in future, we do not rush to reductions in force numbers to be able to pay for the new types of equipment that we need to bring in. The noble and gallant Lord understands-he said so just now-and supports the notion that we might have to change the sort of equipment that we use to fight modern wars.
Nothing in the proposals as they are today suggests that, for example, there will be any fewer in the Army than there are at present. Some of the scares that have been doing the rounds can be put to rest. Nothing at all here suggests that that will happen. However, that is not an argument against some sort of force structure to meet the new world in which we live.
The noble and gallant Lord was also right in his first point about reductions taking place as we bring in network-enabled capability. We have to handle, plan and manage that with considerable care and skill, and it will not be easy to do. As he knows as well as anyone in the House, finite resources are available for defence, and we have to use what resources we have to the very best of our ability. I shall do my best to reassure him, and go so far as to say that we are extraordinarily conscious of the fact that a huge amount of our country's reputation in the world has been gained by the peacekeeping that we sustain in many places. That is one reason why we are a force for good, if I can use that phrase yet again, and we will not sacrifice that easily.
Lord Jones: My Lords, does my noble friend guarantee the purchase by the department of the heavy-lift A400M aircraft? How many will there be?

889
When might it first fly? Is the refuelling tanker project also guaranteed? Does he accept that, throughout the regions in our country, those projects represent many jobs of high status and high skills?
Lord Bach: My Lords, the number of A400M ordered by the United Kingdom is 25. They are in the process of construction. As I hope that I said when I repeated the Statement, 2011 is the year when we hope that the first one will come into service. The noble Lord can rest assured that we recognise that it is essential that such a tanker programme, whatever form it takes, is begun. As was made clear in an answer in another place today, that decision will not be reached and announced until as early in the new year as is possible.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, are the Government satisfied that there is no nuclear threat? If there is, is our Trident fleet still dedicated to NATO and will NATO be the responsible authority for dealing with any such threat? My second question is about human intelligence. I am glad to see the noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth, in her place, because she and I agree that the secret of what is known as the "war against terrorism" is human intelligence. We have woefully neglected that in the past. Does the Minister agree that that is an important part of our defence mechanism, leaving aside the hardware?
Lord Bach: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his questions. The Government's nuclear deterrence policy remains as it was set out in the 1998 Strategic Defence Review. My noble friend knows that we maintain the minimum level of nuclear weapons required to guarantee a credible deterrent against any potential aggressor. That is provided by our one nuclear weapon system, Trident. There is nothing in the White Paper to suggest that its relationship with NATO, about which he asked, is altered in the slightest. I hope that that gives him some reassurance.
Human intelligence has been discussed across government and widely outside, particularly since those awful events of September 2001 and the acts of terrorism around the world that have taken place since that time. The Ministry of Defence takes its role in that respect extremely seriously, as do the Government as a whole.
Lord Monro of Langholm: My Lords, I have been looking through the excellent document published today, Operations In Iraq, and reading what a wonderful job the services did in that country. On page 78, every unit of the Royal Naval Reserve is mentioned, which is highly commendable. However, when one turns to the Royal Air Force on pages 82 and 83, all the regular units and squadrons are mentioned,
890
but of the Royal Auxiliary Air Force, the document states merely that "personnel were also deployed". Having done so exceptionally well in Iraq, Cyprus and in this country, why have the individual units of the Royal Auxiliary Air Force not been mentioned in the same way as have those of the Royal Air Force?
Lord Bach: My Lords, I must be frank with the noble Lord. I do not know why, but I shall find out and let him know as soon as I possibly can. I thank him very much for his question.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, will the Minister reassure us on the future of the Black Watch, whose recent splendid and gallant achievements in Basra are so much admired by us all?
Lord Bach: My Lords, the noble Baroness is quite right in saying that its achievements in Basra are unsurpassed. We all praise it for that. No announcements of any kind are being made in relation to any part of the Armed Forces beyond what was said in the Statement about the armoured division, the mechanised division and the new light division. Therefore, the noble Baroness should not be too concerned. In making his Statement and answering questions of this kind in another place earlier today, the Secretary of State made it clear that he would be more than happy to meet anyone with a constituency interest in a particular part of the Armed Forces and to discuss the matter with them. The noble Baroness need not be too concerned.
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: My Lords, I did not hear the Minister respond to the question asked by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bryce, on whether there will be some reduction in commitment. Everybody knows that the army is grossly over-stretched and that the times between operational deployments are much shorter than they should be. We heard in the Statement that demands of the Armed Forces will be made at an ever-increasing tempo, but I recall no reference being made to manning. Will the Minister recognise that there is deep anxiety that the Government will continue to exploit the "can do" philosophy that characterises the Armed Forces to an extent that is unfair on them and militates against the security that they can provide?
Lord Bach: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his point. I know that his view is held outside the House as well as inside it. There is no doubt at all that the Armed Forces have had to do a huge amount in the past year and before that too. I should make the position clear about tour intervals, which is one of the issues that comes under the general umbrella of "over-stretch". The figure of 10 months as an expression of tour averages for infantry battalions is correct, but the period to which it referred was from 1st August 2002 to 31st July 2003. That period represented a peak of activity, including not only Operation TELIC, the Iraq war, but Operation Fresco, which, as the noble and learned Lord will

891
know, concerned the fire strikes that were taking place at the same time. A conscious decision was taken to shorten tour intervals to accommodate those operations. However, the average tour interval for the period from 1st January to 31st December 2002 was 22 months. That is not as good as the 24 months that is the aspiration for the gap between tours. The noble and learned Lord is right that the Armed Forces have been worked extremely hard during the past couple of years and have been involved in many different campaigns. We will take care to make sure that the tour gaps do not become too short and that the provisions for members of the Armed Forces and their families are better than they have been in the past. There have been some big improvements in recent years in the way in which the personnel of the Armed Forces are looked after and we will continue them. However, the noble and learned Lord has made a good point and I shall take it back.
Lord Desai: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for repeating the Statement. It seems clear that more software than hardware will be used in future wars and that the hardware will be very different. What concerns me is the training of our Armed Forces. Will my noble friend assure me that the training will keep pace-indeed, more than keep pace-with the changing nature of warfare and of the equipment that soldiers have to handle?
Lord Bach: Yes, my Lords, I can give my noble friend that undertaking. Training is absolutely critical to the new type of network-enabled capability equipment that we are seeking to introduce. Training has never been more important. As my noble friend will know, the Ministry of Defence spends a lot of time working out how best to train our Armed Forces, both for what they do now and for what they are likely to have to do in the future.
The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, among the forces for good that the Minister mentioned, I am sure that he would include the special forces and the provincial reconstruction teams that we have in Afghanistan. They are some of our most able troops. However, can he explain why those are still so few in number compared with those in southern Iraq? Why do the Secretary-General of NATO and the Foreign Office have a campaign to increase the numbers coming from Europe within NATO?
Lord Bach: My Lords, the noble Earl will know I will not say anything about special forces. It would be quite inappropriate for me to do so. As for Afghanistan, I will take that point back and write to the noble Earl. It is important to remember the huge amount of work that British Armed Forces have done in Afghanistan and the crucial role they played in setting up ISAF, when that force was absolutely necessary. I shall take back his point and write to him.
Lord Freeman: My Lords, the Minister made some very complimentary remarks about the reserve forces which will be much appreciated by them. However, would he and his colleagues in the Ministry of Defence reflect possibly on the need to lengthen the minimum time interval between compulsory mobilisation of reservists? Otherwise, we may see overstretch coming not only from the regular forces but to our reservists as well.
Lord Bach: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his question and his interest in the reserve forces. The reserve forces now play an absolutely critical role in the Armed Forces and everything that they do. The lesson from Operation TELIC-the 7,500 reservists who have already been mobilised for Iraq-is that they continue to play an absolutely key part in ongoing operations in Iraq. They also play the part of sometimes freeing up regulars, so that those regulars can perform the roles for which they have also been trained. We very much realise, perhaps more than ever before, the integral part that they play in our Armed Forces.
We also recognise that there have been some difficulties with financial assistance to the reserves and know that that requires attention. Reservists have also occasionally experienced difficulties with their employers as a consequence of being called up. The noble Lord's point was perhaps a linked one-that they should have longer before being compelled to take part. I shall look to see whether that is not already part of the studies we are doing on the lessons to be learned from the use of reserves in Iraq.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, the Statement says that the IGC is an opportunity to strengthen European capabilities. What exactly does that mean so far as British forces are concerned?
Lord Bach: My Lords, the capabilities which the British forces provide, particularly to NATO and of course under the ESDP, are of the highest order and compare very well. Our concern-it has also been a very big American concern over many years-is that some of our close friends and allies in Europe have not always been as willing to provide the capabilities needed for our common defence-as NATO makes clear they must be-as they might have been. I exclude from that the French, not in terms of friendship but in terms of any weakness in capability. We have tried in various ways over previous years to encourage those friends and allies perhaps to provide more and higher quality capabilities to our defence. I do not think that, at present, there are many lessons for the British to learn, because I think we have been generous in this field.
We want the countries of Europe to be able to provide the capabilities-sometimes small niche capabilities-that are of great value in facing the problems which we all face today: the unexpected violence that may occur at any time. I think that that is what the conference is trying to achieve.

Energy Bill [H.L.]
Second Reading debate resumed.
4.34 p.m.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, this is indeed a fascinating debate to take part in, and I agree with practically everything that has been said so far. The exception is the most helpful and important contribution from the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley. We may not agree with all his points, but we are certainly interested in them. I think that most noble Lords recognise that energy is a matter of Byzantine complexity. All noble Lords will be grateful to outside organisations for their briefings, which will inform our debates over the next few weeks. The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, will be pleased to hear that I found the Greenpeace presentation very interesting.
I agree with my noble friend Lady Miller. It is quite bizarre not to have the DTI Science Minister, Lord Sainsbury, involved in the Bill. My own interest in it stems directly from my interest in science and technology.
The Government have four main objectives in their White Paper, which seeks to move us towards a low-carbon economy. Unfortunately, all the objectives cannot easily be met at the same time and balances have to be struck. However, the most critical objective is the security of supplies in both the short term and the longer term-the "need to keep the lights on", to quote the jargon.
Many noble Lords have vigorously expressed their concerns about the future major reliance on gas for 75 per cent of our primary power for both electricity generation and direct heating applications at home and in industry. It will be a real challenge to balance the need to let the market work with the duty of government and regulators to ensure diversity of supply. There is much good in the Government's policy, and many of the Bill's provisions are desirable. As I said, however, there are balances to be struck. The Minister will have to convince us that he has got it right.
As many of your Lordships have noted, renewables are not the whole answer. Most have already touched on the need for new nuclear build, a point which has resonated round the Chamber positively during recent Question Times. Many serious commentators say that new build will eventually be necessary if we are to meet our carbon targets. Perhaps we can cease using hydrocarbon fuels for transport and utilise electricity instead.
We could certainly see a large increase in demand for electricity despite the Government's commendable energy-saving efforts. Some observers are surprised that the Government keep the Magnox power stations running despite their marginal profitability. Could it possibly be due to their desire to maintain that 6 per cent of our electricity portfolio from Magnox which is totally carbon-free?
Neither the public nor politicians will support any new build until the problem of nuclear waste has been solved. The Science and Technology Committee of
894
your Lordships' House published an excellent report on the management of nuclear waste on 10th March 1999. I strongly advise your Lordships to read it. I have to say that the Government's response to the report and their attitude to the issue are extremely disappointing.
In answer to one of my supplementary questions, the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, suggested that because the half-life of some of the material is measured in tens of thousands of years, it is not necessary to be in a hurry. I agree that it is not a matter to be rushed. However, we must do something a little more impressive than appoint a committee with instructions not to report back for two years. Unfortunately, the chair has reported back after chairing her first meeting, but only to resign. I wonder why. I do not agree with my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding. The Government have not put this issue into the long grass; they have put it into a deep geological depository.
We cannot undo nuclear waste; it is very nasty stuff, and it exists as part of our nuclear legacy. As an elected hereditary Peer, I accept some responsibility, as my grandfather-the first Earl Attlee-started our nuclear weapons programme. Later, we ran a civil programme alongside a military one, but I doubt that decommissioning costs or difficulties were ever fully considered or even planned for. One wonders whether the decommissioning difficulties of the prototype fast reactor at Dounreay were ever properly considered. However, we cannot shirk our very onerous responsibilities to future generations just because we inherited them from someone else.
If we do go for new build, it will not produce much more waste but we shall have to ensure that the decommissioning and waste is fully considered and costed. Public confidence would be much enhanced if a suitable repository were already in operation- perhaps with capacity already earmarked for each new development. It could be desirable to have a segregated fund to cover decommissioning and waste management costs, as suggested by the noble Lord. Lord Beaumont.
The Select Committee report was published in 1999 but the events of 9/11 added a new dimension. A repeat, similar asymmetric attack is still a possibility. There appears to be no limit to the destruction that could be inflicted by a terrorist attack. I do not believe that, in those circumstances, any intermediate or high-level waste should be left on the surface unnecessarily. By that, I mean without good technical reason.
It is hoped that further precautions are being taken, but we do not expect the Minister to give away any details. However, we believe that a Minister of homeland security should have oversight of this matter, together with ministerial responsibility for the civil nuclear police, as mentioned by my noble friend Lady Miller.
There is another pressing reason for making progress. In relation to nuclear waste, 2,000 years is short-terra. In that time, a breakdown in society and civilisation is possible-perhaps even likely-possibly because the rate

895
of development would become unsustainable. That is partly why we are changing our energy and sustainable development policies. However, what would happen in the event of a rapid-onset societal breakdown, possibly caused by a biological disaster, with a very low survival rate? Who would then look after what we have left on the surface at Sellafield? Who would rebuild those tanks every 50 years?
The Select Committee considered several options for disposal but rejected all but two, which were to keep geological repositories or indefinite storage on or near the surface. The options discarded were: placing the waste on the bed of the deep ocean; emplacement on the sediments of the deep ocean; emplacement in the rock beneath the deep ocean; emplacement in deep-ocean subduction zones, where one section of the earth's crust is moving over another, resulting in the waste moving towards the centre of the earth; placing the waste in the Antarctic ice sheets; or, ejection into space, as recently suggested by a noble Lord at Question Time.
All those options carry very serious difficulties and, quite properly, most have been prohibited by international treaty. They also make access practically impossible. The report euphemistically described as "other options": partitioning; nuclear transmutation, which is not feasible for intermediate waste or existing high-level waste; and, finally, Synroc-an interesting suggestion from the noble Earl, Lord Shannon.
I shall not weary your Lordships with a detailed description of what is meant by a "deep geological repository" because it is unnecessarily technical for the purposes of this debate and not yet fully determined. However, it would be phased as some waste must be accessed for inspection from time to time before being finally sealed. It would be deep-at least 400 or 500 metres-in order to be proof against the next ice age. Who says that politicians cannot think a long way ahead? Some suggest that the repository could even be kilometres deep. I would support that if it were technically sound and even if it were only a slightly superior solution.
I recently asked the Minister what option, other than a deep geological repository, was remotely feasible. He gave me some high-quality waffle but did not really answer the question. Therefore, my first question is: what is remotely viable other than a deep geological repository? My second question is: what is the difference between CoRWM and the previous Radioactive Waste Management Committee? Has the latter been disbanded?
Therefore, what is to be done? The Select Committee report is very helpful because, in pointing the way ahead, it stresses the need for public engagement, education and understanding. It is obviously an extremely sensitive issue for all stakeholders. I take on board the point made by my noble friend Lord Jenkin that the previous administration tried to do something, and it is unfortunate that the relevant inquiry exceeded its terms of reference. This is not a policy that can be steamrollered through, and the work involved will outlive several changes of government.
896
I believe that we in Parliament need to agree on a cross-party basis which option to go for. That is not difficult as I believe that there is only one viable option, but it is a good one. Then, time and money need to be spent on public education so that there is a far greater understanding of the issues. The public would not be easily convinced if, 10 years later, a solution became essential because of the pressing need for new nuclear build.
A three to six month campaign wou'd be totally inadequate and even counter-productive. It may require TV advertising at public expense-but not after midnight-overseen by an independent committee for objectivity. It may be necessary to consider compensation, not as a bribe, which would be covert and sinister, but as something transparent and accountable. Doing nothing about nuclear waste, or stalling, is not an option. It would be unforgivable to inflict a nuclear environmental disaster on society- whether this or a future one. We certainly cannot leave it until new nuclear build becomes imperative.
4.46 p.m.
Lord Lea of Crondall: My Lords, despite having views on nuclear, renewables and energy security which are not dissimilar from those of speakers such as the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, I approach the Bill in a far more positive spirit than have many noble Lords who have spoken. I want to give my reasons for what I have just said.
I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, asked what was in the Bill to keep the nuclear option open. I sympathise with that view. However, in a way that I may be able to put my finger on, I believe that the Bill represents a step forward. Perhaps the one element that is helpful in that pro-nuclear direction-if that is where noble Lords are coming from-is the role of the NDA in building up a new independent credibility in relation to all the big questions which are at the heart of the subconscious, as well as the conscious, concern about nuclear in all its aspects.
The people who must ultimately feel comfortable with nuclear must be brought round if it is to go ahead. A commission that can build up its credibility as having independent judgment on the nuclear issue can, indirectly, provide the best kind of education because it is getting on with the job. That is its expertise and that provides its central credibility. As I understand it, however the lines of demarcation are formally designed, it will become very much involved with issues of depositories, as referred to by the noble Earl, Lord Attlee.
I believe it is no accident-this is the wider, positive point-that the whole issue of nuclear has started up again in a big way. Today's debate is an excellent example of that. That may be because we have been asking questions about wind turbines. Those have become a hot issue, as has energy security, with reflections on the proportion of energy that will be derived from the Arab world, Russia or central Asia. But I believe that there is a sense in which the nuclear debate is back on the agenda.

897
I was involved to some extent with that issue and with the problem of public explanation. In the late 1980s, I led trade union missions to both Chernobyl and Three Mile Island. I believe that only now can we put those accidents into any kind of proper context in terms of scale compared, for example-I consider this to be an interesting comparison-with 9/11.
No doubt he will correct me if I am wrong but I think that the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, referred to a terrorist attack on somewhere such as Sizewell, for example. He said that there is no limit to the impact of the terrorist attack. Frankly, I think that is wrong. It is alarmist and with great respect I think it is wrong. If it is as bad as that-
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. I was particularly concerned about an attack on Sellafield, not on a nuclear power station, but of course there is a risk.
Lord Lea of Crondall: My Lords, let us take Sellafield. Either way, I shall make the point. If it is as bad as that we should shut it down now. But surely we are told without public statements necessarily being made to this effect-the public are entitled to know and have been told something along these lines; perhaps my noble friend will take on board the fact that this point has been raised today-that the worst case scenario from a terrorist attack is not a widespread area covered by high level radioactivity. If that is what is said-I believe that is the position-let us put our cards on the table and say who is right and who is wrong. Let us consider the question and have answers on it.
The £40 billion legacy of nuclear waste-I do not know who invented that figure but that is what is being bandied about-is there whether or not we have new nuclear build. The Bill reflects a new determination to tackle that whole question, not just in the narrow sense of decommissioning but in all that goes with what will be done as part of that so-called £40 billion legacy. Even if we are behind such countries as Finland-I think we are, although strangely enough they were not the pioneers of Windscale, Sellafield, Cap de la Hague and so forth-that is something which they are now exemplars of.
I turn to the relationship of all of that to renewables, wind energy and the very interesting contributions which have been made on that point. Although I am not quite such an enthusiast for wind energy as some commentators-there do not appear to be many enthusiasts in this debate among people with long experience of energy policy-I support the contribution of wind energy. Equally, I am not surprised that renewables-mainly wind energy and hydroelectric which, of course, cannot grow very much-have not been able to reach the target of 3 per cent for this year. We must remind ourselves that wind energy was always meant to be part of a balanced policy. We shall struggle very hard to get 15,000 turbines up and running even by 2020.I shall be corrected if I am wrong but I believe that is the arithmetic. Coincidentally, the target corresponds to the amount of electricity generated by nuclear at
898
present. That is not to say that the whole of nuclear would be shut down in that scenario. It just so happens that that is the amount of electricity involved.
However, against that background it would not make a net addition to the CO2 target. I think that some people may be confusing the CO2 target with the renewables target. If wind power is swapped for nuclear power there would be no addition to the CO2 target. I have often thought that the nomenclature for nuclear could be widened to embrace it as being one of the renewables. In effect, we are not short of uranium; there is plenty around, and it should fall into the same category. There has also to be considered the financial arrangements for taxes, levies and subsidies to meet Kyoto targets which are not, on the face of it, on a level playing field at present so far as concerns nuclear and other forms of non-fossil fuels.
My concern is not only that we should not make a big programme of renewables; there have to be some in places which are visible. I am not one of those who squeal at this. This is not a nimby issue but we must be careful that we do not allow ourselves to get into a position where there is a danger of wind farms being oversold.
In some respects in meeting these targets we are on a down escalator going up. It is highly commendable that the Government are taking the issue of renewables as seriously as they are. However, that leads to the equally strong commitment to considering very soon the timescale and wherewithal of moving towards a nuclear build programme, which arises from this debate, not least because of the question of energy security in its broader sense.
This issue has become prominent in the weeks and months since the publication of the White Paper in February. Now that we have reached December, I believe the mood of the country is much more one of concern than it was in February. Whether we think of Russia, central Asia or the Arab states, when we reflect on the position in the North Sea and the percentages that are being talked of in the medium term, people are a little worried, not about the lights going off just like that but about the general negotiating leverage that we shall find ourselves at the wrong end of.
Perhaps the Minister can confirm an interesting point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Gray, who referred to a report, which I thought was very well done, from the Trade Unionists for Safe Nuclear Energy (TUSNE) on the costs of nuclear being below the cost of renewables. If we all sat here for the whole of the weekend we would not agree on this or on any other question of how one compares apples with apples in the energy debate. My view is along the lines that taking the total cost economics of externalities, nuclear comes out pretty well. Perhaps my noble friend can comment on the fact that we are not apologising for nuclear as being a very uneconomic form of energy. That does not need to be thrown into the balance because of energy security. It will make a major contribution in the medium term only if the economics work out. I think the French have made the economics work out and I have no reason to think that they do

899
not work out, but the question of how one does the arithmetic is debatable. Again, a little more arithmetic in due course from the Government on the contrasting subsidy regimes is necessary if we are to have an adult debate. I have not read all the documents on this subject and may have missed this, but I do not think it is easy to pick up that point directly at present.
Finally, all forms of energy require a great deal of engineering and that is an area where public education- I include education in schools-has gone wrong. I go into schools from time to time. In them there seems to be a kind of engineering free world. There are nice pictures on the walls. Everything is green-with respect to the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont.
I am very much in favour of sustainable development. I was part of the government delegation to Rio de Janeiro in 1992. We have always stood very much for sustainable development. But this naï ve and facile greenery, this world with almost no engineering, is not a real world. It is not a proper part of public education. We must put that right in the schools. There are many things going on in schools, but I do not think that we have that right at the present time.
If the situation in the schools means that there is no future for this kind of industry, what will happen to the present stock of skills? A very distinguished member of the industry put the point only the other day. She said:
"The nuclear industry so far as its future possibilities of development in this country are concerned, is all in the brains"-
and she pointed at her head-
"of those approaching retirement".
I thought that that was a powerful way of looking at the matter.
I turn to the question raised about Defra versus the DTI. The Bill will be introduced by my noble friend in this House. Some Bills must begin in this House if we are to make some attempt to deal with the congestion at the end of the Session. I do not think there is a real point here. Twenty years ago the noble Lord, Lord Heseltine, I seem to remember, was Secretary of State for the Environment and had some responsibilities on the matter. This issue has been handled in Whitehall in different places and at different times. Am I not right that the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, was Secretary of State at the time of the three-day week, and that he gave us some advice with a homely touch about dealing with shortages of supply at home at that time? It was then the Department of Energy. So the issue can be dealt with in different ways.
I was a member of the Energy Commission in the late 1970s. I think that had some crosscutting advantages, but it was shut down under the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, quicker than one could say, "TUC go back to Moscow". Ever since it has not been flavour of the month in Whitehall.
All noble Lords have moved some way from the content of the Bill, but this is an opportune moment for everyone to put these wider considerations into the arena. I very much look forward to my noble friend's response.
5.2 p.m.
Lord Chorley: My Lords, I shall try and be a little briefer. I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, who best summed up the Bill. He said that it should be re-titled the "Energy (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill". It is, as he said, a Bill of missed opportunities which, as I think almost every speaker has said, has little to do with the real energy supply issues that we shall face in the years ahead as we shut down not only our nuclear power stations but our expertise and rely increasingly on wind power and energy from abroad. I emphasise that in this sector the lead times for decisions to be effective are long-10 to 20 years.
I do not wish to go over all the ground again, either on nuclear or wind power. I simply find incredible-indeed, alarming-the seeming faith that the Government have in wind power. It is a hugely expensive, inefficient and unreliable source of energy. Some of the facts and figures quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Christopher, who I see is not in his place at the moment-
Lord Lea of Crondall: Yes, he is.
Lord Chorley: I apologise.
Lord Christopher: They seek him here; they seek him there.
Lord Chorley: My Lords, I was about to say that his was an outstanding contribution to this debate from someone who clearly knows what he is talking about, as was the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding. They confirm and amplify that the Government are going for wind hell for leather and regardless of the economics. They are appeasing the anti-nuclear lobby while seriously worrying the older and more traditional environmentalists.
One of our concerns is the proposal to chip away at long-established planning arrangements. Last week, when we debated the gracious Speech, I referred to the proposed changes in the draft PPS22, which will replace PPG22. In a number of respects, that significantly weakens the national park and AONB protection. The noble Lord, Lord Bridges, touched on that today. I shall not repeat myself.
I want to consider another aspect of the planning arrangements, which is tucked away almost at the end of the Bill. I refer to Clause 150. The admirably succinct overview of the Explanatory Notes says that this clause is to,
"reform the planning system for large energy projects handled by the DTI to enable the appointment of additional inspectors to speed up public inquiries".
Rather more detail is given later in paragraphs 370 to 373. Reference is made to the need to consider the issues at public inquiries concurrently, rather than sequentially and to the fact that that might be the approach adopted for large power stations-by that I assume they mean those over 50 megawatts capacity- and overhead lines. I assume that that means the grid and so on.

901
I want to ask the Minister today what all that will mean in practice and whether we should look for some form of safeguard to protect people with legitimate concerns about landscape and planning issues. When there is all this pressure, there is a tendency to get out the bulldozer to override legitimate objections. For example, would, contrariwise, Clause 150 be helpful in dealing with a scenario-I think that it is a real possibility-that I raised last week? I shall paraphrase it, but the detail is in Hansard for 4th December. I said that there were many applications for wind farms in Cumbria and that no doubt there might be many more. Each is likely to be fiercely fought over by the locals. Last week, I said:
"It seems absurd to hold perhaps a dozen-or maybe more- public inquiries, in many instances in overlapping areas. Surely, there must be a better way forward. Would it not be fairer and more sensible to establish a reasonable amount of wind farm energy to come from Cumbria outside the national park and its buffer zones and then to settle the individual sizes and locations by a single inquiry?".-[Official Report, 4/12/03; col. 462.]
Having dozens of inquiries overlapping; each other would be extremely expensive and inefficient.
I can best summarise my concerns in the form of four short questions. First, does Clause 150 have any relevance to the kind of scenario that I have just postulated? If so, how? Secondly, how in the circumstances of wind farms is a major power station defined; ie geographically? Thirdly, how in practice would power lines be dealt with? We know that we have to rebuild the National Grid to accommodate the new geographical sources of power and that that will cost at least £1 billion. Fourthly, how would the arrangements ensure that the relevant third parties- the public or those with a legitimate interest-are put on an equitable footing in the case of concurrent inquiries or indeed concurrent sessions of inquiries? There may of course be many other questions that will emerge.
I am not seeking an answer to those points today from the Minister. He has enough to do. Indeed, it would seem to me to be much more practical and productive in the first instance to discuss the points around a table. That would seem to be a rather more useful way than jumping straight in with probing amendments in Committee.
5.9 p.m.
Lord Maclennan of Rogart: My Lords, understandably, much of today's debate has focused on what is not in the Bill. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, may regard my intervention as something of a relief, in that it will focus almost exclusively on what is in the Bill. I have two particular concerns, both of which fall under Chapters 1 and 2, dealing with the establishment of the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority and the powers given therein to the Secretary of State to make transfer schemes to change the management of nuclear licensed sites.
I am fearful of the impact of those arrangements on existing decommissioning programmes, which are currently being undertaken successfully by the United
902
Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority, which, as a non-departmental body, would be required to become a contractor required to bid case by case in any future competition for the management of its sites.
As noble Lords will know, the authority has responsibility for Dounreay, Windscale, Risley, Calham, Harwell and Winfrith. Dounreay, which pioneered development of the fast reactor technology, is now carrying out decommissioning and environmental restoration of the site. Windscale has two major decommissioning projects demonstrating to the world that such a facility can be safely dismantled to plan using existing technology.
At Risley, the site has been restored and developed. At Harwell, formerly the centre of the UK's civil nuclear research programme, decommissioning and environmental restoration is at an advanced stage. At Winfrith, many of the nuclear facilities-including six reactors-have been removed and the site is being transformed into a highly successful business park. In 2002, Brian Wilson, the then Minister, celebrated the de-licensing there as the largest area of land to be removed from nuclear site restrictions in the United Kingdom, which is the ultimate target for all decommissioning. Fusion continues at Culham, but even there, attention is being given to the ultimate decommissioning of the site.
I do not suggest that the UKAEA has been faultless in discharging its roles. It made mistakes and was rightly criticised more than five years ago for poor safety and management standards caused by over-reliance on contractorisation. Since then, its recovery has been impressive-as I am sure that the Minister will agree-and lessons truly learnt, as the regulators have confirmed.
Accordingly, UKAEA is able to bring a wealth of experience to decommissioning. It has been instrumental in developing a project and contractor relationship where the work is directed by the authority but carried out by private sector companies in a strict regime of competition. The founding principle of that approach has been the policy of separating planning and programme management from implementation.
Under that approach, the long-term management of the sites has remained the responsibility of a public body, while the involvement of the private sector in implementation has been maximised by competitive procurement. More than 70 per cent of that work is now external-mainly through independent contractors appointed by competitive tender.
In 2001, the Department of Trade and Industry undertook a major review of the UKAEA's performance. The review recognised the progress that it had made since 1996 and commended that performance, including work done to recover from serious criticism of safety standards at Dounreay.
However, it appears that the creation of the proposed Nuclear Decommissioning Authority stemmed not from that experience but from financial problems in BNFL which emerged two years ago. The NDA will be a non-departmental public body with a mission of nuclear site

903
clean-up. However, the UKAEA is such a body already doing that job on those sites. As a consequence, there is a danger of creating a parallel hierarchy. The requirement on the UKAEA to create capability where the organisation bids on a site-by-site basis could produce major disruption, which I doubt could be seen to be in the public interest.
The new arrangements must raise some questions about whether the UKAEA has a long-term future at all. A decision to put management of a site to competition, currently managed by the authority, would almost certainly require the break-up of the UKAEA into a number of site licensee companies and, given its small size, the loss of one of those sites would make its clean-up role at the remaining sites difficult to sustain. That would be especially true for Dounreay- by far the biggest site and increasingly the centre of the authority's engineering and technical expertise.
Also, if the authority is obliged to bid, its status as an NDPB is bound to cause restrictions on it that would not apply to other bidders in the private sector, so it would not be competing on an entirely equal basis. There are a number of possible solutions. I agree that it would not be appropriate for the Minister to address those detailed questions in today's Second Reading debate. In a sense, they are thoughts that my successor as Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross, John Thurso, would have wanted to raise had the Bill begun in another place. None the less, I think that it is helpful to raise a range of possible approaches that should be considered before the Bill concludes its passage through this House.
The White Paper, Managing the Nuclear Legacy-A Strategy for Action, which the Bill is intended to implement, stated that the Government do not intend to change the ownership of the sites unless and until there is a need to do so on the basis of UKAEA's performance. It offered the authority the opportunity to demonstrate that it should be the supplier of choice for the NDA. However, there is no reference to that in the Bill, which gives rise to concern. If that remains the Government's policy, the position could be clarified by adding a new subsection to Clause 9 confirming that that policy remains.
Alternatively, the power to make nuclear transfer schemes for UKAEA sites in Clause 35 could be qualified to reflect the fact that a change in site management would be triggered only by a failure to deliver set standards of performance. Taking that argument further, the UKAEA could be allowed to get on with the job that it has started so well without having to devote its scarce resources to accounting for every move to the new authority, which can hardly be an efficient use of public money. I do not believe that that was the result envisaged in the White Paper or the Bill, but it requires more consideration.
Indeed, it is reasonable to ask whether the UKAEA should be written out of the Bill altogether. It may be left open to the Government at some stage in future to consider including the UKAEA-the Secretary of State could be empowered to bring that back as a matter for Parliament to consider. That would at least
904
provide a reasonable degree of certainty and ability to plan for the future for UKAEA, which the Bill makes more difficult.
Although its apparent intention remains to award the first contract to the UKAEA, the duration of those initial contracts is yet to be determined and to be subject to approval by Ministers. I propose that the concept could be pushed a little further.
There is a wider principle, which might simply be a matter of clarification, regarding the principle duties of the NDA, as set out in Clause 9(1). They include the protection of the environment, public health and safety and nuclear security. However, they do not include the need to support fragile local economics, which depend heavily on nuclear sites for employment and business opportunity. However, Clause 10(2)(c) gives the NDA powers to make grants or loans in support of local communities. I put it to the Minister that a sub-paragraph should be added to Clause 9(1) emphasising the importance of protecting the social and economic life of local communities.
In setting up the two sites, not least that at Dounreay, their impact on the economic and social lives of local communities was certainly considered. It was thought desirable to locate the sites as far as possible from concentrations of population, with massive impact on the area. That was all considered a great deal-no doubt by the government led by the noble Earl's grandfather, whom he mentioned. At this time, that should be made explicit again. The Minister has made explicit the Government's concerns about Cumbria in the Sellafield context; similarly, he could make explicit their concerns about the other areas, not least Dounreay, the biggest UKAEA site.
My final point relates to Clause 10(2)(g), which empowers the NDA to delegate the maintenance of a pension scheme to the UKAEA. That is a sensible, desirable proposal. Is it possible to go a little further by indicating that, although it is not provided in the Bill, it is the Government's wish that the NDA consider delegating the management of its pension scheme, or the scheme that it is empowered to create, to the office in Thurso? That office has done extraordinarily good work for the authority and other public agencies. I wish to be assured that the Government would prefer that the Thurso office be given that opportunity to manage pension schemes for the NDA staff and any new arrangements that might replace the current UKAEA scheme.
I thank noble Lords for considering those issues, which, in the wider scheme of the debate, may have a more local focus than earlier contributions.
5.24 p.m.
Lord Monro of Langholm: My Lords, much in the Bill is good, but it has had such a cool reception from the House generally because it leaves out the important issues of policy relative to the mid-term supply of electricity to this country. The Nuclear Decommissioning Authority is a worthy project, and I

905
look forward to seeing it work at my own nuclear power station-so to speak-at Chapelcross in the years ahead.
Chapelcross, which is two miles from my home-I have never been afraid of nuclear energy-was announced in 1955, since when it has worked tremendously efficiently. I have given it unstinting support in Parliament and, with the noble Lord, Lord Christopher, done everything possible to extend its life past what it was originally designed for. BNFL and its chairman have been successful in continuing for much longer than we ever thought possible. Chapelcross is reaching the end of its life and will be a candidate for the NDA. That will spread over many years and will provide some form of employment during that time. I wish to put on record the fine work and many achievements, including the exceptional safety standards of the workforce, in that plant over nearly 50 years. Production has been highly efficient, and the plant has had tremendous involvement in the community and played a full part in that area of the south-west of Scotland.
That licensed nuclear site employs 450 skilled workers, yet its days as a nuclear operation are to end. Do the Government not anticipate any further development on such a nuclear site? Are they throwing away the chance to have a nuclear plant in place by 2020, which we will need desperately, and, at the same time, retaining the excellent 450 workers who have done so much over such a long time?
The Minister said that resources would be provided at Sellafield to help regenerate the area when redundancies took place-the noble Lord, Lord Maclennan, mentioned that also. Does that apply also to other Magnox plants due for decommissioning in the not-too-distant future?
The Government's White Paper and their presumed energy policy was a disappointment, with most of the policies sitting on fences that were crumbling underneath them. Inevitably, in 20 years' time, when nuclear production is almost finished, we shall be short of power. In autumn, I was in the United States during the two crises. The first spread from Canada to New York and blacked out the whole area, and shortly afterwards, in Maryland, a hurricane, which I thought was no more than a good gale, put the electricity supply out of action for eight days. My relatives and I sat in the dark, without air-conditioning, light or refrigeration for eight days while they tried to sort out the electricity supply problem. If that can happen in a high-tech country such as the United States, particularly on the eastern seaboard, what on earth could happen here? We do not seem to be planning for what could happen in the years ahead.
Why is it so important? The Government seem to be afraid of nuclear power and of their own Members of Parliament who dislike it. We are throwing away an asset, with wonderful manpower, tremendous technology and experience. I hope that the Government will reconsider their position on nuclear power and providing more of it by 2020.
906
In October 1996, I initiated a debate in another place on wind farms and telecommunication towers. Telecommunication towers have continued to develop and are located on almost every area of high ground in the United Kingdom. The practice has been a disgrace since the start; planning was far too liberal and impossible to understand. You cannot put a flagpole with a Union Jack at the end of your garden, but you can put a tower on top of a hill and nobody could care less. Years ago, we talked about the march of the conifers that was destroying our countryside. Now we talk about the march of the turbines. We really must consider whether we are going to put up with all these wind farms, and at the same time do away with nuclear power. We can develop wave power, which is unlikely to be significant, and tidal power, which was considered earlier on in terms of the Solway barrage and the Morecombe barrage. They proved to be impracticable because we do not have as big a standard tide as in northern France. I would like to see more development of hydropower.
I find it such a paradox that the Minister is developing a new common agricultural policy, decoupling production grants and doing everything to improve the environment and the beauty of the countryside, but his colleagues with responsibility for energy are all set to dot wind farms all over the countryside, ruining what he is trying to improve. That is quite ridiculous, especially when we look at the answer to a Question that the noble Lord, Lord Lea, asked the other day. The Minister said that 10,000 to 15,000 towers, all 250 feet high-which is taller than Big Ben-must be dotted about the United Kingdom in order to provide an amount of electricity equal to that which we will lose by 2020. We need 160 square miles of the United Kingdom for that, which is a huge area. Yet we do not seem to care about what we are doing to the beauty of our country by putting up these wind farms, which produce such a minimal amount of power.
Wind power is inherently unreliable-we are talking about 30 per cent efficiency. The noble Lord, Lord Christopher, told us that efficiency in Denmark was only 25 per cent. I have been to Denmark and seen the wind farms and I am horrified. I have been to Wales, where they are worse. In England, they are disastrous. Now we are ruining Scotland with pylons here there and everywhere. It is particularly infuriating, when all this is saving not one item of the fossil fuel that we will need in 2020 to provide electricity for this country. We have gained nothing on carbon emissions, yet destroyed something irreplaceable in our islands.
The Government seem to have a policy of wind farms at any price. Inquiries come and go. The Government approve every application that is turned down by the planning committee. If planning committees do not like a proposal and there is a deemed refusal for a large wind farm, the Government call it in, give permission and produce a huge subsidy to please the applicant. There was an application for a wind farm in the middle of the Solway Firth, which divides Scotland and England. The Scottish Office

907
called it in and gave approval. There was no inquiry. That is why the nation is getting so fed up with the attitude of the Government, who are steamrollering—if that is the right word—wind farms all over the United Kingdom despite complaints.
Every day in the press there are letters—in the Scotsman and the Glasgow Herald—complaining about wind farms that are developing in Scotland all over the place from the Dornock Firth, which the noble Lord, Lord Maclennan, knows well, and Banff, to my own home of Langholm. Wind farms are going up everywhere and applications are coming in in droves. The towers are all 250 to 300 feet high. One begins to wonder whether we will be decommissioning wind farms in the distant future, never mind decommissioning nuclear plants.
I cannot understand why the Government are so hell-bent. They are keen on national parks, CAP reform and grants for the environment, but ruin all that by putting 250 foot towers here, there and everywhere. Noble Lords should look at the size of Big Ben and think about what 10,000 of those are going to look like dotted about the United Kingdom—or 15,000 if the Minister is correct.
Will the Government think again about what they are doing to our environment? We are not gaining a thing. We are not gaining any green gases from this policy. The whole thing has got out of hand. The previous Minister seemed to be so enthusiastic about wind farms that he could not stop promoting them here, there and everywhere. Let us stop that and think again about our energy policy.
5.35 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, this has been a very interesting debate. One thing is quite clear: the Government must make a decision on whether nuclear power will have any role in the future energy policy for this country. That point was made clearly by my noble friend Lord Ezra at the beginning of this debate and was made by nearly every noble Lord, whether pro-nuclear or not. It is beyond doubt that there is an energy gap that must be filled one way or another. If nuclear generation is to be contemplated, we must see the costs up front. We cannot afford to live with the myth of cheap power only to pick up an annual bill that runs into billions of pounds to deal with the waste.
If we are not to have nuclear generation, the Government must say so. Until the Government make quite clear what the future is and state their decision, renewable energy generation will never receive the investment—or, having heard the tone of some of the debate this afternoon, the serious consideration—that it deserves, or the serious impetus that it needs to fill that energy gap.
The Bill is in two parts. The first part deals with the legacy from the past and the second looks to the future. I agree with noble Lords that we should concentrate on what is left out of the second part rather than what is included. Several noble Lords referred to their
908
disappointment about various parts that are left out of the Bill, whether combined heat and power plants or other forms of renewables.
I shall start with the legacy from the past in the first part of the Bill. We should welcome the Government's commitment to grasp the difficult issue of the nuclear waste legacy. Indeed, I believe that is quite praiseworthy, because it is usually politically expedient to consider the short term at the expense of the long term. That is what has happened as regards nuclear waste over many years.
Although I heard the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, comment that the Bill kicks the issue into the long grass and that the Government want to kick it on further, I do not believe that that is the intention of the Bill. Clearly, it is not my job to defend what the Government intend, but I am happy that they intend to address the issue with some vigour.
There are a number of drivers in this, not least the decommissioning of the Magnox and the complexity of the sites. I live near Hinkley, with which I am quite familiar, where there is a mixed-site use. It has been difficult to deal with the complexity of waste issues with all the various components, including water, sludge, used fuel rods and so forth. There is also the matter of the transportation of various kinds of waste once a decision has been made about where it is to be stored. We cannot continue with the situation that we have, for example, at Hinkley where large amounts of waste are stored with no planning permission nor any long-term plan. The authorities in charge have a difficult job to do when there is no framework against which to do it. I therefore welcome the first part of the Bill.
When nuclear power started out, I believe that it was hailed as clean and so cheap as to be almost free. In reality, it has turned out to be the opposite. Today, we have heard comments that the costs of initially building the plants were cheap. Of course, when compared to the cost of decommissioning and dealing with waste, it certainly was cheap.
I do not believe that the public have been clearly presented with the costs of decommissioning and the clean up. Today, we have heard comments to the effect that it will cost some £50 billion. In Defining the Legacy, the Government are very helpful in the graphs: on page 19 costs are outlined until 2160—that is, not just for our children or our grandchildren's lifetimes, but our great-grandchildren's lifetimes. For 40 years of electricity production, we are now stuck with waste that is difficult and dangerous and for which we must find safe storage. The noble Earl, Lord Atlee, referred very well to some of the issues as regards finding a site where storage might be possible. If my maths is correct—it is quite difficult when the sum is £45 billion, with all those noughts—it costs about £764 for each person in the United Kingdom, which equates to at least £1,507 per household. I have taken only the basic costs.
While the Government are very nice to propose in their new Bill to give £250 per baby born, when the general public work out that the clean up of nuclear waste will cost about £700 per person, they will

909
question whether there is a future for the nuclear industry. I am in no doubt that this money must be spent on the clean up. No one should consider suggesting constructing more nuclear fission plants until we understand whether it is truly economic when so many of the costs are loaded on to the end part of the process.
That is by no means all of the public money that is being spent on the clean up. There are other hidden costs not included in the graph to which I referred. For example, the deal in June 2003, between British Energy-a private company-and BNFL, which restructured the fuel contract effectively transferring a further £230 million to be met by the public purse. We cannot say that dealing with waste will be cheap or easy.
I should like to highlight the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, about what exactly the Government mean by nuclear waste. He raised the issue of separated plutonium-to which I am sure that we shall want to return in Committee-and questioned whether it is to be dealt with as waste or whether some of it could be regarded as fuel, which would give a different feeling about whether there would be new nuclear build in future. One of the main arguments against nuclear has always been economic; that has not changed. We are just now picking up the true bill.
I turn now to the other part of the Energy Bill, which deals in a limited and disappointing way with the important issue of renewable energy. Noble Lords today have tended to imply that wind power is the only form of renewable energy that needs consideration. That may be partly because the second part of the Bill deals with offshore wind farms. Therefore, although a great number of the comments about onshore wind farms are important and need to be considered, they do not need to be so much of a consideration in this part of the Bill.
However, what I should really like the Minister to comment on is how much emphasis the Government place on tidal and wave power projects when they talk about power from offshore sources. For example, the Severn Estuary boasts the fourth largest tidal ebb and flow in the world. That is a tremendous resource. I am aware of several experiments presently under way such as those off the coast at Swansea, Lynton and Lynmouth, which could lead to some exciting innovations. When noble Lords talk about developing technologies for the future, it is important to think of innovation in those kinds of areas. We do not have to look back to the nuclear industry when considering what might be done in the future. The experiments I have just described, once they have been concluded, deserve to be well resourced.
There are many more productive ways of addressing the issues around climate change, for example, than simply emissions trading. At the start of the debate the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, said that we could be a world leader, pointing the way for others. I believe that in the new technologies surrounding wind and wave power, we should aim to do exactly that. So I am disappointed that the renewables part of the Bill is so restricted.
910
Offshore sources of power are rightly attractive For example, tidal power is constant and reliable. Noble Lords have made much of the fact that the wind may or may not blow, and solar power can be criticised because the sun may or may not shine. However, solar power sources continue to operate even when the sun does not appear to be shining through the clouds. But tidal power certainly is constant and is a source of energy on which we should concentrate far more.
I am disappointed that this part of the Bill does not encourage communities and individual householders to think much more about the production of renewable energy. One of the difficulties in this area is that communities will readily object to wind turbines unless they are closely linked to their community, as is the case in Swaffham in Norfolk, where the town itself benefits from the turbine it has built. I think that the Government are aware of other good examples, such as those in Leicester and Woking. More emphasis needs to be placed on what communities can do for themselves and the benefits they can derive from their efforts.
I turn to individual households and combined heat and power micro units. It is very disappointing that the Bill makes no mention of these. By the end of 2004, such units will be available for individuals to buy and use within their own households. As they produce heat, electricity will be generated for free. However, if they produce any extra electricity, then the mechanism to send that surplus back to the grid is not in place. No guidance has been produced for how to have such a meter installed and there is really no incentive to convert to that system. This is the kind of issue to which 1 want to return at greater length.
The Bill should set a framework within which connections of that kind can be made in a straightforward manner. It should also ensure that all possible assistance is given to individuals to enable them to help themselves, whether with small wind units on their roofs or solar-powered combined heat and power units. They should be able to access, if you like, a one-stop energy shop. We do not see an imaginative approach of that kind taken in this Bill.
Finally, I am worried that the renewable energy zones at sea have been produced by the Government in the absence of a marine Act. The marine environment still does not benefit from any kind of protective planning framework-it is an entirely unprotected zone. Indeed, I do not think that the Bill complies with the spirit of the Environment Protection Act 1990 which requires that the environment should be protected. The marine environment should be no exception. We shall want to raise several issues around the use of marine areas.
So while I welcome the Bill because it provides an opportunity for discussion, in particular around what more we could do about renewable sources of energy, I believe that we will have to spend quite some time- and, may I say, energy-in Committee on a whole range of improvements.
5.49 p.m.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, before I wind up at the end of this excellent debate on Second Reading, perhaps I may begin by congratulating my noble friend Lady Miller of Hendon on her excellent response to the Minister's presentation of the Bill. My noble friend pointed out that she has not had the pleasure of working opposite the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, while taking a Bill through the House. I think that this will be my seventh occasion working opposite him-so we have a long history. I assure him that she is tenacious and I know that she will prove a formidable opponent.
I promise the Minister that there are things in the Bill that we on this side support and are pleased to see. But as other noble Lords around the Chamber have reflected, there is much that is missing from the Bill. It has received a cool reception; I think that most people have acknowledged that there is some good in it, but that there is a lot more to be done in Committee.
My noble friend highlighted two issues that I want to mention at this stage. One is the position of the reversal of the burden of proof-something I raise every time we discuss a Bill, as the noble Lord will know. The other is the huge, undefined Henry VIII powers. In paragraph 4 of the second report of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, the committee acknowledges that there are Henry VIII powers in the Bill but says that it considers them to be appropriate. But I suspect that we shall need to look at this in greater detail in Committee.
These powers do not appear in the Bill just once-they are in Clauses 24, 32, 72, 142 and 155. They are in paragraphs 5(4) and 6(5) of Schedule 7, paragraph 8(7) of Schedule 10, paragraph 21 of Schedule 19, paragraphs 32 and 45 of Schedule 20 and paragraph 14 of Schedule 22. So it is not just an isolated incident.
We are facing a rising demand for electricity and steadily lessening production capacity. Last December's peak demand of 54,800 megawatts was satisfied from a notional capacity of 65,000 megawatts. Already that capacity has fallen below 60,000. Some 32 per cent is generated from coal and 23 per cent from nuclear power. By 2016, it is possible that there will be no coal-fired stations left, leading to a capacity shortfall of some 20,000 megawatts. Just four years later, there will be only one nuclear plant in operation, yielding a further shortfall of some 10,000 megawatts. In other words, by 2020 half of our current electricity generation facility will have gone.
To make matters still worse, 90 per cent of the gas-powered generation will have to be supplied from overseas-some 21,000 megawatts of capacity. Several noble Lords have mentioned their fear about future security of supply.
Targets have already been set to produce 10 per cent of our energy requirement from renewables by 2010. On 2nd December, a further firm target of 15.4 per cent by 2016 was announced by the Government. They set the targets and the electricity generators pay the fines for not reaching them.
912
Achievement figures are always months behind the calendar, but the current figure of 3 per cent from renewables seems generally accepted. Will the Minister list for us the projects which are going to raise that level to 10 per cent in six years? Will he specifically mention the ones the Government had in mind when they replied to the Commons Science and Technology Committee with an allusion to,
"renewables projects now off the drawing board and into the planning system"?
Will the Minister also state how much energy each will deliver by 2010 as opposed to their rated capacity?
We use petrol and diesel for transport; we use solar cells, diesel, coal and paraffin for heat and power; but, overwhelmingly, we use electricity-for light, for heat, for power and, increasingly, for transport. Tacitly, the Bill recognises that and would in my view be better entitled the electricity generating Bill, although others have topped my interpretation of this.
The Bill contains nothing about demand reduction as one strand of policy to meet the anticipated shortfall. It contains nothing about the possibility of nuclear new build. It contains nothing about the use of waste materials to generate heat and power, and it is also silent on measures to ensure that when one part of a development chain fails the remaining part will be indemnified against loss. Those farmers who sought to make a contribution to the use of renewables by growing miscanthus and willow for the ARBRE project are unlikely to do so in future, because the project failed. The Government should legislate so that never again can a foreign company strip the assets from a renewable generation project.
It is essential and vital that the clean-up of our nuclear industry is done well, and we welcome that part of the Bill. Our knowledge has grown over the years, and the new plant is designed with decommissioning in mind. The early versions were not so prescient, and the problems that they present are many and varied, starting with the alarming fact of inadequate drawings and site plans.
As other noble Lords have said, the NDA will have to hit the ground running in April 2005. It is intriguing to speculate why the Government have chosen to start the legislative procedure in the Lords. I hope that the Minister will answer that question. By doing so, they have reduced the time available for setting up the NDA until after the Second Reading in another place. My noble friends Lord Jenkin and Lady O'Cathain made that point. It is also intriguing to surmise-and no doubt we shall find out in Committee-how the relationship with Scotland will be handled. It would appear that there will have to be a bridge between devolved and central responsibilities.
I am particularly concerned about the need to manage an incipient skills crisis, which is something to which many noble Lords referred. School children are repudiating science in favour of media studies and psychology. Undergraduates and postgraduates are no longer opting for nuclear specialisation. Operating those plants and future plants demands different skills from decommissioning them. Building them is yet

913
another branch of the art. If we do not address the issue, what will we do if, in 10 years' time, the industry is so run down that we cannot attract sufficient staff to run those plants still in operation, never mind destroy those that are out of date?
I turn to specific issues that I should like to highlight and which have been raised around the Chamber. The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, rightly referred to the Bill as the Energy (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, which is better than the term that I used. The Government have wasted an opportunity, as many noble Lords have suggested. My noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith said that he felt that the Bill was a statement of aspiration and a one-sided look at energy needs, not including nuclear nor dealing with other renewables in total. Too much emphasis, as the Minister will have gathered, has been placed on wind-farm production. The noble Lord, Lord Christopher, challenged the figures that the Government are using and predicted that the outputs, even then, will not be sufficient. My noble friend Lady Miller of Hendon said that not including heat and power was a miss for the Bill.
There was a disgraceful situation at the opening of this Second Reading, which was unlike the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, the Minister, who is normally always one step ahead. In his opening remarks, he said that the Government would bring forward an amendment to the Bill, even before my noble friend Lady Miller of Hendon had the chance to respond. We find that totally unsatisfactory. Those noble Lords who have worked on Bills with myself and the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, will know that it is not a new phenomenon. For example, the whole question of fluoridation did not appear in the original Water Bill and had to be added at the end. Those who attended debates on the Countryside and Rights of Way Bill will remember that the fourth section-because it was actually four Bills in one Bill-on areas of outstanding natural beauty was not even published until after the Second Reading in our House, having already been debated in another place. The Government's performance is questionable at best. If one was being cynical, one would say it is absolutely incompetent.
Several noble Lords referred to national security and the safety of supplies. The charge was led by my noble friend Lady Miller, but concerns have been echoed around the Chamber by the noble Lords, Lord Beaumont, Lord Bridges, Lord Christopher and Lord Lea, and by my noble friends Lord Dixon-Smith, Lady O'Cathain and Lord Attlee, to name but a few. The Minister can be in no doubt about the feelings expressed in the Chamber today.
Is the Minister satisfied that, if the Bill goes through as it stands, there will be security of safe supplies in the future and a low risk of acts of terrorism? I do not expect him to answer at this stage my question in regard to terrorism, but it is an issue of huge concern. Certainly ensuring a secure, constant and total supply of power is important.
Several of my noble friends referred to wind farms and I wish to ask the Minister three questions about them. First, by the very nature of the expression,
914
several offshore wind farms will be built in the sea. Will the fishing fleet be banned from such areas? If so, how far from them will the ban extend? Or have the Government not even considered whether there might be a problem? Secondly, the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, referred to wind farms being built on the Continental Shelf. Is EU permission required for that, or can the Government press ahead with it straightaway? Thirdly, as regards navigation rights-a matter touched on by my noble friend Lady Miller-will the restrictions on them run contra to human rights? Do those rights overlap?
As regards wind farms and SSSIs, an issue raised by the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, are the Government concerned that there may well be conflicting circumstances under which, on the one hand, they are trying to preserve, conserve and encourage wildlife in the countryside and, on the other hand, they may well be driving wildlife away from particular areas?
I turn now to yesterday's pre-Budget speech. The Minister will no doubt be aware that the Chancellor declined to increase the subsidy on bioethanol. It had been hoped that such a measure would appear in the Statement. Its absence leaves the industry in limbo. The question therefore arises whether the Government are trying to direct money in one direction-that is, all into wind farms-and are quite happy to accept that other renewables will be unable to survive if they are not pump-primed to get them off the ground and to become viable businesses.
I know that the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, is disappointed that he is unable to take part in the debate. I shall not repeat what my noble friend Lord Monro said about wind farms except to say, "Hear! Hear! Hear!". Many people are very concerned about the growing profusion of wind farms. They are not small structures; they are huge. Certainly my mail bag on this issue is increasing. People are asking whether there is nothing we can do to stop this. Ultimately, these structures will produce only a minimum amount of power and, as other noble Lords have said, will do nothing in regard to carbon emissions.
I turn, finally, to the question of nuclear power. Noble Lords around the House, with the exception of the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, recognise that there needs to be nuclear power in the future. My noble friend Lady Miller said that the Government must take the lead on new nuclear build. It is impossible for business to do so.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, because there may be confusion over the two Lady Millers, I wish to clarify that I did not at all agree with the development of nuclear power in the future.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I am sorry. I tried to shorten my speech and referred to my noble friend. I am, of course, friends with the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, but on this occasion I was referring to my noble friend Lady Miller of Hendon.

915
The noble Lord, Lord Lea of Crondall, suggested that nuclear should be considered as a renewable source of energy. Many noble Lords on these Benches agree with him totally.
The other point I particularly wish to raise concerns skills and research and development. If the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, has not taken that on board by now, the contribution by my noble friend Lord Gray highlighted that extremely well. My noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding made a very full speech which I shall not try to top as it speaks for itself. My noble friend really set the Government a challenge.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, that concerns are not being expressed just by noble Lords. I do not think that I have ever experienced so much lobbying for the Second Reading of a Bill. Some 10 or 12 organisations lobbied me on their concerns about, or hopes for, the Bill. I wish to quote from the commentary on the energy White Paper on the part of the Institution of Civil Engineers, which states clearly, under the heading, Four Goals for Energy Policy,
"These goals cannot all be met at the same time-the most critical goal is security of supply, because it is a pre-requisite to all others".
The Institution of Civil Engineers further commented:
"Security is best achieved by ensuring that we have a wide portfolio of different fuel sources and by maintaining sufficient reserve stocks and facilities".
All noble Lords agree with that.
As I say, the Bill contains good measures but certain measures are omitted and it contains other measures that we look forward to debating at great length with the Minister and his colleagues.
6.7 p.m.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, we have had a wide-ranging debate. As noble Lords have remarked, much of the debate concerned what is not in the Bill rather than what is in it. Much of the debate has concerned very much broader aspects of energy policy than would be contained in any Bill, as they are not by definition legislative matters. Much of energy policy depends on other instruments available to government and, indeed, the private sector, and are matters that one would not expect to see in the Bill. I am happy to respond to many of those broader matters but I hope that in Committee we shall focus on what is actually in the Bill.
First, I wish to mention a few procedural issues. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, asked why the Bill was starting its passage in this House. That is the quickest possible way to get the Bill on the statute book given the logjam to which it would doubtless be subjected were it to start its passage in the Commons and reach this House very late in the Session. Usually noble Lords welcome Bills starting their passage in this House, particularly ones on which there is a fair
916
amount of consensus regarding their necessity-that is, the necessity for the measures that they contain as opposed to what they do not contain.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord can clarify a matter for me. I understood that the relevant provisions could not be taken forward until the Bill had received a Second Reading in another place. Is the noble Lord saying that those provisions cannot be taken forward until the Bill has received a Second Reading in this House? That is where the misunderstanding arises. I think that I am right and the Minister is not.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, we are looking at the end point of the Bill. The Bill is likely to be completed sooner by starting its passage in the Lords than if it had started its passage in the Commons. If it had started its passage in the Commons, it would have had to compete with all the other legislation starting in the Commons. Usually this House likes to see a fair chunk of the legislation starting its passage in the Lords. This is a rapid course to take for getting the Bill on the statute book.
It has also been argued that I should not be presenting the Bill but that my noble friend Lord Sainsbury should. The concept of joined-up government seems largely to have escaped those who put forward that argument. The energy White Paper was the product of the whole of the Government. Many departments were involved: my own department, the Department of Trade and Industry, the ODPM in particular and, indeed, the devolved administrations. That forms part of delivering the energy White Paper.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, will the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, take part in the Bill?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, he will certainly not be the lead Minister on the Bill. My noble friend Lord Davies of Oldham covers DTI matters and will assist me and will possibly take the lead at various points during the course of the Bill's passage, so the DTI is well represented. As my noble friend Lord Lea said, there has been a division of responsibility for energy matters between the DTI and various manifestations of the department for the environment for a very long time, under successive governments.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that DTI Ministers will handle the Bill in the House of Commons?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I think that that is probable, which indicates how flexible and joined-up the Government really are.
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Whitty: My Lords, we of course have not yet taken a decision on that.

917
There are one or two other procedural matters. The noble Baroness referred to Henry VIII powers and the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. At a quick read, that committee has said that by and large the powers are appropriate, with one or two minor reservations.
The noble Baroness, Lady Miller, and others said that I should not have mentioned that amendments were coming. In effect, I was doing that as a courtesy to the House. She said, rightly in some respects, that fluoridation amendments on the then Water Bill came very late. Surely she would have been gratified had I indicated at Second Reading that such an amendment was likely. As we knew about the two amendment areas of offshore transmission and the north of Scotland problem-the noble Lord, Lord Gray, subsequently very much welcomed that-it seemed sensible to tell the House about them.
In any Bill that starts in the Lords, it is likely that there will be government amendments. The normal complaint is having government amendments right at the end of the Lords procedure when the Bill has already been through the Commons. With that I have some sympathy, but I do not have sympathy with the present complaint.
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, the point surely is that, when a Bill comes to the House, amendments should not be coming from either the Government or the Opposition until after Second Reading. The point that I made was that we actually had a draft Bill and that that really was not good enough. When Bills come to this House in the first place, they should be the best possible Bills with the latest government thinking. The Government should not tell us on the morning of Second Reading that amendments are coming.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I doubt that a Bill of any size has been introduced in this House in the past few decades to which a government have not made some government amendments.
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Whitty: All right, my Lords. The Government will take note of the objection and, henceforth, we might not mention at Second Reading what we know that we will propose for later stages. That does not seem very sensible or transparent government, but if that is what noble Lords want we will take it on board.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, that was not the only complaint. There is also the complaint that the Government will publish the response to the Commons committee in a few days, just after our Second Reading, and the complaint that there have been two Statements today, one about BNFL and one made by Mr Timms in another place. To expect this House to debate a Bill on Second Reading while the Government continue to pour out documents, or indeed hold them back until next week or whenever it might be-that is the point: at which the House is being treated with less than respect.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I really cannot agree with that. In a sense, it goes back to the question of whether
918
we are discussing energy policy as a whole or what is in the Bill. There are other aspects of energy policy, some of which are related to the Bill, on which pronouncements are being made. The Select Committee in another place was dealing with a whole range of issues in relation to energy policy. We are replying to that Select Committee within the normal time scale.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, we are talking about different Bills. I am talking about the pre-legislative scrutiny. Is that not the reply coming next week?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I believe that it is. My point is that we are within the normal timetable of responding to that Select Committee in the Commons. The fact that the usual channels agreed to table this Second Reading slightly before that point is not particularly relevant. It is certainly not a discourtesy to this House. Other aspects of energy policy are clearly going on all the time.
Human rights issues were raised. On navigation rights and the reversal of proof, our legal advice would strongly be that both were appropriate. No doubt the noble Baroness will take her own advice and may return to the issues, but we are confident that we were correct in signing the compatibility issue.
I hope that that finishes the procedural points. Can we now go to the broad issue of energy policy that took up most of the debate, particularly the role or otherwise of nuclear power? The very large body of opinion from contributors here-not universal, but almost-wanted to see a role for nuclear power in the Bill and in the future of energy policy.
It is not appropriate to provide in legislation a commitment to nuclear build or build of any other kind. The policy has been set out in the White Paper. For many years, the cost and the potential of the various alternatives to carbon-based energy have been assessed. They were clearly assessed in the energy White Paper. I am not a visceral opponent of nuclear power. I used to work in the industry decades ago and I have a reasonable understanding of the technology, which has certain attractive elements. However, while nuclear power is clearly a nil or low-carbon technology and should be desirable on those grounds, it is not at this point a sustainable technology. It is not sustainable in economic terms. The life-cycle cost is considerably higher than many other alternative technologies, in spite of what some noble Lords have said about carbon saved. Nuclear energy is not sustainable either in the sense that we have not yet found a solution to the long-term disposal of high-grade nuclear material. The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, referred to that. Introducing procedures to deal with the immediate problems and the legacy waste may help to allay anxieties, but it does not solve the basic problem. Until we solve that problem, or at least see the way in which we are going to resolve it, nuclear energy is not as sustainable as other forms of alternative technology.
That is not to say, however, that the White Paper has excluded a possible role for nuclear power-it has not. It has kept the nuclear option open and it is

919
reasonable for noble Lords to ask what we mean by "keeping the nuclear option open". Clearly, we need to monitor progress towards the development of a lower-carbon economy. In order to keep that option open, we need to retain, as the noble Lords, Lord Gray and Lord Jenkin, have said, the skills, the research and the training of personnel in nuclear technology. We are engaged in a number of programmes on that front, including EU and OECD programmes and the Forum for International Research, in which the UK plays a substantial role, as I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, knows. One noble Lord mentioned Culham. We received £5 million for fission research as part of the sustainable energy economy initiative. We are, therefore, investing in research and skills for keeping that nuclear option open.
The issue for this Bill, as distinct from the White Paper more generally, is how we are dealing with the legacy waste and how we are dealing with certain aspects of delivery of renewables and of the regime that covers electricity and gas supply. I shall deal first with the issue of nuclear waste. I think that most people welcome the establishment of the NDA. It is important that we understand what its role is. The noble Lord, Lord Maclennan, asked what its relationship would be with the UKAEA and my noble friend Lord Christopher asked about its relationship with BNFL. We need to be clear about that. It is also important to recognise what the NDA will do. It is certainly not, as the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, suggested, a vehicle for building new nuclear power stations. It will have the power to operate them only pending decommissioning, principally to cover the period of Magnox operation prior to their closures, but not to build and operate new power stations. The NDA could be given responsibility in the future for decommissioning any nuclear power stations at the end of the line, but not to set up and operate them.
The NDA's prime responsibility is the public sector liability, but in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, once more, it can be given designated responsibility for dealing with private sector liabilities, but that does not mean that it will bear the cost of dealing with them. However, it is prudent for the Bill to cover that possibility in case it arises. As regards British Energy, the NDA may be asked to take on defined responsibilities for meeting obligations, which the Government intend to accept subject to state aid approval. It would be only in that context that it would deal with public sector sites. They would not be its central responsibility. It is part of the range of responsibilities of the NDA.
The noble Lords, Lord Jenkin and Lord Beaumont, asked about the consequences for disposal of waste and what kind of waste we were talking about. The NDA will be given responsibility for low-level waste at the only site currently existing, at Brigg. As I think the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, indicated, we are considering future arrangements for long-term management of intermediate level and high level radioactive waste and have established the Committee on Radioactive Waste Management to make recommendations on that
920
whole area by 2006. As for the previous exchange between the noble Earl and myself on the matter, we are not rushing it, but we are taking a considerably shorter time than the half-life of the nuclear materials that I was pointing to. It is a very long-term decision and one that we need to take seriously.
The Bill sets out the functions and responsibilities of the NDA. It requires that the NDA should have particular regard to the need for safety, security and environmental protection in carrying out its functions. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, rightly pointed to the historic reputation for secrecy that the nuclear industry had. It is beginning to get over that. I hope that the noble Lord will welcome the provisions designed to ensure that the NDA operates openly and transparently and engages positively with its whole range of stakeholders.
My noble friend Lord Christopher, the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, and others asked about the relationship between the NDA and the other institutions. My noble friend was concerned that BNFL should not be disadvantaged by the introduction of competition by the NDA. The noble Lord, Lord Maclennan, raised a similar problem in relation to the UKAEA. I can assure him that the NDA will run fair and open competitions when and where it considers that it could increase the effectiveness of clean-up. However, initial agreements for managing site licensees will go to the existing operators, BNFL and UKAEA. The work that the UKAEA has done in his part of the world, in Dounreay, and in my part of the world, at Winfrith, and so on, indicates that the AEA has become an effective decommissioning body. Whether it will continue for all time in that capacity will obviously depend on its future performance. It would be possible for the NDA to remove the contractor in open competition. However, it appears that, in immediate terms, there is no disruption of the role of the AEA or indeed of BNFL.
The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, also asked about the costs. The cost of NDA activity specifically over the next 10 years was reckoned at about £15 billion to £20 billion.
The noble Lord, Lord Christopher, and subsequently the noble Lord, Lord Monro, and others raised the issue of communities that were dependent on the nuclear industry. I referred earlier specifically to west Cumbria, where there is a heavy dependence on the nuclear industry. However, that applies also to the north of Scotland and, as far as the noble Lord, Lord Monro, is concerned, to the economic area around Chapelcross. The Secretary of State has today made an announcement about west Cumbria.
A couple of issues were raised about the nuclear constabulary; the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Hendon, asked a number of questions about it. The DTI has responsibility for security of the civil nuclear industry, and the constabulary is a major element of that. There are no plans to change its basic role. It will be separated from the UKAEA in that respect, but it

921
will continue to police BNFL and URENCO civil-licensed plants. However, those companies will not have to meet the costs of the transitional arrangements as we move across to the new nuclear police force.
I hope that I have largely addressed the nuclear issues. We may return to them.
I found the other part of the broad debate a little more difficult. I think that there is a rational case for nuclear power; it is arguable. Some quite strong arguments about the sustainability at this point of nuclear power predominated in the White Paper, which is why we have not made a commitment to new nuclear power. However, the arguments against renewables, particularly against wind power, seemed to me over the top and irrational. Clearly, if we are to move to a low-carbon economy, we shall have to use some of that renewable technology. Wind power is the most immediate and, probably in the short to medium-term, the largest component of a renewable contribution.
There are some planning concerns. Personally, I am a great fan of wind farms. I believe that, contrary to the view of the noble Lord, Lord Monro, and others, in many parts of the countryside they enhance the landscape. That will not be true in all cases-even I acknowledge that-but they will be subject to substantial planning controls. Those conflicts are dealt with through the planning system. The Bill ensures only that the planning system operates efficiently. It brings into play parallel operations but does not deny anyone his right to go through the planning system and object to a particular application.
In any case, the main burden of the Bill and the main provision of wind farms will not be in the countryside; it will be offshore and, in many cases, beyond the horizon. In terms of visual impact, we are not talking about the majority of the wind-farm contribution being in areas where objections on aesthetic terms are likely to be raised. Of course, other concerns arise in that respect, including in relation to the marine environment. We are clear that such zones would be managed in an environmentally effective way. We shall not wish to avoid any of our marine environment responsibilities, either national or international, in that respect.
In the slightly longer term, tidal or wave power will also have a role to play. We are already a world leader in that technology. Surrounded as we are in Britain by water, we should be able to make a significant contribution to that as well as to wind-power technology. But wind power will play a part. Other noble Lords suggested barrages and so on. While we have not gone down that road at present, clearly all such renewable technologies need to be borne in mind. However, the economics must also be borne in mind. As we see them currently, the economics of the Severn Barrage and other barrages would not be appropriate.
A noble Lord asked for a list of the renewable projects that have gone forward thus far. I cannot provide a list immediately but 1.1 megawatts of renewable capacity are being given planning consent. Some of that is already under construction. As I said,
922
the first large offshore wind farm was commissioned last month and the second is already under construction.
The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, in particular, and the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Hendon, mentioned other contributions to lower carbon emissions, particularly CHP. They suggested that further measures in support of CHP should be appropriate in terms of the Bill. The Government intend to publish their strategy for the development of CHP by the end of March. Our commitment to achieving the target of 10 gigawatts by 2010 is an important part of our energy policy strategy. As indicated in the recent assessment by Cambridge Econometrics, we are short of that target at present and it appears that, without a further boost, the out-turn will be around 8.1 gigawatts. However, that is an area to which the Government wish to turn their attention in the strategy that we are developing on CHP.
The European Emissions Trading Scheme will also have an impact here, and I acknowledge the important role that micro-CHP could play in this area. Therefore, there are a number of other levers which the Government can pull in this respect, not the least of which takes us into the area of BETTA and the regulation. There are a number of ways in which BETTA can be expected to benefit both transmission and distribution-connected small generators. That is currently particularly the case in Scotland but it could be more general than that. It will include CHP and access to the wider market. It is important that that regulatory framework gives encouragement rather than what has, perhaps in the early stages of NETA, been a discouragement to CHP.
Moreover, I believe that the creation of a single market and a single regulatory framework covering Scotland as well as England and Wales will reduce the number of complexities so that small generators of all kinds may enter the system.
The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, also referred to coal-mine methane and to cleaner coal, both of which feature in our energy policy. He may have noted in the PBR yesterday reference to state aid to the coal-mine methane industry now being cleared.
There are big issues involved in energy policy but by and large they are unlikely to be legislative issues. I think that we shall probably reach broad agreement on the kind of legislation which is needed in those areas. There may be other issues which noble Lords will want to introduce but issues such as the security and diversity of supply will not be achieved through legislation. That is why they are not covered in the Bill. We believe that those are very important issues and are of growing importance, both in terms of our reliance on imports and the need to diversify our sources of supply for gas and oil. We need to provide a lot of domestically based renewable fuels, and so forth, with a remaining contribution from the coal industry.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, I thank the Minister for giving way. I have the impression that he is moving to a close. I asked him about the renewable

923
obligation certificate buy-out fund, which at present is £20 million short because of TXU. I hope that I shall receive an answer.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, perhaps I may return to that just before I finish. I shall give an answer. The point I was making is that both the security and diversity of supply are issues which are clearly part of our energy strategy. The fact that they are not explicitly in the Bill is not the relevant factor. The other aspect of security of supply is the vulnerability of our supply areas to unrest or terrorist activity. In respect of that, clearly most forms of energy are potentially vulnerable. Slightly contrary to the comments of my noble friend Lord Lea, a nuclear facility probably potentially would be the most lethal, were there to be a terrorist incident. However, all forms of energy are subject to that kind of disruption whether we refer to offshore wind farms, the pipeline through the Caucasus or gas supplies from Algeria. However, one has to say that already in Europe we obtain gas supplies from Russia and Algeria, which are normally regarded as highly volatile countries, and the supply has not been disrupted.
Another general point to mention is that of the margins on which we are operating. There have been exaggerated views of the margins on which the current national network operates. The noble Lord, Lord Bridges, suggested that it was as low as 10 per cent. I can reassure noble Lords that the generation plant margin for this winter is likely to be more than 20 per cent; in fact, 20.3 per cent, which is double the figure that he gave and which I have heard people outside this House give. It could rise higher than that if we find it necessary to bring further mothballed plant into service. That margin is as good as it has been for the past few decades and is sufficient to meet predicted demand in all but very exceptional circumstances or catastrophic technological failure. I shall not go further into the wider issues.
I return to the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, of the £20 million shortfall. I am happy to tell noble Lords that in the past few days the administrator of TXU has written to all the relevant suppliers asking them to submit claims for their losses arising out of that shortfall. It looks as if there will be an interim payment of between 35 and 40 pence in the pound with the prospect of more to come once TXU's affairs are fully settled. So, although clearly this is an unfortunate position, there will be recompense for those who missed out as a result of that. The context in which the noble Lord mentioned this point during my opening speech was that of whether we put in a special energy administrator in areas which are subject to competition. I have said that that is not the intention of the Bill as it stands. We are dealing with protected monopolies as network operators not in the generation part or any other competitive part of the supply system.
People complained that they had not had a debate about the energy White Paper. I think that we had quite a good one in many respects today. It leads us into subsequent stages of the Bill. I have no doubt that some of these wider issues will rear their heads again.
924
I also hope that the specific proposals in the Bill, particularly those on dealing with the legacy of waste and the liabilities arising from that, will receive noble Lords' attention and will receive, at least broadly speaking, the support of all sides of the House.
On Question, Bill read a second time and committed to a Grand Committee.

Hepatitis C
6.35 p.m.
Lord Morris of Manchesterrose to ask Her Majesty's Government what developments there have been since they announced in August an ex gratia payment scheme for people infected with hepatitis C by contaminated National Health Service blood products.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question in my name on the Order Paper and, in doing so, I have an interest to declare, not a pecuniary one, as president of the Haemophilia Society.
I am grateful to all noble Lords who will be speaking in this evening's debate and I am delighted that my noble friend Lord Warner is responding for the Government.
It is one of the most endearing charms of this House that one never knows who is going to turn up here next. It was almost 30 years ago that I first met my noble friend Lord Warner; and I was extremely glad to welcome him to this House. When we met in 1974 he was a young and highly promising civil servant at the former Department of Health and Social Security in which, although my responsibilities as the first Minister for Disabled People extended all across Whitehall, I was based for more than five years. He was often involved then in helping to arrange for other officials to put together draft parliamentary speeches for his Minister to consider; and naturally I much look forward to hearing him make a speech of his own this evening. I know he will do so with all his customary decency and social concern.
This debate is about a small and stricken community of disabled people for whom acquaintance with grief- recurrent and abject grief-is an inescapable fact of daily life. So too is the burning sense of injustice among them that, while conceding the case for special help for haemophilia patients infected with HIV by their NHS treatment, successive governments have resolutely refused any such help for hepatitis C infection.
Already disabled by a rare, life-long bleeding disorder that requires continuous medical treatment, people with haemophilia have twice been infected en masse by contaminated NHS blood products. Of a patient group numbering only 5,000 nationally, 95 per cent were infected with hepatitis C and one in four with HIV. Thus many in the haemophilia community were doubly infected and left at double risk of contracting a life-threatening illness and in double despair. Of those

925
infected with HIV, over 900 have since died of AIDS-related illnesses and 232 more lives have been lost to cirrhosis and liver cancer due to hepatitis C infection.
Now the same small community faces the hideous threat of variant CJD. This is not a theoretical risk. More and more haemophilia patients are being officially informed that blood products from donors since diagnosed with vCJD were used in their NHS treatment. Imagine the alarm and anguish of parents who learn that their child has been put at this grave further risk. Or that of the adult who has already been infected with HIV and/or hepatitis C and must now try to cope with not knowing whether he may also have been infected with vCJD. Their distress is made no easier by disclosures in recent parliamentary replies to me that the Department of Health does not even know how many haemophilia patients have been given blood from donors with vCJD and has no plans to find out.
Yet there is a crucial difference between this debate and all the others I have initiated for the Haemophilia Society, both here and previously in the House of Commons, over the past 15 years. Before previous debates, I was told that I was banging my head against a brick wall in asking for parity of treatment for people infected with HIV and hepatitis C-and afterwards, simply, "We told you so". But John Reid, within months of his appointment as Secretary of State for Health and much to his honour, signalled a fundamental reversal of policy with his announcement on 29th August of an ex gratia payments scheme for hepatitis C infection.
I congratulate my right honourable friend and the Government on bringing new hope to the haemophilia community. My principal concern this evening is to ensure that the pledge of 29th August is implemented with social fairness and full regard to the levels of financial help already given to identically affected patients and dependants in other countries, many of them with economies less strong and much poorer than ours, across the world.
That is the task facing us now and much the best way of tackling it successfully-I am of course aware of the meetings Melanie Johnson and officials have had with the Haemophilia Society-is for the Government to stay in close and continuous rapport with the haemophilia community. After all, they know most about the history of the case and the realities of life for those infected and their dependants.
I refer to the history of the case because people unaware of the suffering that living with haemophilia can inflict find it hard to understand how deep is the sense of injustice in the haemophilia community. To have been infected with deadly viruses by the NHS treatment on which they rely vitally for survival, with no official apology or explanation, is but part of the case. They find it disgraceful that in this country, unlike Ginada, Japan, Ireland and France, there has been no official inquiry. Questions remain unanswered as to how so many patients came to be infected and-recalling the disclosures of the noble Lord, Lord Owen, as a former health Minister-why more was not done sooner to prevent this worst ever treatment disaster in the history of the NHS.
926
They point out that if a tragedy on anything like that scale occurred today, an official inquiry would most certainly be held, as rightly happened after the Paddington train crash and the sinking of the "Marchioness". Serious as the consequences of these tragedies were, they did not begin to compare in scale with the loss of life caused by the contaminated NHS blood and blood products disaster. Nor has the wilful act of dividing the victims of that disaster, not on the basis of the effects of their infection but simply its classification, any parallel in the approach to other disasters here in Britain, or indeed anywhere else in the world.
How can anyone possibly justify the decision to give financial assistance to patients infected with HIV by their NHS treatment, but not to those fatally infected by the same route with hepatitis C and bereaved families? Yet that remains the position until John Reid's pledge is implemented. The profoundly moving story of three brothers explains its stark inhumanity.
All three brothers inherited haemophilia. Two were infected with HIV by their NHS treatment and died of AIDS-related illnesses. They received financial help from the Macfarlane Trust, set up and funded by the then government in 1989, and were able to make provision for their families. The third brother escaped HIV infection but was infected with hepatitis C, also by contaminated blood products used in his NHS treatment, and died of liver failure. For him there was no financial help. He went to his grave unable to make any provision for his family.
Each of the three brothers had become terminally ill and died from the same cause: contaminated NHS blood and blood products. But one was denied the help given by a government-funded trust to the other two. That contrast in treatment not only suggests but shouts of injustice.
The setting up of the Macfarlane Trust was an official acceptance of moral responsibility. There was then, and is now, exactly the same moral responsibility for loss and hardship among those infected with hepatitis C. But 15 years on, they still await parity of treatment with patients who were infected at the same time and by the same route.
Some in Whitehall have suggested that infection with HIV is in a different class of seriousness from hepatitis C infection. But let them try telling that to my noble friend Lord Winston, himself a vice-president of the Haemophilia Society, whose standing as a doctor is respected all across this House. Speaking in a previous debate of mine here, my noble friend said:
"One cannot escape the terrible fact that death by liver failure or liver cancer is a particularly horrible end. There is a slow inexorable decline … severe pain that is quite intractable. The end is a mixture of mental confusion and finally coma'".
He added:
"There is no difference between HIV and hepatitis C … The cause is the same, a virus, and it comes from the same source, blood products".-[Official Report, 5/06/98; col. 672.]
The Department of Health's official position since 29th August has been that the implementation of John Reid's pledge is under urgent consideration and

927
that the design of the ex gratia payment scheme has still to be decided. But as all of us know, the grape vine flourishes among people in pressing need when month after month goes by without any authentic guide to the thinking of those making decisions of huge significance to them.
Of course, money can never compensate for the deaths of husbands, fathers or brothers; nor can it restore the health that infected patients have lost. But it can help bereaved families and assist in meeting the onerous financial effects of living with a life-threatening virus, which research by the Haemophilia Society, made freely available to the Department of Health, has so ably and conclusively documented.
To assist my noble friend in replying to the debate, I want now to set out concerns and fears in the haemophilia community about what is being considered. First, there is widespread fear that the scheme, when it is announced, will be based on proposals made by the Scottish Health Minister, Malcolm Chisholm, earlier this year in the only statement to date about ministerial intentions on the details of implementing an ex gratia payment scheme. If so, the amount suggested will fall far short of the recommendations of the expert group that he himself set up to study and report on the issues, under the chairmanship of Lord Ross, with which I had the pleasure of discussing at length comparative provision and the problems and needs of those infected from my experience both as a Minister for Disabled People and president of the Haemophilia Society. That experience left me with the highest regard for and indeed in admiration of the care and thoroughness, objectivity and moral integrity of Lord Ross and his colleagues.
As my noble friend will know, Lord Ross's expert group recommended a payment of £50,000 for each infected person, with further amounts for those who develop cirrhosis, while the Health Minister has seemed content to pay only £20,000 to each infected person. My noble friend will be aware that the Haemophilia Society has calculated the costs of more comprehensive provision that includes a loss-of-earnings element, with payments linked to the stage of disease progression and based on the scheme set up by the Canadian Government. That averages some £140,000 per person. There is very serious concern also that, under Malcolm Chisholm's proposals, nothing would be provided for the 232 bereaved families of those who have died from hepatitis C infection- nothing at all-which would cause grievous hurt throughout the haemophilia community.
Again, there is concern that nothing may be provided for those who have cleared the virus, after long years of illness and sustained pain and suffering. It is feared too that the scheme will offer nothing to people with HIV and hepatitis co-infection, who may already have received some help for their HIV infection. Yet there is clear medical evidence that co-infection poses the greatest risk of all.
The haemophilia community hopes to hear assurances from the Minister this evening that these fears are unfounded. If not, it insists, the scheme will
928
be gravely flawed and disfigured by excluding people in the greatest need and perpetuating inequities. I very much hope that will not happen and also that there is no substance in the suggestion that 29th August, 2003 will be used to determine who will and will not be eligible for financial assistance, so that the dependants of a victim who died the day before would be excluded from help. That would mean that a victim who died on 28th August would be covered and one who died on 30th August would not. Such an arrangement would lack compassion, logic and equity. How can it possibly be justified when the suffering of their bereaved families is the same?
There are many widows who have been waiting for help in recognition of the death of their partners who would find it inconceivable that they could be excluded. How much harder will it be for them to accept if they are told that their exclusion is simply a matter of the date on which their loved one died?
Yet it is not only the bereaved who could be affected in this way. I give another example of what many haemophilia patients fear could happen-that of a person infected with hepatitis C who suffers all of the effects of the disease, with progressive liver damage, but after a long and painful course of treatment manages to clear the virus. Again, if his treatment took place before 29th August, he too, it is feared, could receive nothing, while if his treatment concluded after 29th August-meaning that he still had the virus on that date-he could receive a payment. How could such double standards be justified and how can they be avoided if an arbitrarily selected date is set?
These are not hypothetical examples. The Haemophilia Society has case histories of members that show exactly the anomalies that could arise. One is that of two brothers with severe haemophilia, both of whom I met at the Carpet of Lilies event held by the Haemophilia Society here in Westminster last week. One had managed to clear the virus after extremely painful and protracted treatment and it is feared that he could receive nothing, while his brother, still gravely ill with the virus, would receive a payment. Again, how could this be justified?
That Ministers have said that the final design of the scheme is not yet decided provides grounds for hope. It must mean that it is not too late for consideration of the concerns that I have put to my noble friend this evening. And I am sure he would agree that much the best way of dealing with anomalies is not to correct them after damage has been done, but to anticipate and prevent their occurrence. Meanwhile let me again assure my noble friend of my indebtedness to John Reid for his decision to introduce a payments scheme and that I wish for nothing more now than that the long years of campaigning for justice for the haemophilia community are nearing conclusion. My regret is that it should ever have been necessary to campaign for them on the issues that I have raised in debate after debate, both here and in another place. For in none of the many parliamentary campaigns I have been closely involved in over 39 years in Parliament-even thalidomide and those more than 30 years ago for statutory recognition of dyslexia and

929
autism-have I had so strong a sense that no campaigning should have been necessary to right such wrongs. Enormous cross-party backing has been given in both Houses of Parliament; and the issue of parity of treatment for HIV and hepatitis C infection, in particular, is everywhere seen not as one of Right and Left, but of right and wrong.
That is why, if campaigning has to go on, I am in no doubt-nor should anyone else be in any doubt-that go on it will until right is done.
6.55 p.m.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, perhaps I may start by congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Morris, on initiating the debate and, in particular, on the timing of the debate. It gives us an opportunity to explore the details of the Government's new financial assistance scheme and at least to challenge the Government to give some details, and to give them food for thought when formulating the scheme.
In many ways, it is regrettable that we have had to have so many debates over the years. I have lost count of the number of debates initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Morris, in which I have taken part during the past six years. He should take considerable comfort from the fact that it is largely as a result of persistence from him and the Haemophilia Society that the Government have now decided to introduce a financial assistance scheme. I welcome that at least a scheme-it may not be wholly satisfactory-is certainly in the offing.
The bald statistics do not give the full picture. As the noble Lord, Lord Morris, said, approximately 5,000 people with haemophilia in the UK were infected with the hepatitis C virus in the 1970s and early 1980s. Medical estimates are that up to 85 per cent of those people develop chronic liver disease: I believe that well over 200 people have now died from liver cancer and liver disease arising as a result of infection.
In common, I am sure, with other noble Lords, I have had considerable correspondence on the subject. The statistics give no real idea of the absolute misery of the individuals infected by hepatitis C, the effect that it has on their families, or the misery of their deterioration and, in many cases, death.
I recently received a very poignant letter from a lady who sent me the diary of the last few weeks of her husband's life. It makes extremely harrowing reading. She wrote:
"The way of his going is still with our children and myself.
hat was in 1998.
"End liver failure is a terrible death, time does not heal and it never will".
I believe that the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, has seen extracts from the diary, which makes very harrowing reading. The noble Lord, Lord Morris, was right when he talked about recurrent and abject grief. That cannot be compensated in money terms, but it is incumbent on us at least to obtain some kind of financial compensation for what has happened to them. After all, they are the innocent victims of blood contamination. It is hugely important that the
930
Government make sufficient payments to recompense all those haemophiliacs who, if they have not already done so, will develop debilitating liver diseases, as well as to their families who also suffer from the effects.
The noble Lord, Lord Morris, talked about the absolute contrast with the way in which the Macfarlane Trust was set up in 1989, where, to date, £90 million has been given by way of compensation. As the noble Lord has pointed out in previous debates, no equivalent provision has been made for those who contracted HCV.
I suppose that the Government's real case has been based on an unwillingness to breach a general rule that compensation is given only where the NHS is at fault. That was certainly the line taken when we debated this matter last March. But a complete exception was made to that rule-whether it was called financial assistance or something else; in substance it was compensation, whatever its legal status-in the case of suffers from HIV transmission. However, the same has not been done for those with HCV.
As the noble Lord, Lord Morris, pointed out, that contrasts with the behaviour of many other governments, whether in the EU, Japan or Canada. Not only have they instituted schemes for compensation, they have set up public inquiries. That is another aspect of the matter which, over time, the Government have failed to institute. I shall not go into the parallels to be drawn between HCV and HIV infection, but many aspects of the two conditions are similar. Over the years, many of us have found the fact that a scheme for HCV sufferers has not been instituted quite incomprehensible. The predicaments of those in the two categories of infection are very similar. Over time, the Government have appeared cold-hearted and miserly in refusing to provide the same level of support.
So it was with considerable optimism that we heard on 29th August John Reid announce the scheme. We all thought that, finally, some sanity was being introduced to the whole area. We thought that an ex gratia payment scheme would be set up and the details worked out over time, it was hoped, in consultation with the Haemophilia Society, which has put forward very constructive proposals for financial assistance or compensation. As the noble Lord, Lord Morris, mentioned, the society drew on the Canadian scheme, which has been extremely successful.
However, all we have heard since 29th August is a deafening silence, which has led to even greater concern. It appears now that the English and Scottish schemes are going to be very similar. There is a feeling, in particular in light of the fact that Lord Ross recommended a payment of £50,000 and yet the Scottish proposal is much lower, that the Government, too, will propose the lower figure. However, the Haemophilia Society makes an extremely good case for the figure of £140,000 as the average payment. Indeed, looking across the Irish Sea to Eire, there the financial assistance being offered averages 300,000 euros; that is a very different order of sum. I hope that, when the Government come to prepare their scheme, that they will enter into a lot of debate and discussion about the proper level of compensation.

931
The terms of any compensation represent a further major issue. Will the relatives of those who have died from HCV or liver failure as a result of HCV be entitled to compensation? If the Government follow the Scottish scheme, then they will not be so entitled. Ladies such as those who have written to me will then face the prospect of receiving absolutely no financial assistance, which cannot be right.
What of those who have managed to become clear of the virus through treatment, whether by liver transplant or otherwise? What of the distress and suffering that they will have endured during that process? Surely in those circumstances people should be entitled to financial assistance. On 16th September, I asked the Minister a supplementary question related to the compensation scheme; specifically, what is to happen if the condition of a subject deteriorates? A person may be assessed at one level, but what if, over time, he or she becomes more ill? Will the scheme have built into it the necessary flexibility to allow for reassessment? Will people be entitled to higher levels of compensation in those circumstances?
I turn to the wider issue of co-infection. It would be extremely unjust if no compensation was made available to those patients suffering from both HCV and HIV infections on the grounds that they would have been compensated in part by access to the Macfarlane Trust. They have been subject to a double jeopardy, and financial assistance should be given in those circumstances as well.
When do the Government intend to announce final details? There appears to be funding down the track, and it would be extremely helpful if they said how much further consultation will take place and what the timing of the announcement of the scheme will be. I am particularly concerned that, as time has marched on, the large majority of people with haemophilia who were infected in the late 1970s and early 1980s have reached the more advanced stages of the disease, so they really need that compensation to be available. This money is justified because of their unnecessary suffering and is required for their treatment here and now.
I believe that the Government must act now to account for this awful injustice to so many people. Those individuals have waited long enough, not only to bring the necessary attention to their case-for which they need to thank the noble Lord, Lord Morris, and the Haemophilia Society-but also to receive a proper form of compensation for their unnecessary suffering.
7.6 p.m.
Earl Howe: My Lords, it is a pleasure for me to begin by congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Manchester, on the success of his long campaign to secure financial recognition for recipients of contaminated blood products who, as a consequence, became infected with hepatitis C. If ever there were an example of a tireless champion of the disadvantaged and the disabled, and of someone undaunted by
932
ministerial stonewalling, it is surely the noble Lord. I have to confess to him that before the Government's announcement in August, I did not rate his chances of success on this particular campaign as very high. However, I was wrong, and I salute him.
It is also right to acknowledge the humanity and compassion of the Secretary of State in taking the brave decision to make ex gratia payments to those unfortunate victims of medical accident and, in doing so, to reverse the policy of his predecessors.
I knew I would find myself saying this, but the noble Lord, Lord Morris, has stated his case so eloquently that there is little I feel I can add to it. But now that the Government's decision has been taken, I believe that there are some key principles that should guide them in determining the way in which the ex gratia payments are distributed.
The most important of these is that the scheme needs to be fair and to be perceived as fair. In the first instance, our thoughts turn most naturally to those who, as a result of receiving infected blood products, have to live with hepatitis C and, perhaps, its more severe consequences, for many years. However, I very much share the noble Lord's concern for the widows and dependants of those who have already died of advanced liver disease or liver cancer in consequence of a contaminated transfusion.
We also need to remember that there are many people who, although now clear of infection, have been to hell and back in fighting it off. We all understand that the money to be paid by the Government does not constitute compensation in the legally accepted sense of the term. But if the intention of this scheme is to recognise the suffering of the victims and their families, and the moral responsibility borne by the NHS, then it seems to me that there should be no messing about. Financial recognition should be given to all those adversely affected, not simply people who were fortunate enough to be alive and ill-if fortunate is the word-on the date of the Government's announcement in the summer.
The second principle that should guide the Government is certainty. When the Government in due course announce the details of the ex gratia scheme, everyone entitled to an ex gratia payment should be made aware of exactly what their entitlement comprises. One potentially foggy area highlighted by the noble Lord is co-infection. The Macfarlane Trust exists to help recipients of contaminated blood who later went on to contract HIV. Those who already benefit from that scheme but who are living with hepatitis C alongside HIV need to know whether they are eligible for additional financial assistance. About 500 individuals fall into that category.
In thinking of those people, we should not be in any doubt of the anguish, pain and financial disadvantage that they now suffer by reason of their hepatitis C and its consequences, as distinct from the consequences of their HIV infection. As well as that, we should remember that the progression of hepatitis C is accelerated by HIV, and liver failure is now the leading cause of death in the group. In formulating the scheme, will the Government bear in mind the especially harsh consequences of co-morbidity?

933
If there is to be a graduated structure of payments, the rationale for it needs to be made clear. I do not intend to draw the Minister on the precise amounts that might be paid to particular groups of individuals, partly because I do not believe that he would tell me even if I did. However, supposing that there were to be a stepped entitlement dependent on the severity of a person's illness, it is important for everyone to understand why those particular figures have been arrived at.
There are benchmarks that may be helpful in that matter. One is the structure of payments made to HIV-infected patients by the Macfarlane Trust. Another, well known to the noble Lord, Lord Morris, is the vaccine damage payments scheme. There are other benchmarks from case law. My point is that sums of money should not simply be plucked out of the air but should be determined in relation to the scale of the suffering that they are intended to ameliorate.
I understand that the Minister cannot go into detail today, but will he tell me whether the payments under the scheme are being worked out within the framework of a predetermined budget or whether, as I hope, the payments are to be fixed in a way that might most conveniently be described as bottom-up?
Earlier this year, the Chief Medical Officer published a paper called Making Amends. It would be helpful if the Minister could make clear how, if at all, those recommendations relate to the scheme of ex gratia payments that we are now debating. The CMO's consultation paper offered alternatives to tort-based litigation for those who felt that they might have suffered as a result of NHS treatment. A large part of the recommendations relates to injuries caused by someone's fault, which are clearly not relevant to the matters that we have discussed today. With the hepatitis C victims, there is no admission or suggestion of fault.
Another of the CMO's proposals is more relevant, however. It relates to babies who sustain brain damage resulting from their birth. That proposal for compensation expressly excludes the concept of fault. The only requirement is to prove causation. In such cases, the proposals for compensation include a managed care package, a lump-sum payment and annual payments on top of them.
Although the Government have been careful to make it clear that the ex gratia scheme for hepatitis C victims does not constitute a precedent, it cannot be viewed in isolation. I realise that the CMO's paper is only a proposal at present, but it is clearly a carefully considered piece of work. Under what circumstances do the Government believe that a no-fault compensation scheme may have a part to play, and in what way precisely does such a scheme differ from an ex gratia payment scheme such as the one that we have discussed? What criteria are applicable to each? To put it another way, exactly why did the Secretary of State decide to opt for an ex gratia scheme rather than a no-fault compensation scheme such as that envisaged by the CMO?
934
In general, it would be helpful to hear from the Minister some of the Government's thinking on this scheme and an idea of when Ministers expect to make a further announcement on the details. Above all, I hope that the announcement when it comes will prove, at the very least, satisfactory to all those who have suffered so grievously and to whom the sympathies of the whole House are extended.
7.15 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Warner): My Lords, I thank my noble friend for reminding me of my misspent youth in so generous a way. I was taken down memory lane very agreeably by his opening remarks.
My noble friend has done much to keep this matter at the forefront of the Government's mind and is now providing me with an opportunity to give the House an up-to-date statement on the progress that we have made so far. In doing so, I shall endeavour to cover the points raised by my noble friend and other noble Lords.
Let me start by congratulating my noble friend on his absolutely outstanding record of commitment to this cause over many years, as other noble Lords have done. His efforts on behalf of people with haemophilia infected with hepatitis C as a result of treatment with NHS blood and blood products, and his service as the long-standing president of the Haemophilia Society, are widely recognised and valued in all parts of the House and outside, and by the Government.
I should also like to pay tribute to those people who took part in the Haemophilia Society's annual Garland of Lilies Day last week. We extend our sympathy to them on the loss of their loved ones.
The background to this issue is well documented and has been the subject of many debates in both this House and in the other place. Suffice it to say that the inadvertent infection of many thousands of people with hepatitis C as a result of treatment with NHS blood and blood products in the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s remains a tragic event in the UK and in many other countries around the world. These patients were at the time given what was considered by professionals to be the best treatment available. It was a terrible tragedy that medical advances in virology could not keep pace with those being made in transfusion and blood technology—technology which is fundamental in saving lives today.
No one can be but moved by the accounts of personal tragedies that individuals and their families have given to Members of the House and elsewhere. The inadvertent infection with hepatitis C was indiscriminate, affecting both those who regularly required blood products, such as people with haemophilia, as well as patients who received one-off blood transfusions. Fortunately, following the introduction of heat treatment technology in 1985 and donor screening in 1991, there is now only a minute chance that further infections will occur. But this is of little consolation to those who were infected before these scientific breakthroughs could be fully implemented.

935
The Government have enormous sympathy for people who have suffered infection via contaminated blood products and recognise the hardships that illness has brought on them and their loved ones. Those who were infected, and campaigners such as my noble friend Lord Morris, have longed called for social justice with regard to this issue and we acknowledge those efforts.
For its part, the Department of Health understands only too well the difficult dilemma where treatment and care can lead to harm where none is intended. Having looked at the history of this issue, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health decided in the summer that the establishment of a financial assistance scheme for those affected by these events was the right thing to do. I am grateful for the generous remarks of noble Lords about my right honourable friend's actions.
When the hepatitis C payment scheme was announced on 29th August few details were available. Nevertheless, the fact that the Government had decided in principle that such a scheme should be set up has received universal approval. I am now pleased to report that significant progress has been made in drawing up the details of the scheme.
Discussions on the specifics of the scheme have been continuing in the department since before the August announcement. First and foremost, we have taken steps to ensure that the scheme will be fully inclusive and fair. Officials have met on a number of occasions with their counterparts in the health departments of the devolved administrations in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland to co-operate in the development of a scheme that will cover the whole of the UK.
Although it would be premature for me to comment on those discussions in detail, I can confirm that a system will be put in place to ensure that all eligible UK claimants will benefit no matter where they currently reside, or where they were resident when they contracted the disease. We shall work hard to ensure that those eligible for payment under the terms of the scheme do not miss out because they may have crossed a border since their initial treatment.
Noble Lords will be aware that the Minister for Health in Scotland, as has been said, has already announced the proposals for the Scottish Executive's payment scheme. These proposals are being considered by the administrations, along with other independent recommendations such as those made in the report of the Hepatitis C Working Party to the Haemophilia Society and the report of the Scottish Expert Group chaired by Lord Ross.
My noble friend raised the question of whether the proposed scheme would simply follow that announced by the Scottish Executive earlier this year. The scheme envisaged for Scotland was clearly based on the particular circumstances in Scotland at the time. Following the Secretary of State's announcement in August, it was important that all available information was taken on board, including the reasons behind the
936
Scottish scheme. That is why we have had many discussions with the Scottish Executive to try to produce a UK-wide scheme.
Parallel discussions in England, Scotland and Wales have also included major patient organisations, including the Haemophilia Society. We are grateful to the groups that have participated for raising issues and contributing to the development of the scheme. I am also aware that my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Public Health has met with the chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Haemophilia of which my noble friend Lord Morris is the honorary president.
This debate also gives me the opportunity to pay tribute to the work of that group in promoting the interests of people with haemophilia. We are keen to take on board the comments made by these organisations and are considering them during our deliberations. We continue to correspond with these and other groups to keep key stakeholders up-to-date with developments.
Officials from the health departments have also met and consulted with clinical experts, including leading hepatologists and haematologists on various aspects of the scheme and regularly call upon the expertise of the National Blood Authority. These consultations are an integral part of developing a scheme, but noble Lords will appreciate-I think that the noble Earl, Lord Howe, anticipated this-that I cannot, as yet, make public further details, although I expect my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health to make an announcement before too long.
Following the announcement in August, the Department of Health received an enormous number of inquiries from people eager to take forward applications and benefit from the proposed scheme. Officials have moved swiftly to ensure that direct contact could be maintained with inquirers to keep them up to date with developments.
To this end, the department has established a confidential mailing list to keep a record of all those who contacted us. In order to make the mailing list as accessible as possible, telephone, e-mail and postal contact details were provided and those who had not yet got in touch were encouraged to do so, for example via the Haemophilia Society website and newsletters.
The mailing list now comprises scores of names and continues to grow day by day. Registrants will be contacted regularly in the near future as further details of the scheme are released and the application process is finalised. We believe this to be an important initiative as it gives would-be claimants confidence that their details have been noted and that they will be given an opportunity to make a claim once the scheme has been finalised and announced.
As well as opening a constructive dialogue with the Haemophilia Society, we are also listening to other patient groups and individuals and consider any concerns that they raise. We have received correspondence from various sources, including MPs, lawyers writing on behalf of clients, clinicians writing on behalf of their patients and bereaved families as

937
well as people with hepatitis C themselves. All those letters have been replied to and we have put their contact details on to the mailing list that I mentioned.
As well as providing advice, the National Blood Authority is involved in the identification of people who may have received hepatitis C-infected blood transfusions. We are co-operating with the authority in an effort to ensure that people who contact it regarding the scheme are referred on to the department.
My noble friend is aware that there are a number of legal and other difficulties-some have been mentioned this evening by many noble Lords- associated with the introduction of an ex gratia payment scheme. Many of those issues were successfully overcome during the establishment of the MacFarlane and Eileen trusts for people infected with HIV as a result of treatment with infected blood or blood products. We will, as a matter of course, look to those other schemes to learn lessons on how best to implement and operate the scheme that we are discussing. We are also looking at the detailed issues very carefully, and these are not constrained by any arbitrary fund.
My noble friend raised some issues about a public inquiry into the infected blood issue. I have to make it clear in as gentle a way as I can that the Government do not accept that any wrongful practices were employed, and do not consider that a public inquiry is justified. Donor screening for hepatitis C was introduced in the UK in 1991, and the development of that test marked a major advance in microbiological technology that could not have been implemented before that.
My noble friend referred to other countries, but we do not believe that they are comparable to the situation being dealt with in the UK. In Ireland and Canada, for example, compensation schemes came about because the blood authorities were both found to be at fault. Indeed in Canada, criminal prosecutions were filed against those responsible. It is important to stress that, despite our decision to make ex gratia payments, the position with regard to accepting liability has not changed. The payments are made on compassionate grounds and are not compensation. With that in mind, the payments cannot be expected to take account of loss of earnings or compare with punitive damages awarded by the courts in other countries. That said, as part of our deliberations we are considering, as other noble Lords have mentioned, the report of the hepatitis C working party to the Haemophilia Society, which I understand is based on the Canadian model.
Noble Lords will be reassured to hear that we are working closely with government lawyers and other government departments to resolve outstanding issues specific to the scheme and to minimise delay. In particular, I know that concerns about social security disregards have been voiced, and we are working closely with the Department for Work and Pensions and the Treasury to address those.
938
My noble friend raised the issue of arbitrary dates of death, which is part of the deliberations currently going on with regard to the question of payments to dependants. We wish to try to resolve those problems satisfactorily.
In addition, concerns have been raised by and on behalf of recipients of financial assistance from the MacFarlane and Eileen trusts, who have signed a waiver that may exclude them from making claims under the proposed scheme. Obviously we are urgently looking at the status of that waiver and hope to reach a conclusion that will be satisfactory to any such claimants.
So what will the Government be doing next? Our discussions are continuing apace on all the issues, with special priority being given to finalising the eligibility criteria and payment structure. We are also working on setting up a system to administer payments under the new scheme. As I have indicated, we expect to be in a position to make a further announcement detailing those very soon. In the mean time, we will continue to listen, consider and respond to comments that we receive. In addition, we are putting in hand the necessary work to ensure that the scheme is up and running as soon as possible.
My noble friend mentioned some issues around variant CJD. The answer to his main question is that we do not know whether variant CJD can be transmitted by blood. Therefore, we do not have any diagnostic tests for it in blood. He also made some remarks about the CJD compensation scheme. The Government have set up a variant CJD compensation scheme that will provide for payments to be made in respect of 250 cases of variant CJD up to a maximum of £55 million.
In recognition of the exceptional circumstances, on top of the £55 million trust fund, the Government will pay £50,000 to each victim in the family. The Government have committed enough funds to cover the 250 cases. One hundred and thirty-four victims are receiving money. I hope that I have provided the noble Lord with some background on that issue.
In conclusion, I am sure that noble Lords will agree with me when I stress the importance of setting the scheme up properly from the outset. It is always terribly easy to rush into those areas and to get things wrong. Despite the tragic circumstances of many victims, speed does not necessarily mean that we get it right. Although it may take a little more time than we would like-indeed, much more time than we would like-the benefits of introducing the scheme properly are obvious. It would be a great shame if a "rush job" left us with an inefficient or poorly structured scheme. On that basis, I thank noble Lords for their contributions today and reassure them that we expect to be in a position to respond more fully to their questions shortly, and to make an announcement soon.
House adjourned at twenty-eight minutes before eight o'clock.

  CAFCASS
  CAFCASS
  Northern Ireland: Public Sector Employment
  Northern Ireland: Public Sector Employment
  North/South Implementation Bodies
  North/South Implementation Bodies
  North/South Ministerial Secretariat
  North/South Ministerial Secretariat
  Millennium Dome
  Millennium Dome
  Fire and Rescue National Framework
  Fire and Rescue National Framework
  Gulf War 1990–91: Vaccines
  Gulf War 1990–91: Vaccines
  War Pensions and Allowances: Uprating
  War Pensions and Allowances: Uprating
  Olympic Games 2012: London Bid
  Olympic Games 2012: London Bid
  VAT
  VAT
  Money Laundering Regulations 2003
  Money Laundering Regulations 2003
  BBC: Royal Charter
  BBC: Royal Charter
  NHS Trusts: Ethnic Diversity Review
  NHS Trusts: Ethnic Diversity Review
  Care Services: Fees
  Care Services: Fees
  Game Licences
  Game Licences
  Non-departmental Public Bodies: Representations on Public Policy
  Non-departmental Public Bodies: Representations on Public Policy
  Government Websites
  Government Websites
  Citizenship Ceremonies
  Citizenship Ceremonies
  Thames Gateway Bridge: Construction
  Thames Gateway Bridge: Construction
  Railways: Maintenance and Renewals Expenditure
  Railways: Maintenance and Renewals Expenditure
  Congleton: Railway Service
  Congleton: Railway Service