Sitting of 15 December 2003

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

    Future Strategic Tanker Aircraft
    Mr. David Amess: When he expects to make an announcement on the awarding of the contract for the future strategic tanker. [143767]
    The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Mr. Adam Ingram): The Department is currently considering bids from two consortiums for the future strategic tanker aircraft project. We plan to make a decision on that complex and important private finance initiative competition as soon as possible in the new year.
    Mr. Amess: Following reports in The Independent on Sunday yesterday that the RAF may be forced to share its aircraft for the future strategic tanker requirements with air forces from other nations, may I ask the Minister what effects that will have on the RAF's requirements? Will he now admit that his own Department's defence is in a terrible crisis as a result of the mismanagement of the British economy, and that the RAF is suffering as a result?
    Mr. Ingram: I am sometimes surprised at the tone of questions based on press speculation. A major procurement process is under way for the RAF, involving not just the FSTA but Typhoon and the joint strike fighter. The FSTA could be the MOD's largest and most complex PFI contract, and I should have thought that he would have welcomed that, as it is not only undoubtedly good news for the RAF but potentially good news for British industry as well.
    Mr. Lindsay Hoyle: It is welcome news to hear that we expect the announcement in the new year, but can we ensure that it is made very early in the new year, as so many jobs in the north-west depend on it, whichever way the contract goes? I hope that the Treasury will not become involved. Let us get on with deciding who will get the job, and let us get the jobs to the north-west.
    Mr. Ingram: People across the Government have to be involved in such major procurement programmes, as I
    1302
    am sure my hon. Friend will understand. Indeed, he has probably precipitated some engagement from other Departments by the type of lobbying in which he so assiduously involves himself—usually campaigning for one side of a project. It is right that the Government consider this across the board. We have to ensure that the policy is right—not just financially but in terms of quality jobs—and, ultimately, in this case, that it is right for the RAF as well.

    Iraq
    Mr.David Heath: If he will make a statement on the security situation in southern Iraq. [143770]
    The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): I hold regular discussions on a range of issues related to operations in Iraq with military commanders and Government officials from the United Kingdom and, indeed, other countries. The protection of Iraqi and international military and security forces and, indeed, civilians is of paramount importance. Although in recent weeks there has been a decline in the number of security incidents in Iraq, following a peak of incidents in November, the security situation remains challenging. The vast majority of attacks occur in a certain area to the north and west of Baghdad. We obviously hope that particular events there over the weekend will lead to a reduction in the number of those attacks.
    A crucial component of our efforts in Iraq is the training of Iraqi security forces. That has been given added impetus by the acceleration of the political timetable agreed by the Iraqi governing council on 15 November. To accelerate the rate of training, there is a requirement for an additional infantry battalion and a contingent of Royal Military Police. The House will recall that I have previously announced the earmarking of a ready battalion for deployment on surge operations for that reason. I have decided that that battalion, the 1st Battalion the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders, and two platoons of Royal Military Police, drawn from 101 and 156 provost companies, should deploy in January for six months.
    Mr. Heath: We must all hope that the arrest of Saddam Hussein improves the security situation and does not make matters worse. May I return the Secretary of State to the National Audit Office report on equipment, because he rather glossed over it on Thursday? Yes, our troops are doing a superb job and a massive logistics exercise took place to equip our troops, but the fact remains that essential kit to keep our troops safe was not, and perhaps is not, available to them when they need it. Can he assure me that troops stationed in Iraq have all the kit that they need to be safe and that he is learning lessons and bringing forward plans to improve the situation?
    Mr. Hoon: That is precisely what I have told the House. It is precisely what I told the Defence Committee. It is precisely what the Government reported to the House last Thursday, when we published our own lessons learned paper and it is precisely what the NAO report also says.
    David Cairns: My right hon. Friend referred in his initial answer to the

    1303
    political timetable. I appreciate that, in such a fast-moving situation, it is difficult to predict a week in advance, let alone six months in advance, but if we are to see a transition to democracy as quickly as possible in Iraq, which we all desire, a great deal of preparation will have to be done in advance of any election in compiling the equivalent of electoral registers and so on. Has my right hon. Friend given any specific consideration to the kind of protection that can be afforded to observers and those people who will be the agents of democracy who will go out now and in the six months ahead to make all the preparation necessary for a smooth—and I hope peaceful—transition to democracy?
    Mr. Hoon: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his observations. He is right that the reason why we judge it necessary to continue our security presence is to ensure that the transition can be as smooth as possible. I made it clear that we do not want British or other coalition forces to remain in Iraq for a day longer than necessary but, equally, we will not abandon the Iraqi people. We have obligations to ensure that they can take responsibility for their affairs, and the sooner they are able to do that safely and securely, the better.
    Mr. Nicholas Soames: Will the right hon. Gentleman join me in congratulating the fourth infantry division on its brilliant coup in the capture of Saddam Hussein? Will he confirm to the House Saddam Hussein's exact status? As Saddam Hussein has been categorised as a prisoner of war, is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that, under the terms of the Geneva convention, he can be properly interrogated?
    Mr. Hoon: I certainly add my congratulations on what was a brilliant coalition effort by both military and intelligence forces on the ground in Iraq. As far as Saddam Hussein's present status is concerned, he is held under terms that are consistent with the Geneva conventions and international law.
    Mr. Soames: May I press the right hon. Gentleman further on the NAO report? He gave robust and confident assurances on the Floor of the House and to the Defence Committee on the adequacy of combat supplies, which turned out in some cases not to be correct. In the light of the NAO report, which praises the brilliant triumph of British forces in Iraq, yet highlights several wholly unacceptable and grievous failings in the supply of vital equipment—including the supply of insufficient quantities of body armour—does he think that he might inadvertently have misled the House on those matters? If so, should he not reflect on his position?
    Mr. Hoon: No, and no, and I have just given the answer to a previous question about the NAO report. Everything that I said was absolutely consistent with its conclusions. I am disappointed that right hon. and hon. Members have simply dealt with the detail rather than the overwhelming success.[Interruption.] Well, I think this is an important point. The NAO reports to the House and it reported a balanced conclusion. I made it clear to the House and the Select Committee that there were difficulties. However, it is important to look at the report's conclusions, not least on the logistic point. One of its key conclusions is:
    1304
    "The logistic effort for the Operation was huge and key to success."
    I have never pretended to the House or the Select Committee that there were not particular difficulties, but dwelling on those difficulties and making out that they were somehow a cause of failure is utterly wrong. There are certain hon. Members in the House who frankly should know better.
    Mr. Bill Olner: Given the outstanding success of the capture of Saddam Hussein at the weekend, will my right hon. Friend tell me whether that will make the security situation in southern Iraq better or worse?
    Mr. Hoon: All that I can say is what I said earlier. Obviously we hope that those who have supported Saddam so far will end their support and recognise that we are all engaged in a determined effort to rebuild Iraq. The scenes of celebration by Iraqi people once they had learned the news of Saddam Hussein's capture is testament to that, but we must recognise that there will still be elements— not only those in Iraq but others who enter the country—who will continue the campaign against coalition forces. They have to be defeated.
    Mr. Paul Keetch: Is the Secretary of State saying to the House that it is a matter of detail that although part of the Government's premise for sending British forces into the war was that this country was at threat from nuclear, chemical or biological attack, troops were sent into theatre without protection from that?
    Mr. Hoon: That is precisely the kind of detail that I was complaining about a few moments ago. If the hon. Gentleman had taken the trouble to find the answer to his questions before raising them in such a spurious way, he would know that British forces were properly protected and that every British soldier had a chemical protection suit available to him. If the hon. Gentleman checked his facts rather than issuing press releases, it might be better for him and, indeed, the party that he tries to represent.
    David Winnick: Whatever happens now, is not the capture of such a notorious mass murderer, Saddam, a victory for humanity? Is it not the case that had he been captured by some Iraqis rather than the Americans, his life might well have been ended immediately, which is what happened to Mussolini in 1945?
    Mr. Hoon: I am sure that the Iraqis would also have respected the principles of international law.
    Mr. Crispin Blunt: Perhaps I can ask a general question. As the Secretary of State has just announced that he is sending another battalion—the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders—and two platoons of police to train Iraqi security forces, does he accept that it was a mistake to disband the Iraqi army when the coalition forces took power in Iraq, as evidenced not only by this additional deployment of troops, but by the

    1305
    fact that the troops already there have to deal with demonstrations by those very soldiers about their pensions and the administration of them?
    Mr. Hoon: I do not accept that. Not disbanding the army might have produced a very short-term benefit, but the reality is that no one had confidence in the army, especially in relation to the extent to which it was still loyal to Saddam Hussein. Beginning again, with accelerated retraining—the purpose of deploying the additional forces—will give us a set of security forces across Iraq in which everyone has confidence. When the hon. Gentleman thinks about it, I am sure he will agree with that.

    RAF Support Units
    Mr. David Kidney: What progress he has made in his review of the RAF active combat service support units. [143771]
    The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Mr. Adam Ingram): The review is progressing well and is expected to conclude in the new year.
    Mr. Kidney: Does my right hon. Friend accept that an early conclusion of the review might be that the value of the communications and logistics units under review has not been appreciated as fully as it should have been by those at the highest levels of the RAF? Will he accept from me that the emerging conclusion is that instead of shuffling units around from camp to camp, we might do better to invest in their training, their equipment and—as I have suggested in other questions over the past two years—their living accommodation? Does he understand how strongly people in Stafford feel about the future of RAF Stafford? Would it be possible for me to bring a delegation from all parties in Stafford borough to see the Minister to discuss the matter while the review is taking place?
    Mr. Ingram: The answer to the latter question is yes. My hon. Friend knows that I am only too willing to meet people to discuss those key important matters, but clearly the same invitation would have to be extended to all other bases covered by the review. My understanding is that all MPs who have an immediate interest have been fully consulted either in writing or by being given access to station commanders so that they are brought up to speed on the evolving review as it develops. It is important to do that. There are big issues involved. My hon. Friend touched on the importance of support units, which are vital to what the RAF does. That is why we need to consider the basing strategy to ensure that we are utilising what is undoubtedly a key resource to the best effect.
    On accommodation, my hon. Friend was advised at one stage that the single living accommodation was up to scratch. A subsequent review showed that the RAF was not happy with the standard of the accommodation. That shows the concerns on that subject. All of that is tied up in the ongoing review. We must ensure that we get it right, primarily for the reasons that he gave: for the good of the RAF and the way in which the particular units support it overall.
    Mr. Gerald Howarth: Does the Minister agree that bases such as Royal Air Force
    1306
    Stafford not only contribute to the local economy, but provide an important contribution to the national military footprint? On the wider issue of logistics—if I may trouble him with a matter of detail—is he not embarrassed by the NAO report's findings that
    "Existing operational stock levels were, in many instances, not sufficient for readiness and sustainability"?
    Will he accept that just-in-time industrial practices suitable for Rover motor cars were not appropriate for our servicemen and women who put their lives on the line for our country?
    Mr. Ingram—
    Mr. John Bercow: Hand it over.
    Mr. Ingram: I was going to hand it over. It is clear that the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) has not read some very specific comments, both detailed and overall. The report said that, overall, UK equipment performed impressively. It said that
    "the Department's major equipments … contributed significantly to overall military capability and the success of the Operation",
    and that they were also supported effectively. That is the overall general assessment of an extremely detailed examination of a huge logistical effort. I sometimes wonder what is in hon. Members' minds when they raise these questions. Are they trying to talk success into failure? [Interruption.] That is good to know. The National Audit Office report also says:
    "For any required level of readiness, a balance has to be struck between having people and equipment ready to go immediately and make good shortfalls in the time available."
    The balance has to be struck at all times. My first quote is one that pays genuine plaudits to all the work that was done.
    Of course we recognise the importance of RAF Stafford to the local economy. That is why these issues are taken into account when we undertake basing reviews. The hon. Gentleman has probably forgotten, but his party was once in Government. That Government conducted a massive cutback in the UK's defence footprint. I am sure that the people of this country will welcome the way in which we go about our business, because we take account of the local economy.

    Suez Medal
    Huw Irranca-Davies: How he will ensure that all Suez veterans are awarded their medals. [143772]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Ivor Caplin): I said to the House on 8 September that I expected some Suez medals to be with veterans for Remembrance Sunday. Nine hundred such medals were sent to veterans directly—as are all medals following their application and approval. I can now further update the House. As at 12 December, the medal offices had received 27,192 applications, and 2,011 Suez medals have so far been dispatched to veterans or their next of kin.
    Huw Irranca-Davies: I thank my hon. Friend for that full answer. The steady uptake in the collection of the

    1307
    awards is testimony to the fact that no longer can Suez veterans be referred to as the forgotten army. Has he any estimate of how many people may be entitled to claim a medal for their work and for the ultimate sacrifice that many made in the campaign?
    Mr. Caplin: I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. The estimate of the possible number of veterans who can qualify is about 200,000 consisting of 25,000 from the Royal Navy and Royal Marines, 55,000 from the RAF and 120,000 from the Army. In reality, it is unlikely that anywhere near that number of applications will be made, and certainly not in the short term. However, to cope with the applications that are expected, we have set up a special medal office at the Army medal office at Droitwich to deal with the applications.

    Defence Fire Service
    Mr. John Grogan: If he will make a statement on the future of the defence fire service. [143773]
    The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Mr. Adam Ingram): Options for the modernisation of the defence fire services were examined in "Fire Study 2000". The results of that study informed the airfield support services project, which will identify the most cost-effective way of providing a range of services, including fire cover. Bids are being evaluated against the public sector comparator and I intend to decide the way forward in the first half of next year.
    Mr. Grogan: Does my hon. Friend agree with those senior officers in our armed forces who argue to me and others that they regard the defence fire service as part of a core military function that should not be privatised but kept in the public sector, particularly given that its members are currently risking their lives serving in Iraq?
    Mr. Ingram: My hon. Friend has raised these points before. It has been explained to him that the in-house option has been given much support and much encouragement because we want to ensure that there is a level playing field. The importance of the points that he raises about the capabilities of the defence fire service and other matters that could be affected by the review must be taken into account. We must then consider whether we use sponsored reserves or the current process. That is why the process has taken so long. We want to make sure that we get things right because of the critical nature of the services that are supplied both through the defence fire service and all the supply services on airfields.
    Angus Robertson: Does the Minister agree with the Transport and General Workers Union that cost savings sought by privatisation could be achieved while keeping the defence fire service as a truly accountable public body in the public sector? He mentioned "Fire Study 2000", so will he confirm that it identified room for 20 per cent. efficiencies? How much taxpayers' money would have been saved to date if "Fire Study 2000" had been implemented?
    Mr. Ingram: I hesitate to disagree with the Transport and General Workers Union, as I have been a member
    1308
    for the past 28 years or so, and proudly remain one. However, that does not mean that its analysis is always correct. The TGWU, along with other unions, was fully consulted on that project and review and is helping to develop the public sector comparator. As I mentioned earlier, it has been given full support to achieve that. It would be wrong not to express the thought that always goes through my head when the hon. Gentleman asks questions. Would we have an air force under an independent Scotland? Indeed, would we have a defence fire service under an independent Scotland? He wants to rip out and destroy the success, quality and strength of the British armed forces and go into an unknown future.

    Far East Prisoners
    Mr. Andrew Dismore: If he will make a statement on compensation for civilian prisoners of the Japanese in the second world war. [143774]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Ivor Caplin): In November 2000, the Government instituted a scheme to make ex gratia payments of £10,000 each to members of certain groups held captive by the Japanese during the second world war. Among those covered by the scheme are British civilian internees who had a close connection with the United Kingdom at the time of their captivity. So far, 1,876 payments have been made to former civilian internees, and a considerable number to the surviving spouses of those who died before 7 November 2000.
    Mr. Dismore: While I acknowledge the generous scheme that my hon. Friend outlined, a small number of people have been excluded because their grandparents or parents were not born in the UK. They were British enough to be interned by the Japanese, but it seems that they are not British enough to receive the compensation to which they are morally, if not legally, entitled. Two of my constituents, Mr. Abraham and Mrs. Sopher, are among the 324 such people resident in the UK. Will my hon. Friend meet Mr. Ron Bridge of ABCIFER—the Association of British Civilian Internees Far East Region—which lobbies on behalf of those people to discuss a way forward and see if anything can be done to help those who have been left out of that generous scheme?
    Mr. Caplin: May I congratulate my hon. Friend on his campaigning on this issue? He, like me, knows that the legal process undertaken by ABCIFER has come to an end. I have seen his letter to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State of 3 December, and I can assure him that a detailed reply will be on its way very shortly.
    Mr. Roger Gale: Sadly, Members on both sides of the House have to write to the widows of that dwindling number of the old and bold or attend their funerals. Those widows feel after many years that they have been let down, in all honesty by Governments of all political persuasions. Would the Minister consider at the very least meeting his hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore), me and

    1309
    others who are seeking to represent the interests of that small band of people so that we can discuss a proper way forward?
    Mr. Caplin: I have told my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) that I would be happy to meet him if there are outstanding issues or new matters that he or other Members want to discuss. That offer still stands.

    Iraq
    Mr Dave Watts: What discussions he has had with NATO partners on allied support for the future security of Iraq. [143775]
    The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): NATO support for Iraq's future security was raised at the NATO defence ministerial meeting on 1 December. The alliance continues to support Poland in its leadership of a multi-national division in Iraq and will review NATO's contribution to the stabilisation efforts on a regular basis.
    In addition, the NATO Foreign Ministers meeting on 4 December confirmed the alliance's commitment to the full implementation of UN Security Council resolution 1511 to restore conditions of stability and security in the country and return governing responsibilities and authorities to the people of Iraq.
    Mr. Watts: Many Labour Members were very reluctant to support military action without the full support of the United Nations. That was not possible, but will my right hon. Friend assure me now that he will do all he can to secure maximum support for the peacekeeping process from the UN and from NATO members?
    Mr. Hoon: As I have said, UN Security Council resolution 1511, adopted unanimously on 16 October, gives UN authorisation to a multinational force and a unified command. Some 30 countries are already contributing military forces, and it is entirely right for the coalition to explore all the options for broadening the overall force. As was stated in the United States-United Kingdom declaration of 20 November, we hope that international partners will participate increasingly in the multinational force, regardless of earlier differences.
    Dr. Julian Lewis: When the Secretary of State briefs his opposite numbers among our NATO allies, will he explain to them something of the contradiction between the supplies of equipment furnished to British troops in Iraq and the assurances he has given to the House and the Select Committee on Defence? In particular, will he explain why the NAO found that 200,000 sets of body armour had gone missing, having been issued during the years since 1999? Will he also explain why it is not enough to say—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is well out of order.

    Type 45 Destroyer
    John Robertson: If he will make a statement on the Type 45 destroyer orders. [143777]
    The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Mr. Adam Ingram): Type 45 will be the biggest and most capable class of air defence destroyers ever built for the Royal Navy, and will be equipped to carry out a range of other tasks. Six ships are on order with the prime contractor BAE Systems, providing stability for the shipbuilding work force on the Clyde and at the new Vosper Thornycroft facility at Portsmouth for the remainder of the decade. The programme is in full production against a mature design—a first for a United Kingdom warship project at this stage of its development.
    John Robertson: I thank my right hon. Friend, but that is not quite the full answer that I wanted. Another six type 45 destroyers will be coming along following a second order, but rumours abound on the Clyde—especially in my local yard, Scotstoun—that there is to be a cut of a further six, down to only two. Could my right hon. Friend comment on that? The ships that are, we hope, to be built will mean an awful lot to people on the Clyde.
    Mr. Ingram: My hon. Friend should encourage the Clyde work force. I am prepared to meet the trade unions if necessary, to dissuade them from listening to rumours and urge them to concentrate on what the project holds for them.
    This is a major shipbuilding programme for the Clyde, involving not just the Type 45 but the aircraft carrier and, perhaps, other ships at a later stage. The workers should look to what they must do now, and not listen to those who are trying to destabilise things. I repeat that the programme is in full production against a mature design, and that this is a first for a UK warship project at such a stage of its development. That is due to the good quality of the workmanship on the Clyde. The workers should keep their eye on the ball and go on building the ships, for that is where their future lies.
    Mr. Peter Viggers: One problem with a defence White Paper that is virtually a fact-free zone is that speculation can flourish. There is speculation that the number of Type 45 orders will be well below the original concept of 12, and that the Government are actively considering phasing out several surface ships in the near future. Can the Minister quell that speculation now?
    Mr. Ingram: There are two speculations there. The decommissioning of ships is always part of the ongoing process of any re-examination of future needs; the hon. Gentleman, and the House, will have to wait for our conclusions.
    As the White Paper points out, and as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State pointed out last Thursday, all this is happening against a background of change. The ocean war-fighting capability of the Royal Navy is being replaced by a different role. It is necessary to budget for that. We are looking at long-term horizons, as it were, although some are more immediate than

    1311
    others. All plans must take into account new issues and threats, and how they can best be dealt with. We cannot hold on to the old for ever while we are building the new. I hope that, given his background, the hon. Gentleman understands that.
    Mr. Speaker: I call Bob Russell. He is not here. I call Chris Grayling.

    Army Strength
    Chris Grayling: What targets he has set for personnel levels in the Army in each of the next five years. [143779]
    The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Mr. Adam Ingram): The current requirement for the Army is 106,730 personnel. The Department's target is to achieve manning balance by the end of 2005 and to maintain it thereafter.
    Chris Grayling: I am grateful for that response. Can the Minister tell us whether any recruitment freezes are operating in the armed forces?
    Mr. Ingram: Yes, I can. There are none.
    Mr. Andrew Miller: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the targets will be easier to achieve if we avoid the sort of false rumour that spread in the run-up to the White Paper's publication? Does he agree that such rumours about the future of the Army, especially our regiments, damage recruitment and morale?
    Mr. Ingram: I could not agree more. Recruitment is proving difficult in some areas of the country. That is not because of lack of determination by Army recruiters or the recruitment teams in other parts of the armed forces. We are keen to build our strength in all areas. That is why I answered the earlier question about recruitment by saying that there was no freeze.
    We are determined to build our strengths because we have to maintain our manning balance and the required strength that I outlined. My hon. Friend is right—every time someone mentions that a regiment is under threat, that could affect its recruitment. I ask hon. Members who wish to participate in the debate to bear that in mind. We are trying to maintain regiments' strengths, not undermine them.
    Mr. Desmond Swayne: Does the Minister agree that the public would not understand how one could possibly afford to have fewer regular soldiers while regularly having to call up reservists?
    Mr. Ingram: Is the hon. Gentleman looking for a compliment? I thought that he would have prefaced his question with "Sir" because I am used to being called that by members of our armed forces. It is a mark of respect, but I acknowledge that that is not forthcoming from him today.
    As someone who recently returned from the Gulf, the hon. Gentleman is well aware of the quality of the work and effort that the Territorial Army and the reserves put
    1312
    in. I have probably met more reserves than any hon. Member, perhaps with the exception of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. I have spoken to them and seen them in theatre. I have been impressed by their integration into the overall effort and the way in which they play their specific role. We need the reserves and the TA, and we therefore want to encourage them and to ensure that recruitment continues. They are part of the same effort as the Regular Army. Its scale means that we have to call upon the reserves to a greater extent. They have been called up not only in Iraq but in previous conflicts, when they performed magnificently.
    Mr. John Smith: In the light of the Minister's reply and the statement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence, does the Minister anticipate a further broadening of the military footprint, especially as regards the Army? That would almost certainly help with recruitment and maintaining personnel targets. In the light of the highly successful relocation of the 1st Battalion the Welsh Guards to RAF St. Athan, will he shortly make an announcement on further units coming to that site?
    Mr. Ingram: If my hon. Friend is not fighting for the future of the Defence Aviation Repair Agency, he is fighting for more of the British Army to be based at St. Athan.
    If we consider the future of Northern Ireland and we reach a position whereby the numbers that are deployed there have to decline sharply, what will happen? Clearly, we have to develop an approach to the basing of troops, and the relevant issues are being considered. I cannot give the answer that my hon. Friend seeks today, but I am sure that he will continue to campaign fiercely for the basing of additional troops not only at St. Athan, but elsewhere in south Wales—perhaps even in north Wales, too.
    Mr. Keith Simpson: The whole House will wish to commiserate with the 3rd Battalion the Liberal Democrats, commanded by the hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell), who arrived just too late to ask his question. In military matters, that can be disastrous.
    Last Thursday, in his statement to this House on the defence White Paper, the Secretary of State emphasised the need for change and the opportunities that are offered to increase capability through technology. Several hon. Members—and, in another place, Lords Inge, Guthrie and Boyce—mentioned the importance of our forces personnel both in the war against terrorism and in peace support operations, graphically described by Lord Inge as "boots on the ground". As hon. Members know, the reality is that the Army is short of 4,700 personnel. No amount of spin, fiddled figures or warm words will alter that fact. How will the Minister man today's commitments, let alone those of the defence White Paper? Will he cut regiments and the overall size of the Army to fit the available manpower?
    Mr. Speaker: Order.
    Mr. Ingram: I was expecting the hon. Gentleman to go on a bit, so that he would be ruled out of order, as the hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) was.

    1313
    The question of "boots on the ground", as the hon. Gentleman and Lord Inge put it, is mentioned in the White Paper and is clearly understood. As I said, we plan to continue to grow to meet the figure of 106,730 personnel: that is what we are seeking to achieve. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman heard my comments about people who are speculating, thereby perhaps creating unrest and affecting morale unnecessarily. The armed forces will not be used as a political football by Labour Members, because that diminishes those who do it.

    Iraq
    Mr. Kevan Jones: What measures his Department has introduced to promote security in the UK area of operations in Iraq. [143780]
    The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): United Kingdom forces continue to provide an effective security capability in Iraq. Recent operations against smuggling, for example, have been a considerable success and were widely welcomed by the Iraqi people. Our forces are also closely engaged in developing Iraq's own security capabilities, so that Iraqis can increasingly take responsibility for their own security. Already, more than 10,500 Iraqi police are on patrol in the multinational division, south-east, and more are being trained. Other Iraqi security personnel are guarding vital infrastructure, key facilities and the coastline.
    Mr. Jones: Although yesterday's announcement of the capture of Saddam Hussein was widely welcomed, it is recognised that attacks on coalition forces will continue. Many of those attacks will be organised by groups and individuals from outside Iraq. Can my right hon. Friend assure us that the utmost is being done to prevent those individuals from entering Iraq, and that British personnel in southern Iraq have the equipment that they need to protect themselves against such attacks?
    Mr. Hoon: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his observations. Certainly, a vital part of the training for Iraqi security forces is the development of a dedicated border police force—some 5,500 are now trained for that purpose. Their job is vital, as my right hon. Friend the Minister said. It is also important that we receive effective co-operation from the countries that neighbour Iraq—indeed, we are continuing to press them for assistance.
    As far as equipment is concerned, I assure my hon. Friend that our forces are given the right equipment.
    Hugh Bayley: What impact has the withdrawal from Iraq of UN agencies and other humanitarian organisations had on the post-war reconstruction and development of the country? What conversations has my right hon. Friend had with the UN and other organisations about the security situation and when it will allow them to return?
    Mr. Hoon: Not all non-governmental organisations have completely withdrawn from Iraq. Indeed, we continue to have conversations with the organisations and their representatives on the ground to try to ensure
    1314
    their safety and security sufficiently to allow them to return to Iraq to do the valuable work necessary for the rebuilding of the country. We have always regarded this as a partnership involving, first and foremost, the Iraqi people, the coalition forces who provide security, and, crucially, the non-governmental organisations, which play a vital role in reconstruction in any peacekeeping operation. Therefore, we want to see them back in Iraq and working flat out to create the conditions in which the Iraqis can assume responsibility for their own affairs.
    Mr. Dai Havard: What impact operations in Iraq have had on the future requirement for equipment. [143781]
    The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Mr. Adam Ingram): Operation Telic reinforced the requirement to be able to deploy and to sustain armed forces equipped and trained for both war fighting and peace support operations. Operations in Iraq have also demonstrated the importance of integrated joint capability. Those trends are reflected in the White Paper published last week.
    Mr. Havard: I would like to ask my right hon. Friend two questions about future technology and proven technology. First, stand-off weapons, particularly precision guided munitions, seem to have been successful in Operation Telic. What is being done to build them into future programmes for development? Secondly, in relation to force protection, I was surprised to learn that there were no dedicated medical evacuation helicopters at work in Iraq. I would like such proven technologies to be available to protect troops, particularly in the golden hour following any injuries, and to be built into any future requirements.
    Mr. Ingram: My hon. Friend raises two important points. While we look to the future, however, we must remember the impact of the present. We have recognised the importance of precision guided munitions for some time, and the planning and assessment relating to them were reflected in last week's White Paper. He rightly pointed to the successful use of weapons such as Paveway and Storm Shadow in the Iraq campaign, and we shall continue to make the acquisition of weapons of that capability a priority in our equipment programme.
    In terms of force protection, we have consistently said—not just during the present conflict but in a number of recent ones—that we are increasingly working in coalition with our allies. The issue applies across a range of equipment capability. Some countries have a specialist ability to put into areas of conflict, as well as into peacekeeping operations, a range of capabilities, including field hospitals, nuclear, biological and chemical regiments, and explosive ordnance disposal regiments. Increasingly, our relationship is developing in that way. Doing things on our own is unlikely to be the way of the future. We shall always do things on a combined basis, probably with the Americans but with other nations as well. Iraq shows just how closely we are working with nations other than the United States.
    Patrick Mercer: I am grateful to the Minister for outlining the future equipment requirement.

    1315
    Anyone who has been in a war understands that the logistics will always have hiccups and that the details will not always be right, but will he assure us that there will not be a repeat of the experience of my constituent who told me the other day that he went into battle without ammunition for his rifle? Will the Minister assure me that that will never happen again?
    Mr. Ingram: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his general point. He correctly recognises that the logistics even of small-scale conflicts can sometimes go wrong, for a variety of reasons. We have to put in place a comprehensive and intensive analysis of the lessons learned, so that we can avoid those difficulties recurring. I would be grateful if he wrote to me on the specific issue that he raised, and I shall try to get him a more specific answer on it. I am concerned, as he is, about the nature of that matter, but I need to know more about it before I can answer his question.

    Afghanistan
    Joan Ruddock: What progress has been made on increasing security in Afghanistan. [143782]
    The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Mr. Adam Ingram): We have been working with the international community to extend the international security assistance force beyond Kabul and to widen the provincial reconstruction team programme. Our own team in Mazar-e-Sharif has been actively supporting United Nations and Afghan transitional authority initiatives to improve security, such as negotiating ceasefires between rival militia forces and placing their heavy weaponry under the control of the Afghan national army. Our contribution to ISAF continues to promote a safe and secure environment in Kabul. Finally, we remain active in our support for security sector reform.
    Joan Ruddock: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the activities of the British, especially in connection with the programme that he has just outlined. However, does he accept that, overall, there is a deteriorating security situation in Afghanistan, with the targeted killings of 15 aid workers and attacks on the United Nations, which have rendered one third of that country out of bounds to both? In that context, what assistance in security is being given to the electoral registration office of the United Nations, which has to accomplish in just eight months an electoral registration process that took it eight years to achieve in Cambodia?
    Mr. Ingram: I do not pretend that the security situation in Afghanistan is ideal, but we are making progress. That is why we have put in place the provincial reconstruction teams, why the UK has been so heavily engaged, and why we have encouraged the maturation of that process and encouraged other countries to take such initiatives. We must move beyond Kabul and try to extend the areas of relative calm, recognising at all times that there are clear threats out there. My hon. Friend asked about protection for a specific programme. I do not have that information to hand, but I will obtain it and write to her. If it is an area where we have direct
    1316
    responsibility, I am sure that we are doing all we can. It is crucial to the democratic process, and it is where the future of Afghanistan lies, as is clear to anyone who has listened to President Karzai in the past few days talking about the future of his country. We must make sure that that programme and that process move forward unfettered, as far as that can be achieved. I will get more details about that for my hon. Friend and write to her.

    Service Personnel (Education)
    Mr. David Cameron: What discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Education and Skills on the provision of good schools for forces families; and if he will make a statement. [143783]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Ivor Caplin): There is frequent contact between officials from the Department for Education and Skills and the Ministry of Defence in order to discuss the issues faced by schools with children from the service population, and to ensure that the provision meets their educational requirements. I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the supporting essay on people published in support of the White Paper last Thursday, which includes further comment on the ongoing discussions between the Departments at all levels of Government.
    Mr. Cameron: Does the Minister agree that schools with a high proportion of children from forces families face particular pressures? Is he aware that, at the Gateway school in Carterton in my constituency, next to RAF Brize Norton, where about 80 per cent. of the children are from forces families, about 45 per cent. of those turned over to different schools last year? As the number of missions has increased and the number of personnel remains static, the position is likely to get worse. Will the Minister speak to the Department for Education and Skills about special funding for those schools? Surely that is the least our armed forces deserve.
    Mr. Caplin: The Ministry of Defence has established a schools liaison policy in the area to which the hon. Gentleman refers. That is to ensure regular contact between the services, schools, parents and the local education authority. I expect that that would be the most appropriate forum for those discussions. I am, of course, aware of the changes coming to Brize Norton. They were the subject of an Adjournment debate initiated by the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) on 15 July, when we laid out the Government's policy on the matter.
    Bob Russell: I agree with the hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron). Is the Minister aware that discussions are one thing, and delivery is another? Earlier this year, the Secretary of State for Education and Skills visited Colchester and promised the head teachers of schools with a large component of children from military families that more money would be forthcoming. When will that be delivered?
    Mr. Caplin: I was tempted to say, "Better late than never" to the hon. Gentleman. Following the visit of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Skills, there have been more discussions about the matter in relation to the Colchester garrison.

    Veterans' Affairs
    Dr. Rudi Vis: If he will make a statement on joint working with the US Administration on veterans' affairs. [143784]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Ivor Caplin): I visited the United States last month where I met the Secretary of Veterans' Affairs in the American Administration, Secretary Principi. We agreed that there should be greater co-operation between Governments on the issues.
    Dr. Vis: I congratulate my hon. Friend on the initiative. Will he go into more detail about the discussions and tell us whether further meetings are planned?
    Mr. Caplin: The discussions between the US and the UK centre on increasing co-operation to involve Veterans Affairs Ministers of Australia, New Zealand and Canada in a ministerial-level meeting. That will be an important opportunity to develop veterans' affairs with the United States and across the Commonwealth.

    Main Battle Tanks
    Hugh Robertson: if he will make a statement on the number of operational main battle tanks. [143787]
    The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Mr. Adam Ingram): Challenger 2 performed excellently in operations in Iraq earlier this year and continues to play a valuable role there. Sufficient Challenger 2 tanks are available to meet our operational and high-readiness requirements. Force recuperation continues according to plan.
    Hugh Robertson: Given that the National Audit Office report praised the speed with which the MOD and British forces deployed Challenger 2 tanks to the Gulf and that many commanders have praised the tank as a battle-winning asset in Iraq and Afghanistan, is not the change to light scales the wrong decision, taken at the wrong time?
    Mr. Ingram: Challenger 2 is not disappearing, and it is not a question of converting all heavy tanks to medium and light; there will be a mixture. The hon. Gentleman is right about the NAO's analysis of how the tanks performed, how they were maintained in the field and how the tank commanders and all who worked alongside them delivered such a key element in that military campaign. There will still be a need for the heavy component, so I do not accept the premise of his question—that the decision we are envisaging, as set out in the White Paper, is wrong. I believe it to be fundamentally correct and a view that is held within the tank regiments and elsewhere. They recognise that the threat is changing and that we must have a better balance and provision to be able to meet emerging threats as well as existing ones.

    Eurofighter Typhoon
    Miss Anne McIntosh: What the implications of the Defence White Paper are for the Eurofighter. [143788]
    The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): The defence White Paper sets out our intention to deploy capabilities right across the range of air operations. Typhoon can be employed in multiple roles and will have the built-in flexibility to adapt its role in an environment where the threat is developing and changing.
    Miss McIntosh: I invite the Secretary of State to answer the question that I put to him on Thursday. How many Typhoons can we expect at RAF Leeming? Will they come in on the date that he announced and in the same numbers as originally ordered?
    Mr. Hoon: As I made clear in the White Paper, we are considering the numbers of combat aircraft, such as Typhoon and the joint strike fighter, to meet anticipated future capability requirements. The UK is party to international arrangements, under which we are set to order 232 Typhoons. Fifty-five aircraft are already on order and we are working towards an order for the second trariche of 89. The third and final order is not due to be placed before 2007 and we will keep our requirements under continual review during that time. On current planning, RAF Leeming will be the second base for Typhoon, after RAF Coningsby and before RAF Leuchars. On current plans, I anticipate the aircraft arriving at the station around 2007.

    Western European Union
    Mr. George Foulkes: If he will make a statement on the future of the Western European Union. [143791]
    The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): In November 2000, the Council of the Western European Union at Marseilles agreed a number of measures designed to address the consequences for the WEU of the changes under way, particularly the evolution of European security and defence policy.
    Mr. Foulkes: Is the Secretary of State aware that I used to wonder about the role of the Western European Union? Now that I am a member of the Parliamentary Assembly of the WEU, I do see that it has a potential role, but the matter does need more debate and discussion. Will he or one of his Ministers agree to meet the British delegation to the WEU to discuss further a greater and expanding role for that important institution?
    Mr. Hoon: I emphasise that the Government share my right hon. Friend's determination to travel widely and extensively throughout Europe, so we entirely accept the need to consider further how to improve the arrangements for collective oversight of areas of EU activity, including ESDP. We are very grateful for his contribution, on behalf of the European taxpayer.

European Council
3.31 pm
The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair): Mr. Speaker, with permission, before I make a statement on the details of the intergovernmental conference, I should say that the European Council also discussed Iraq. The presidency conclusions reaffirm the importance of the reconstruction of Iraq and condemn the recent terrorist attacks. These conclusions have been placed in the Library of the House. Perhaps this gives me the opportunity to update the House briefly on the events of the past 24 hours.
The celebrations on the streets of Baghdad, Basra and all over Iraq show once and for all how delighted the Iraqi people are that Saddam's rule is now history. The Iraqi people want their freedom, and support the principles of justice, democracy and the rule of law, just as people do everywhere, given half the chance to do so. I would like to pay tribute to the American coalition forces and the intelligence services, who brought about Saddam's capture. They have proved their professionalism, bravery and commitment. But let us also pay tribute to the Iraqi people themselves, who helped to capture Saddam. Thousands of Iraqis are now working in the new Iraq police and defence forces, and they are working to build a new Iraq. We will work with them to do so.
There is still a massive amount to do, but we have achieved a great deal in a short time. A political timetable is taking us through to a democratic, elected Government in Iraq—an Iraq where the public enjoy freedom of speech and religion for the first time in decades. Over 17,000 reconstruction projects have been launched. Oil production has risen by 320,000 barrels per day, with the proceeds used for the benefit of the Iraqi people, rather than stolen or squandered, as they were under Saddam's rule. Iraqis now have a new currency to spend in the increasingly well-stocked markets. Electricity has surpassed pre-conflict levels, and clean water supplies are improving daily.
But as we have seen yet again today, the terrorists and Saddam's sympathisers will continue, and although small in number and in support, their terrorist tactics will still require vigilance, dedication and determination. But the hope of a new Iraq is now clear and evident to all, and the final victory will be the Iraqi people's.
I now turn to the details of the European Council and the intergovernmental conference, which took place in Brussels on 12 and 13 December. The negotiations, which have been going on over the past 22 months, have been about the effective management of the European Union after its enlargement to 25 countries next year. That enlargement is a hugely important event, not just for the countries concerned, but for the whole of Europe. The stability and prosperity of our continent stand to gain enormously from enlargement. That is why we negotiated the Nice treaty three years ago to make enlargement possible. It is why we have been negotiating in the Convention, and now the IGC, on a draft constitutional treaty.
A negotiation among 25 sovereign countries was bound to be complicated, particularly on the issue on which the Nice negotiation itself almost foundered: the
1320
relative weight in voting terms that each country would have after enlargement. In the end, it was on that issue that agreement at the weekend proved impossible.
However, a great deal of progress has been made, and I pay an unqualified tribute to the Italian presidency whose skill and tenacity made that progress possible. Prime Minister Berlusconi was able to sum up at the end of the meeting that while, of course—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. Let the Prime Minister make his statement.
The Prime Minister: Prime Minister Berlusconi was able to sum up that, while, of course, in formal terms, nothing is agreed until everything is agreed, there were some 82 points where consensus was close. Those included key changes on very important issues for the United Kingdom—[Interruption.] The truth is that the Opposition do not believe these things to be important at all.
If it proceeds on the basis outlined by Prime Minister Berlusconi, tax, EU finance, social security and criminal law will all remain the province of the nation-state—namely, subject to decision-making by unanimity—and any further treaty change will be subject to the approval of national parliaments.
I should also highlight the fact that the European Council welcomed the proposals put forward by the United Kingdom, France and Germany on the future of European defence, which is limited of course to peacekeeping and humanitarian issues. Those will strengthen the European Union's collective planning capacity while in no way duplicating, or conflicting with NATO, which remains the basis of Europe's territorial defence.
The draft constitutional treaty is also close to an agreement in other ways that are important for this country. It contains a clear statement that the European Union has only the powers that the nations give it. The Union acts only when objectives cannot be achieved by individual countries acting alone. There will be new powers for national parliaments to be involved in EU legislation. It will be for the Union's national leaders in the European Council to set the strategy of the European Union and there will be a full-time chairman of the European Council to drive forward that work. The European Commission will have all its necessary independent authority within that system.
As I said earlier, Mr. Speaker, the outstanding point of difference was over the relative weight of the votes that member states have within the EU. The Government made it clear in our White Paper published in September that we were content with the Nice system, but were equally prepared to move to a new one, if there were a consensus for that. However, it has been a particularly difficult question for Spain and Poland and I believe that it was right to take time to find a workable solution, rather than to plough on in the hope of an unsatisfactory compromise. That is particularly so since the voting provisions of the Nice treaty take effect only in a year's time and—something often not fully understood—under the Convention proposal those Nice voting arrangements would anyway last until 2009. So we have time to resolve the issue.
Above all, the negotiation was living proof that the European Union is and will remain an organisation of sovereign member states. We could not agree at the

1321
weekend precisely because agreement required unanimity. In time an agreement will, however, be necessary to allow enlargement to work effectively, but we now have a chance to reflect and consider before proceeding.
In the meantime, the business of the European Union will continue under the existing treaty framework. We are in contact with the incoming Irish presidency to take forward the Lisbon economic reform agenda at the spring summit next March. Eight central European countries, and Malta and Cyprus, will accede to the European Union on 1 May.
We shall turn our minds to the next financing framework for the European Union, to cover the period from 2007. I have today, with the President of France, the Chancellors of Germany and Austria, and the Prime Ministers of the Netherlands and Sweden, written to the President of the Commission to emphasise the need for budgetary discipline over the coming financing period.
Ultimately, these negotiations are about the stability, security and prosperity of a Europe of nearly 500 million people, living in countries that are our principal allies and our major trading partners. It would be a serious mistake for any British Government to absent themselves from those negotiations and to allow decisions vital to our security and prosperity to be made by others. We should therefore continue to shape the future of Europe in ways that reflect our national interest. We can either be on the touchline shouting our criticism, or on the field as an active and successful player. I have no doubt—and Government Members have no doubt—that we should remain fully engaged. That is why I commend these outcomes to the House.
Mr. Michael Howard: We join the Prime Minister in welcoming the capture of Saddam Hussein. I congratulate fourth infantry division and others involved in that achievement. Those in the House who have always believed that the war was right in principle recognise that this momentous event is likely to hasten the day when we see a free and democratic Iraq.
Secretary Rumsfeld said this weekend that Saddam is being held by the Americans as a prisoner of war. Can the Prime Minister confirm that that is the case, and what restrictions does that place on such issues as the questioning of Saddam Hussein and his exposure to the media. Will the Prime Minister assure us that Saddam's trial will be fair, open and transparent? Will he take this opportunity to explain exactly how he expects that to be achieved? Will he also give assurances regarding the independence of any judicial process? Will he confirm that any trial is likely to take place in Iraq? Does he envisage its coming before or after the handover of sovereignty to the Iraqi people? What is the Government's view on the possibility that Saddam Hussein might, if convicted, face the death penalty?
The Prime Minister also reported on the weekend's other developments. He was said this morning to have looked far from grief-stricken at the way in which the European Union summit turned out. We are not grief-stricken either. However, this lack of grief owes nothing to the Prime Minister: it was the courage of the Polish Prime Minister, alongside Spain, in standing up for their principles that stopped the Prime Minister returning with an EU constitution.
1322
From the beginning of this debate, the Government's position has been characterised by dissembling. Just three years ago, the Prime Minister informed us, in his Warsaw speech, that the British way for Europe was not for a
"single, legally binding document called a Constitution".
When did he change his mind about that? Then he said that a constitution was essential for enlargement; now it has collapsed, and he says that it is not. When did he change his mind about that? The Leader of the House said the process was all "a tidying-up exercise", but the Prime Minister told a Cabinet Committee that the outcome of the convention would be absolutely fundamental and would last for generations. Despite the Foreign Secretary's boasting to the Today programme on Friday that the phrase "ever-closer union" had been dropped from the draft constitution, has it not been replaced by the phrase "united ever more closely"? Can the Prime Minister tell the House precisely what the difference is between those two phrases?
In 1999, the then Foreign Secretary told the House:
"For the record, we are not proposing a constitution of Europe."—[Official Report, 25 May 1999; Vol. 332, c. 184.]
When did the Prime Minister change his mind about that? Three years ago, he said that there was
"no proposal, no desire or decision for a separate European military planning capability".
Now, there will be. When did he change his mind?
Three years ago, the Prime Minister told the House:
"Our case is that"
the charter of fundamental human rights
"should not have legal status, and we do not intend it to. We will have to fight that case."—[Official Report, 11 December 2000; Vol. 359, c. 354.]
When did he change his mind about that? When did he stop fighting that case?
In the convention, Government representatives proposed 200 amendments, of which just 11 were accepted. Will the Prime Minister tell us what happened to the rest? Did he fight and lose, or did he just give up? His representative, the Leader of the House, tried to delete seven sub-clauses on asylum and immigration that would enable policy on those matters to be decided by a majority of other states. His amendment failed; did he fight and lose, or did he just give up? He tried to remove the title "Foreign Minister", saying that the proposal was unacceptable as it stood. He failed. Did he fight and lose, or did he just give up? He tried to remove the EU Foreign Minister's right to take our seat on the Security Council. He failed. Did he fight and lose, or did he just give up? So much for his claim three years ago that the intergovernmental conference would deal primarily with issues of subsidiarity. Indeed, the Belgian Prime Minister describes the constitution as the "capstone" of a "federal state."
Why has the Prime Minister not listened to his own representative on the EU Convention, who said:
"Not once in the 16 months I spent on the convention did representatives question whether deeper integration is what the people of Europe want. whether it serves their best interests or whether it provides the best basis for a sustainable structure for an expanding Union."

1323
Will the Prime Minister take advantage of this weekend's failure to look again at the whole question of a constitution for the European Union? Will he admit that a constitution takes Europe in the wrong direction? Will he now use this opportunity to put the case for a modern Europe, for a flexible Europe, for a Europe whose nation states have room to breathe? If some wish to integrate more closely, why should we stop them? Why cannot we say to our partners in Europe, "We do not want to stop you doing what you want to do, so long as you do not make us do what we do not want to do."? Is there not a precedent for a flexible Europe in the single currency and the Schengen agreement and, indeed, in the social chapter, before he abandoned our opt-out?
Above all else, if he refuses to listen and the constitution is agreed, will he at least listen to the views of the people and call a referendum? Even the former Minister for Europe has now called for a referendum. After all, it is not as though the Government are hostile to the principle of referendums: we have already had 34 of them. Why is the Prime Minister so determined to stop the people of our country having a say on this vital issue? Is it not time for a Government who are willing to listen to people's views, who will stand up for what is right for Britain and for Europe, and who will end the years of dissembling and trust people enough to tell them the truth?
The Prime Minister: We all remember exactly what happened the last time that the right hon. and learned Gentleman was in charge of European matters. He put through the Maastricht treaty without a referendum, and he voted for it. I shall come back to that in a moment.
On Iraq, the US Secretary of State is correct: Saddam Hussein will be treated with all the rights of a prisoner of war. The trial process should be determined by the Iraqi Government and the Iraqi people. It should be left to them. Of course we must ensure that the process is proper, independent and fair, but I am sure that the Iraqis have the capability to achieve that. We and other countries will work with them to ensure that that is correct.
As for what the right hon. and learned Gentleman said about Europe, the extraordinary thing is that he thought that it was a terrible humiliation to go there and get an agreement. Now there is no agreement, he thinks that; it is a terrible humiliation not to have got one. Does he not understand that there is something increasingly absurd about his opportunism and opposition for opposition's sake? He is the person who said that there should not be an agreement. We come back without an agreement, and he attacks us for it.
Let us deal with some of the facts, not the myths. In respect of tax, social security, defence and foreign policy, we have made it clear—and there is now a consensus for this in Europe—that all those issues should remain by unanimity the province of the nation state. I shall quote to the right hon. and learned Gentleman from a member of his shadow Cabinet—[Interruption.] I think that that is fair enough. The right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry), who is in his place, said a few months ago:
1324
"The danger for us is not from a closer relationship from our neighbours but from those who would isolate us from Britain's largest market."
That is exactly the Leader of the Opposition's policy. Or, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman has appointed as one of his key advisers the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), here is what he said just a few weeks ago:
"What is being proposed will not herald the 'end of a thousand years of history', nor does it justify any other of the hyperbolic claims that are currently being made".
That is an answer to the question from the Opposition's own side.
As for the charter of rights, we have made it clear that that should not have binding legal authority and that is precisely what we shall achieve in the course of the negotiation. National Parliaments are to be involved for the first time. That is subsidiarity in action.
As for Poland, the latest myth of the Eurosceptics is that somehow Poland is against the whole European constitution. It is not.
Mr. Howard: No.
The Prime Minister: The right hon. and learned Gentleman says no. Poland is against one aspect—on voting weights. That does not touch significantly—as between Nice and what is proposed in the Convention—the interests of this country. But Poland, were it not for that point, would be voting in favour of the constitution. That is why the absurdity of his position is this: he has said recently in interviews that he would seek to renegotiate the whole of the constitution even if it was ratified. Right. Let me put to him the point that I put to his predecessor and to the predecessor before that: name me one other country in favour of renegotiating the very principle of a European constitution. There is none—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. MacShane should calm down.
The Prime Minister: The truth is that there is none, so what would be the policy of the Leader of the Opposition? Supposing that we can, as no doubt in time we will, overcome the difference between Poland and Spain on one hand and France and Germany on the other and that we actually have a European constitution, the right hon. and learned Gentleman says that he would renegotiate the whole of it—not one other country supports that position. What would that leave us with? He quoted to me what my representative on the Convention said. Let me quote to him what his representative on the Convention said, which is that in those circumstances, we should renegotiate our membership and retire to an "associate membership" of the European Union.
That is the worst that would happen, but what is the best? The Leader of the Opposition mentioned Maastricht and the European social chapter. Does he still think that it was of great benefit to Britain to have an opt-out from the social chapter? Well, now that we have signed up to the social chapter, what has it meant? For the first time, British workers had the right to paid holidays. That is what he is against. He is the person

1325
who told us that if we signed up to the social chapter—how many jobs would leave the country?—500,000 to 1 million jobs would leave the country. We signed the social chapter and we got 1.5 million extra jobs in the British economy.
The truth is that Britain should carry on playing a leading role in Europe in areas such as defence. It is important that Britain is part of European defence. Britain is blessed with two great alliances: one is our transatlantic alliance with America; the other, as a result of our membership of the European Union, is a European alliance—part of the most powerful union in the world. I say that we should give up neither; we should carry on working, as we have in the last year, for the transatlantic alliance, and we should continue to be a leading constructive, engaged member of the EU. To return to the margins, which is where we were six years ago when the right hon. and learned Gentleman was in charge, would not be to the satisfaction of our national interest; it would be a betrayal of that national interest.
Mr. Charles Kennedy: I thank the Prime Minister for his statement.
On Iraq, I begin by expressing unqualified congratulations on the skill, professionalism and bravery of those forces who apprehended Saddam Hussein. That is a most welcome development. Does the Prime Minister agree that it could send an important signal, both inside Iraq and globally, to those misguided enough to be adherents to Saddam's particular form of brutalised fanaticism that their time is over and that the emphasis must now be on the internationalisation of the position in Iraq and hastening that country towards stability and democracy?
Does the Prime Minister agree, given that Saddam's captivity has been achieved, that he must be tried according to internationally reputable standards of justice and in public, and that the process itself must be rooted in legitimacy in the eyes of those who will be judging, not least in Iraq and the rest of the middle east? Does he agree therefore that a significant international presence in the shape of the United Nations is required for a tribunal, or whatever method of legal procedure is arrived at, to have sufficient legitimacy?
If we want to internationalise the situation, does the Prime Minister agree that the best way to establish credibility for any war crimes trial would be for the Iraqi governing council to suggest setting up an international tribunal, perhaps along the lines of the one that was pursued in the context of Sierra Leone? If that IGC requested the setting up of such a tribunal, would the British Government give their support?
Yesterday, Sir Jeremy Greenstock ruled out British participation in any process that results in administering the death penalty. The statute of the existing special tribunal that was agreed last week, of course, includes the death penalty, so if the special tribunal that has been established for Iraq by the coalition forces tries Saddam Hussein as presently proposed, will the UK participate?
I shall now turn to the extremely disappointing events of the weekend in respect of the intergovernmental conference—it was disappointing for all of us across the political spectrum with a broadly pro-European mindset in the national discussions that are taking place.
1326
May I at least welcome the progress that was achieved on defence matters and draw attention to the fact—the Prime Minister has referred to this—that that has involved a compromise with the American Government and that that understanding between our country, the rest of the European Union and the Americans is to be broadly welcomed and built upon?
May I stress to the Prime Minister that the Liberal Democrats remain firmly of the view that there remains the need for a constitution—a codification of European operating procedures—not least because of the welcome enlargement that is now in front of us and that those who seek some comfort from the difficulties of the weekend overlook the much bigger picture? Those of us who were Members of Parliament at the time remember the Monday after the weekend when the Berlin wall came down and all those countries of central and eastern Europe that had been under the tyranny of the communist regime in the Soviet Union suddenly began to experience liberation. That was the big picture and the big prize for Europe, and we must not lose sight of the fact that, despite the political difficulties that were encountered at the weekend, the constitution will give effect to an enlarged Europe. That is a pivotal point, which those of us who are of a pro-European slant are correct to emphasise.
Does the Prime Minister agree that the spectre that has been raised during the weekend of a two-speed Europe—a two-tier Europe—is not in Europe—sinterests and is certainly not in British interests? That being the case, will the Prime Minister tell us how that sense of two-tierism will prejudice his ambitions on behalf of the Government for our country to remain at the heart of Europe? Finally, will he confirm that it remains the Government's intention to secure a decent and deliberative outcome to the Convention process, arriving at a workable constitution for an enlarged EU? That is in British interests, and it is profoundly in European interests as well.
The Prime Minister: On Iraq, I can do no more than repeat what I have said. I think that any trial of Saddam should be for the Iraqi Government and people and that it is for them to determine the penalties that might arise from that. It is important to recognise that it is only in circumstances where a country is incapable of mounting a proper tribunal that we have recourse to international tribunals. if Iraq has that capability, it would be wrong to mount such a tribunal. The governing council has already indicated that it wants a special tribunal to try those who are guilty of serious war crimes, so it is important to allow it to do that because it is part of Iraq's prerogative as a country. Of course, that would be done on the basis that such a special tribunal could be constituted.
On Europe, the truth is that we need to make changes if we are to have an effective Europe of 25. There is no way in which it will work as effectively as it should unless we make changes, which is why it is perfectly sensible to have the debate on the constitution and to try to resolve it. I do not believe that anyone wants a two-tier Europe, although there will no doubt be issues on which people will move ahead and enhance co-operation—that is already provided for by what was agreed at Nice. For example, we would want to be part of any movement forward on defence, but perhaps we would not on other

1327
matters, so we can deal with that case by case. I remain absolutely of the view that it is important to conclude the negotiations successfully, but there is obviously an impasse at the moment because of differences over the Nice voting system. I return to the point that I made: on the vast bulk of the stuff in the constitution, there is now agreement among the 25.
Mr. Doug Henderson: I totally support the stance that my right hon. Friend has taken at the European Council, which is realistic in difficult circumstances and will carry the full support of the British people. Does he agree that although the capture of Saddam Hussein is welcome, it will not necessarily lead to stability in Iraq. and that the crucial factor in establishing stability is building bridges with the whole of the Iraqi community to prevent degeneration into three separate countries? In that context, does he agree that it would be desirable to broaden the basis of the Iraqi governing council?
The Prime Minister: I agree with both points made by my hon. Friend. I thank him for his support on the European negotiations. On Iraq, he is absolutely right; the capture of Saddam is a momentous and important event, but it will still be necessary to defeat Saddam's supporters and the assorted foreign terrorists who are trying to prevent the progress that is being made. It is important that we give every power and strength to the Iraqi governing council and keep to the political timetable set out. In the end, the situation must be seen for what it is: the coalition forces and the Iraqi people against those who want to hold back the process.
Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory: It was a great day for Europe when the Poles did what the British Government should have done—block the wretched document. Since this may be only a reprieve rather than the end of the constitution, will the Prime Minister elaborate on his claim that he secured all his objectives, even though most were not fully discussed? Will he assure us that if the text is retabled next year, it will not include any of the red line objections that the Government have announced so far? Will he therefore assure us that any future constitution will not contain any of the matters to which the British Government object?
The Prime Minister: Of course, because we have made it clear that those things that are red lines for us cannot be breached, which is precisely why we negotiated on that basis. Negotiations on such issues as tax, social security, foreign affairs and defence have been going on for many weeks. The truth of the matter is that there is nearly a consensus on those issues in favour of the British position, although we obviously must await the final negotiations.
Let me point out the complete irrationality of the position of the right hon. Gentleman and Conservative Members. He says that Poland did what Britain failed to do, but Britain would have refused to sign a treaty that said, for example, that there should be no unanimity on tax matters. The Polish objection was to one part of the treaty, but the whole negotiating position of the
1328
Conservative party is the belief that lots of countries are saying that they want nothing to do with the constitution. If the right hon. Gentleman took his position and negotiated on behalf of this country, he would be alone in arguing that point. What is more, he would end up doing precisely what the Conservatives did at Maastricht, when everyone else determined how the single currency would work, the date it would take place and all the machinations that went towards it. All that the Leader of the Opposition got was his opt-out on the social chapter, which simply meant that British workers did not get the same rights as European workers.
I do not know when Conservative Members will learn from their experience. The last time they were in power, they did not stand up for this country's interests. Britain became a laughing stock in the European Union—[Interruption.] I am afraid it did. When we got to the table in 1997, we had no influence. Why? Because as a result of divisions in the Conservative party, we took the same positions as the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) wants to take today. The idea that Poland or anywhere else will block the whole of the treaty over the years to come is a complete myth. That is why there are two alternatives: we either get on the pitch and play or shout from the stands: I know which I prefer.
Ms Gisela Stuart: I do not regard this weekend as a failure. We have an opportunity to address some of the imperfections of the Convention process in which, despite extremely hard work by the Government's representatives, we did not fully achieve what we wanted to achieve. Subsequent achievements, especially in relation to the passerelle clause, have not only removed the major reason for Conservative party opposition but introduced changes to give individual Parliaments the power of opposition that I could not have dreamt of achieving before. On that basis, I would have thought that the Conservatives would sign up to what is on the table. When the Prime Minister goes into the process of reconsideration and reflection over the next few months, he has a valuable opportunity to consider whether the mechanisms to enforce subsidiarity are strong enough or whether they should be improved.
The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is right. It was necessary to improve the original Convention text, on which we have been negotiating for the past few months. She rightly referred to the passerelle clause, for which the shadow Foreign Secretary laid down the test of whether we were we going to rid of it. He said just a few weeks ago:
"Are they going to get rid of the so-called escalator clause?"
Well, we have got rid of it. What do the Conservatives then do? They move on to the next thing. Let us be clear why: it does not matter what we get out of the negotiations, they will say no.
Peter Bottomley: There was obvious pleasure in Iraq and elsewhere when Paul Bremer announced the apprehending of Saddam Hussein. Will the Prime Minister take a bit of advice? It is better to refer to those who are suspected or accused

1329
of war crimes rather than to those who are guilty of war crimes. That would make a trial seem fairer and, probably, be fairer.
On the referendum on Europe, if people want a referendum, why can they not have one? Will the Prime Minister kindly arrange for a written statement to be made to answer the questions asked by my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the Opposition? There were specific questions, but there were not specific answers.
The Prime Minister: The problem is that Conservative Members do not like the answers—[Interruption.] Yes, that is absolutely correct. As for a referendum, as I have said repeatedly, if the draft constitution altered the fundamental nature of the relationship between the member state and the European Union, there would be a case for a referendum, but it does not and it will not. If we meet all the positions that we have set out, and I am confident we will, there will be even less of an argument for a referendum. I refer the hon. Gentleman to the House of Lords Select Committee, a cross-party Committee, that reported a few weeks ago and then reaffirmed its position, which is that, if anything, the draft treaty tilts the power towards member states. It makes it clear that the European Union, from then on, will have only the competencies that are conferred on it by the member state. The truth of the matter is that the Conservatives want a referendum not in order to have a "debate" on the European Union, but in order to say no, to get a no vote and to bring Europe to a halt so that they can pursue their real agenda, which is out not in.
Mr. George Foulkes: May I, as a long-standing pro-European, tell the Prime Minister that I do not share the Liberal leader's disappointment in the outcome? We can move forward in Europe only by agreement, not by bullying. Will my right hon. Friend explain to the Leader of the Opposition that discussions in Europe proceed by negotiation—by give and take? Is it not far better that we are in there, with a Prime Minister and a Foreign Secretary arguing our case, rather than standing on the sidelines like Switzerland or Norway, complaining about decisions over which we have no control?
The Prime Minister: That is precisely why this country has always been at its best when playing its full part in Europe, which we must continue to do. Pretence patriotism says that the best way to defend this country's national interest is to retreat to the margins of Europe. It is not. It is perfectly obvious that we must be on the pitch playing. The classic example is European defence. Of course we could opt out of European defence, but it would not mean that European defence did not happen; it would simply mean that it happened without us. That would not be in the interests of Britain, Europe or NATO.
Mr. Roger Gale: The Prime Minister referred fleetingly in his statement to the accession of the island of Cyprus. Does he agree that the elections held in the occupied northern part of the island over the weekend demonstrated extremely clearly that the puppet regime has no mandate whatsoever? If he
1330
does, what steps will the United Kingdom take as a guarantor power to ensure that Turkish Cypriots have a proper say in the accession of Cyprus as a united island to the European Union next spring?
The Prime Minister: It is important that we try to use the elections to move forward on the terms set out by the United Nations Secretary-General. I think that those form the proper basis on which we can find a solution for a united Cyprus, and they make the entire process much easier. That is what we will be working for. If we can achieve that, it is in no sense a barrier to accession, but undoubtedly it makes life much easier if we can have that unity. I hope very much, on the basis of the elections that took place at the weekend, that we are able to make progress.
Mr. Gerald Kaufman: As a member of the Labour party who, with Neil Kinnock, formulated the Labour policy that supported the removal of Saddam Hussein from Kuwait, who opposed Saddam Hussein long before he seized Kuwait, who has opposed Saddam Hussein since he was removed from Kuwait and who supported the means whereby he was captured over the weekend rather than opposing the means but snivellingly praising the end, may I ask my right hon. Friend, with that background, whether he will accept from me, and people like me, our utter opposition to the use of capital punishment against Saddam? I hope that he will be able to state the position of our Government on that.
The Prime Minister: I thank my right hon. Friend for his long and principled opposition to what Saddam Hussein stood for and did in Iraq. Of course this country remains opposed to the death penalty, but its use must be decided by the Iraqi Government and the Iraqi people. Whatever our own tradition and position here and the position that we lobbied for at an international level, there is an important point of principle, which is that the special tribunal, correctly constituted, should be in the hands of the Iraqi people.
Sir Teddy Taylor: Is the Prime Minister aware of the growing view among all the parties in Britain that the basic reason he is opposed to holding a referendum on the new constitution is simply because he would be hammered? Is it not right and proper in a democracy that, before imposing a written constitution, he should seek the opinion of the people? Would it not help to remove much of the anxiety and depression about the whole affair if he said that we will have a referendum and let the people decide whether they want a written constitution?
The Prime Minister: As a result of what happened at the weekend, we do not have an agreement. Surely it is better to see whether I am right in saying, when the agreement is finally promulgated, that it does not alter the basic constitutional relationship between member states of the European Union, or whether the hon. Gentleman is right in saying that it does. It is surely on the basis of the agreement that we should make the judgment.
Ann Clwyd: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that Saddam Hussein will at last face the

1331
justice that he denied tens of thousands of Iraqi people and of many other nationalities as well, including British hostages taken in Kuwait? I remind anyone in this House or anywhere else who has any lingering sympathy for Saddam Hussein or his regime of just one witness statement taken by Indict:
One of the President's bodyguards brought 30 prisoners out. They were Kurds. The President himself shot them one after another with a Browning pistol. Another 30 prisoners were brought and the process was repeated. Saddam Hussein was laughing and obviously enjoying himself. There was blood everywhere—it was like an abattoir.
That is the regime that we have brought to an end.
The Prime Minister: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend, and thank her again for her brave and courageous stand for many years against Saddam Hussein and all that he stood for.
Mr. William Cash: The Prime Minister will know that the Germans and the French said that they would go ahead with the constitution only on their own terms. The Prime Minister said, and he repeated it today, that he agrees with the constitution in principle. Together, that would betray not only Poland's democratic sovereignty but the United Kingdom. Delaying a decision on the voting system until 2009 does nothing for the situation and is mere camouflage. By failing to veto the constitution, the Prime Minister, far from being a peacemaker, will have to meet his own Munich.
The Prime Minister: I am afraid that that sums up the sentiment in today's Conservative party. Let me repeat the position, and the hon. Gentleman can go and look at what the Poles said. The President and Prime Minister of Poland oppose not the constitution but one aspect of it that affects their country's interests.
Mr. Cash: In a referendum.
The Prime Minister: No, they are not having a referendum on the constitution in Poland.
Mr. Cash: They had a referendum.
The Prime Minister: They had a referendum on whether Poland should become part of the European Union. We, too, had a referendum, and it was offered by Labour, not the Conservatives. I point out to the hon. Gentleman once again that there is no way in which Britain will gain from the process of what is happening in Europe if it absents itself from those negotiations. Yes, France and Germany will argue their corner, and we should argue our corner. For goodness' sake, we do not have to worry about being beaten by the French and the Germans every time. We have shown in many negotiations in the past few years that when we fight to get our own way we can get our own way. We can do so without the Eurosceptic nonsense that too often emanates from the Opposition.
Mr. Frank Field: Will the Prime Minister speculate on why fewer Members turned up to
1332
hear this European statement? Does he think that that may be because views in the House reflect views in the country and that an increasing number of people feel that the agenda set in the immediate post-war years to deal with the situation then has now largely run its course? May I make a plea to him not to apply the usual European technique when issues have been rejected of grinding down opposition? Will he pick up the ball and run with it, take the issues that people in this country believe are crucial to our well-being and that of Europe—trade and the environment—and make sure that we are at the centre of Europe in dealing with those two key areas?
The Prime Minister: I agree with the last part of what my right hon. Friend said and think that it is important. An issue such as trade is a classic example of where we should be driving through the single market and so on, but obviously we can do so only as part of the European Union. In many areas of trade and commerce, we need qualified majority voting to make sure that, in a Union of 25, small states do not block change. When one looks back at the history—I know that my right hon. Friend was not doing this—one can see that part of the Eurosceptic myth is that these things are never going to happen and that somehow it is never going to arrive, so we do not lose by staying at the side. However, that is not the way in which it has ever worked.
Maastricht was a classic example of that. When the Leader of the Opposition and his colleagues were in power they went to Maastricht and let everyone else determine the terms, then got their opt-out from the social chapter and the single currency. Sweden never had an opt-out from the single currency, but had a referendum on it. We, of course, have said that we would have such a referendum here if we recommended joining. The truth of the matter is that what happened at Maastricht is a classic example of everything that was wrong with the Conservative party and its former leadership in Europe. We were utterly marginalised. We got an opt-out from the social chapter—a fat lot of good that did anyone, frankly—and the rest of Europe went ahead, and we should have been there determining how it was shaped right from the beginning.
If we did what the Leader of the Opposition wants us to do, we would make exactly the same mistake on European defence. If Britain does not play its full part in European defence and shape it in a way that is consistent with NATO, it will be taken forward by others, perhaps in a way that is inconsistent with NATO. That is why we must remain at the centre of Europe, not on the sidelines.
Mr. Edward Leigh: Up to now, many of the attacks on coalition troops in Iraq have been blamed on former regime loyalists. Is there not now a danger to the coalition case in Iraq? What will happen if the terrorist attacks continue, perhaps unabated? Will that not lend credence to those who argue that despite the undoubted merits of getting rid of a gangster regime, when it comes to the big issue—the issue of dealing with international terrorism—an attack on a sovereign Arab nation has made the threat from international terrorism worse, not better?
The Prime Minister: I am afraid I do not accept that at all. Let us consider some of the terrorist acts that are

1333
happening around the world today. Attacks by extremists are happening in countries of which some supported the action in Iraq and many opposed it. These people will carry on fighting their war until we defeat them—and Iraq is merely the latest battleground.
Why do they want to stop us making progress in Iraq? It is because if we make progress in Iraq, their entire argument—their lie that somehow this was about oppressing Muslims or defeating the Arab world—is exposed for what it is. If Iraq gets on its feet as a stable, independent, sovereign state, democratic and prosperous, that will be the best political argument against the extremists. That is why they are in there trying to bomb and kill innocent people—most of whom, incidentally, are Iraqis—and to stop us.
I must tell the hon. Gentleman that the only way in which we will defeat this menace is, wherever it may be in the world, to go after it, and to take the security and political measures that will allow us to defeat it at every single level—in terms of intelligence, in terms of military capability, in terms of security, but also in terms of the political vision for the world.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: It has not been a bad weekend really, has it? First they drag Saddam out of his rabbit hole, then they knock this European constitution into the long grass—longer than Saddam's beard. Do not send a search party to look for it. We have had two Christmas presents; should we not take them and be thankful?
The Prime Minister: I wish my hon. Friend a happy Christmas as well.
Mr. Eric Forth: Will the Prime Minister please convey our best wishes and congratulations to the Polish Prime Minister? Will he please tell him that we all wish our Prime Minister had the courage that he showed last weekend?
The Prime Minister: It is amazing—I make a point to the Conservatives, and they simply do not listen or take it on board. Let me repeat this again. If the right hon. Gentleman wishes, he can go and look at what the Polish Prime Minister said. The Polish Prime Minister said that he supports the constitution for Europe and disagrees with this one aspect—just as there are points with which we disagree. The idea that somehow the Poles were saying no to the whole constitution is a myth, and I am afraid that if we based our foreign policy on that myth it would be a foreign policy based on sand.
Mrs. Alice Mahon: The Prime Minister will be aware that the senior Shi'a cleric Ayatollah Sistani is calling for early elections instead of an appointed Government in Iraq. Many supporters of early elections believe that the World Food Programme could be used to organise such elections. The Prime Minister said this afternoon that he thought the best thing for the Iraqi people was democracy and freedom. Will he therefore give them the right to those early elections?
The Prime Minister: It is important for us to make progress as quickly as possible. I think people understand that after years of Saddam there is a process
1334
that must be gone through—but yes, of course we want democratic elections as swiftly as possible: I echo my hon. Friend's call for them. I cannot forbear to point out, though, that if Saddam were still in power there would be no question of any elections.
Mr. John Redwood: Will the Prime Minister explain why he is prepared to give away more powers over foreign affairs, economic policy, asylum and immigration and many other important issues when it is crystal clear that none of those things is needed for enlargement, contrary to his original opinion?
The Prime Minister: For enlargement to work effectively, it will be necessary to make changes. For example, I believe that qualified majority voting would be in the interests of the country for a series of subjects. However, we are not giving up the power to set our asylum laws—that is simply not true. As a result of our negotiations at the time of the Amsterdam treaty, we are not giving up the right to independent foreign and defence policies. Of course we shall not give up any such rights.
It is right to work with others in the European Union because a Europe of 25 needs a different way of working. Let me give one example. We currently have rotating six-monthly presidencies, which make it difficult to achieve continuity in the agenda that the member states adopt in the European Councils. If we do not have a full time chairmanship, a series of states—possibly small states, one after another—will preside and it will not be possible to make the European Union work effectively. That is why it is ultimately important to make changes. However, we have said before, and I say again, that we shall not yield any of Britain's essential attributes as a nation state.
Tom Levitt: My right hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the commitment to Europe of not only the Polish Government but the Polish people. Poland does not regard itself as the heart of Europe for nothing.
However, is my right hon. Friend aware that since the largest accession country fought a referendum campaign in May based on a specific voting strength, it is dismayed to find that it has to accept a lesser voting strength the following May? How does he believe that that could be resolved?
Will my right hon. Friend also take the opportunity to pay tribute to Polish troops who played such an important part in the coalition in recent months?
The Prime Minister: Let me pay several tributes. First, I pay tribute to the Polish troops for their magnificent work in Iraq, where we work closely with Poland's immensely fine soldiers. Secondly, I pay tribute to the courage of the Polish Prime Minister for attending the summit after a serious accident. He showed enormous stoicism.
Thirdly, my hon. Friend is right. Poland's difficulty was not with the vast bulk of the constitution, with which the Polish Prime Minister agreed, but with the specific element that Poland had secured as an agreement at Nice. What was on offer for Poland in the

1335
Convention appeared less good to the Prime Minister and that was obviously difficult for him to accept. We must therefore pause and reflect on a possible way forward. As was implicit in my hon. Friend's remarks, if we base British negotiating strategy on blanket opposition to the constitution by other countries, we base it on a serious misapprehension.
Angus Robertson: There is genuine relief in our coastal communities that we will not have a constitution that entrenches the conservation of marine biological resources under the common fisheries policy as an exclusive European Union competence. The Prime Minister spoke repeatedly of national interest, but he and the leaders of the Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties did not mention the fishing industry once. Is that because it is not a matter of national interest for the UK or the UK parties?
The Prime Minister: It is important to ensure that we secure the right fisheries deal for all parts of the UK. Important negotiations are taking place this week. However, as I have said to the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond), the hon. Gentleman's party leader at Westminster, it would not be wise for us to withdraw from the common fisheries policy because that would mean a free-for-all.
Mr. Stuart Bell: The Prime Minister consistently referred to the defence issues that were discussed at the conference, and the transatlantic and European alliances. Will he confirm that the military planning centre that has been set up for a limited goal of humanitarian and peacekeeping aims does not need to be covered by the treaty, will be up and running and will form an appropriate bridge between the two alliances?
The Prime Minister: Yes. Moreover, as my hon. Friend rightly implies, there is no standing operational capability. That was one of our agreements. However, it is important that, in circumstances in which America does not want to be engaged and NATO assets are not
1336
used, Europe has the capability to act. We have only to consider events in Macedonia to realise how sensible it is for Europe to have such capability in limited circumstances and when NATO is not engaged. European defence is therefore sensible, provided that it proceeds only when it is strictly complementary and does not duplicate NATO's actions.
Mr. John Wilkinson: Why did the British Government not oppose the proposal by the French and German Governments that the EU should lift its embargo on arms sales to the People's Republic of China? That proposal was encouraged by Mr. Prodi, who welcomed such a review. What military threat do the Chinese face that could be seen off with weapons from Europe? Is it perhaps the possibility of a referendum on Taiwanese independence?
The Prime Minister: I think that it is perfectly sensible to review the embargo. The situation in China today is different and changing: the suggestion that we should reconsider it is sensible, and was not put forward for the reasons that the hon. Gentleman states.
Jane Griffiths: The capture of Saddam Hussein is welcome for Iraq, for the middle east and for the whole world, but is the Prime Minister in a position clearly to tell the House whether he believes that Saddam Hussein should be indicted for war crimes or on other charges?
The Prime Minister: The precise nature of the indictment that is made against him should, as I say, be left to the Iraqis. I emphasise that Iraq has a governing council, whose members said just a few days ago, before the capture of Saddam, that they wanted to set up a special tribunal to try people who were accused of various crimes against the Iraqi people: they should be allowed to get on with that process. We should give whatever support we can in ensuring, for example, that the judiciary is properly independent and properly staffed. The terms of the indictment and the way in which any charges are framed are for the Iraqis themselves that is part of the whole process of saying that Iraq is run by the Iraqis.

Orders of the Day

  CONSOLIDATED FUND BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Question, That the Bill be now read a Second time, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 56 (Consolidated Fund Bills), and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.
  Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith, and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

  Child Trust Funds Bill
  [Relevant document: The Second Report from the Treasury Committee, Session 2003–04, on Child Trust Funds, (House of Commons Paper No. 86).]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  4.31 pm
  The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Ruth Kelly): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second Time.
  I am delighted to bring this Bill before the House. In doing so, the Government are fulfilling a manifesto commitment. The child trust fund represents a new and imaginative way of encouraging children and their parents to save for the future. We will ensure that, in future, all children will have the opportunities that are currently taken for granted by only a few.
  There are four key objectives for the child trust fund: to help people to understand the benefits of saving and investing; to encourage parents and children to develop the savings habit and to engage with financial institutions; to ensure that in future all children have a financial asset at the start of adult life; and to build on financial education. This is an ambitious and long-term project. Nothing on this scale has been tried anywhere else in the world. Britain is leading the way in asset-based welfare, and we are convinced that that is the right thing to do.
  The Government have already taken important steps towards ending child poverty. Only last week, the Chancellor announced an additional £1 billion a year of investment in Britain's children to advance our goal that not some, but all of them should have the best possible start in life, and that no child is left behind.
  Welfare policy cannot however be seen merely as the meeting of immediate needs. It is time to take a longer-term view and to consider the wider factors that make a difference to young people's future opportunities. Evidence from the national child development survey suggests that the backing of a financial asset can have a significant impact on changing people's attitudes and broadening their horizons.
  We want all families to have the opportunity to save for their children. Surveys show that only one third of the population saves regularly. Moreover, there is no tradition of people saving money for their children over the long term. We hope that the child trust fund will kick-start saving among families, and we believe, for two reasons, that that will be achieved—first, as a
  1338
  response to the initial Government payments and later age-related payments; and secondly, as a result of financial education.
  We are particularly concerned about families on low incomes. The American experience with individual development accounts shows that incentives encourage people on lower incomes to save money, and our own pilots of the savings gateway—the interim report on which was published last week—show that people on very low incomes can make regular savings. That, too, was the conclusion of the financial services industry and of consumer groups. Recent research conducted by the Association of British Insurers found that 75 per cent. of parents who do not normally save for their children said that they intended to contribute to their child's trust fund. The National Consumer Council's research into the attitudes to saving of people on modest incomes in the 21-to-35 age group suggested that spontaneous references were made to the new fund by the participants.
  We recognise, however, that it will be harder for families on low incomes to make contributions, and that is why the Government have decided to make an additional contribution to the accounts of those children whose parents are in receipt of the full child tax credit and whose income is below £13,230. The child trust fund is a good example of progressive universalism. It is a universal policy reaching out to all children, no matter what their financial circumstances, but it will target more resources on those children who need it most.
  I welcome the conclusion of the Treasury Committee report published today, which says:
  The Child Trust Fund is an ambitious, pioneering programme which seeks, through a significant long term investment by the Government, to provide a financial asset to all children when they reach the age of 18, and to change people's behaviour towards saving. Whilst those with higher income may make most use of the opportunity, we feel that this gives less well off families an unprecedented chance to build up a tax-free sum for their children.
  Dr. Jenny Tonge: I thank the hon. Lady for giving way, and I apologise for missing the beginning of her speech. As a mother and grandmother, I am very interested in this issue. Can the Minister tell us the amount of money that will have accumulated by the time a child is 18? At the minimum level, having received £250 at birth and a few additions along the way, it will not amount to very much. Also, is she not worried that an 18-year-old might spend the money incorrectly?
  Ruth Kelly: I shall answer the first part of the hon. Lady's question first. Table 3.1 of the proposals document that we published recently illustrates the impact of endowments at the age of 18, given growth in the fund. For example, if there were no additional savings, a child with an initial sum of £250 would, on a very cautious assumption, have accumulated £456 by the age of 18. However, a child from a poorer background who had received the full £500 endowment would, assuming that they had had no further

  1339
  Government top-ups or additional contributions, have accumulated £911 at the age of 18. I suggest that such a sum could have a significant impact.
  Dr. Tonge: What exactly does the Minister think that £900 is going to fund in 18 years' time?
  Ruth Kelly: I suggest that the hon. Lady look at the research based on the national child development survey, which suggests that a sum as low as £300 could have a significant impact on someone's future behaviour. At the moment, the average young person between the age of 18 and 25 has zero financial assets, and that is something that we intend to change.
  David Hamilton: As a grandparent of five grandchildren, I believe that this will be a very good way for grandparents to contribute to their grandchildren's future.
  Ruth Kelly: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his good fortune, and I certainly suggest that he make contributions on behalf of his grandchildren. He is right to say that contributions can be made by a wider group of people, and not just by the child and the child's immediate family. Grandparents are perhaps the key people to the development of this policy.
  Mr. Andrew Robathan: I congratulate the Minister on having four children under the age of six. No doubt she will be hoping to help them to save, and we should all encourage our children to do so. Regarding the amounts involved, however, what does she think average university fees will be in 18 years' time?
  Ruth Kelly: The hon. Gentleman's question ties in with the point made by the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge), who asked whether we would restrict a young person's use of the money at the age of 18. It is my judgment and that of the Government that the person best placed to make that decision is the child at the age of 18. It is right that the child should have the full chance to use that money in whichever way they think is in their own best interest. That may be to pay for further education. It may be to put down a deposit on a tenancy or a home. They may want to buy a van, for example, to start up a small business. It is not right for us to try and restrict people's opportunities, and at present they are restricted.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Ruth Kelly: I give way to the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), whom I have come across several times in previous capacities.
  Mr. John Bercow: As a proud father of nine days, 14 hours and 32 minutes, I have a close personal interest in the matter, as the hon. Lady will understand. Given that on the most cursory examination of the Bill, it appears that no fewer than 16 of the 31 clauses allow for secondary legislation and order-making powers, will the hon. Lady, first,
  1340
  guarantee that we will have a draft of all those regulations before Report stage? Secondly, can she advise me whether the procedure in respect of those regulations will be the negative procedure of the House, or its affirmative counterpart?
  Ruth Kelly: I can advise the hon. Gentleman that the regulations will be laid in draft for full consideration during the passage of the Bill. I cannot advise him on the detail of every regulation, as I have not considered the regulations in draft. I refer him to the comments made by the Association of British Insurers in its memorandum to the Treasury Committee, which stated:
  The manner in which HM Treasury has developed the framework for the child trust fund has been exemplary. Consultation has been held at each stage of the policy's development and the industry has been pleased that its comments have been taken on board".
  We are determined to get that right, and we have made significant progress.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Ruth Kelly: I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Mr. Foster), but this must be the last time before I make more progress.
  Mr. Michael Jabez Foster: Every hon. Member will probably claim parenthood or grandparenthood. In my case, my grandchildren, Billy, Thomas, Ashleigh and Ellie, are all aged five or under, but are too old to gain the benefit of the trust fund. There must be a starting point, but can my hon. Friend assure me that they will be able to benefit from the trust fund in terms of tax relief, if not in terms of bounty?
  Ruth Kelly: We have considered the matter closely. It could well be that parents of children with siblings older than the child who benefits from the endowment will wish to take out a policy that mirrors that of the child trust fund. I suspect that if the demand exists, the industry will react to that and develop products that are almost identical. Under the current legislation, it is possible for children to benefit substantially from tax relief, and I imagine that any new accounts would use the existing reliefs in the system.
  I turn to financial education. There is a real challenge for us as a Government to improve people's financial awareness. For some people, the child trust fund will be their first exposure to saving and investment. We have commissioned research to find out the best way to help such people make these quite complex decisions, and we will work closely with the Department for Education and Skills, the Financial Services Authority and other organisations that can help us design and deliver the financial support and information that people will need to manage their accounts.
  I welcome the evidence from the National Consumer Council, which stated:
  This product actually presents an excellent opportunity to communicate risk issues to a whole generation of parents, in a very tangible way."
  Mr. James Plaskitt: My hon. Friend mentions the importance of financial education, and the child trust fund will be the first time that many people encounter risk. Will she take on board the Select Committee's recommendation that there should be an easily understandable risk evaluation attached to all the wrap-around products that may head up the child trust fund once it is up and running?
  Ruth Kelly: My hon. Friend will be pleased to hear that I have been studying the conclusions of the Treasury Committee report in great detail this morning. We want to communicate the issues to the best effect. That is why we will commission research, and of course that research will take account of the conclusions of the Select Committee report.
  The Bill places a duty on the Government to make child trust fund payments to eligible children. It sets out the framework for operating the child trust fund and includes powers to make regulations covering some of the more detailed issues. In developing the child trust fund, our aim has been to keep the processes as simple as possible for all concerned; families, providers and the children themselves.
  All children born since 1 September 2002 who live in the UK and for whom child benefit is claimed will be eligible for the child trust fund. Entitlement to a child trust fund will be linked to an award of child benefit, which nearly every parent in the country claims. That removes the need for a separate claim form and process for the child trust fund.
  Child benefit cannot be claimed for children in local authority care, but the Bill ensures that these children will not miss out. Children in care include some of the most disadvantaged children in our society and the Inland Revenue is working with representatives of local authorities and central Government to ensure that appropriate arrangements are put in place for those children.
  Bob Spink: I am grateful for what the Financial Secretary has said about children in care, on which the Government are making progress. However, these children—unlike others—will not benefit from additional contributions and will be disadvantaged. Is there anything we can do to correct that problem?
  Ruth Kelly: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. We are working closely with children's charities and local authorities to think about the way in which the role of local authorities might develop in future. Certain local authorities are enthusiastic about the potential the policy offers them, for example, to make contributions on behalf of the children in their care. That will evolve after the policy has been put in place.
  When the award for child benefit is made, the parent or guardian will be sent a child trust fund voucher and an information pack. The pack will include details of all providers, a step-by-step guide to the opening of an account and a clear and objective explanation of the stakeholder child trust fund account, which all providers are required to offer. Parents, or someone else with parental responsibility, can take the voucher to the provider of their choice to open an account.
  Mr. Michael Weir: I came across recent cases involving the Child Support Agency where
  1342
  the parents were splitting the child benefit entitlement. Would both be entitled to a voucher? Might that lead to two small funds, rather than one large one, which might be disadvantageous to the child? How would that be dealt with?
  Ruth Kelly: It is not the intention of the policy to have two separate child trust funds running concurrently for the same child. In fact, that will be prohibited; there will be a unique reference number for each child. The parent with responsibility will be provided with a voucher and can take that voucher to the provider of their choice.
  The financial institutions that want to offer child trust fund accounts will need to be approved by the Inland Revenue. The details will be set out in regulations, but this is a straightforward process and one with which providers are familiar, as it will be based on the approval process for individual savings accounts. I am pleased to say that many providers have expressed enthusiastic support for the child trust fund and a number of organisations have expressed themselves delighted with the proposals.
  Providers will be able to offer a variety of different accounts to suit the different preferences of parents. Their child's trust fund will be a wrapper, in the same way as an ISA can be wrapped around a variety of products such as cash, unit trusts or life insurance products. That will give parents choice and allow providers to offer a full range of accounts to suit the market.
  The child trust fund is a long-term savings and investment policy. Historically, investments in equities have been shown to provide a better return than cash deposits. Over the last 18 years, for instance, £100 invested in the stock market would have yielded £321, whereas the same £100 deposited in a building society account would have produced £171. We want all children to have the opportunity to benefit from the generally higher returns on equities over the longer term. That is why offering the stakeholder child trust fund account will be a prerequisite for all financial providers that want to offer accounts.
  The stakeholder account will follow the principles outlined by Ron Sandler in his July 2002 report, "Medium and long-term retail savings in the UK." He proposed that stakeholder investment products should be simple, low cost, accessible and risk-controlled. Stakeholder accounts will be equity based. To balance risk and return, providers who offer stakeholder accounts will be required to diversify investments so that investors are not unduly exposed to a narrow range of equities. Providers will be required also to apply lifestyling to the accounts, moving investments to less risky assets as the account nears maturity. Further details will be set out in the regulations.
  Once the account has been opened, the financial provider will claim the amount and the initial Government payment—£250—from the Inland Revenue. Children in families on new tax credits whose income is below the income threshold will have a second payment of £250 paid directly into their account as soon as the tax credit claim for the year in question has been finalised. A further payment will be made when the child reaches seven. Again, a second payment will be made to families on low incomes. By making a payment when the

  1343
  child is seven, we can demonstrate the benefit of saving, as children and parents will be able to see accounts growing more quickly after receiving this Government contribution.
  Mr. David Cameron: In effect, the Financial Secretary is saying that if a family are earning £13,230, they will get £500 for a child, but if they are earning £13,231, they will get only £250 for a child. Does that not send the message that saving is bad for people?
  Ruth Kelly: I do not follow the logic of the hon. Gentleman's position. The fact is that there has to be a cut-off point if payment is to be split into two elements. We have chosen full entitlement to the child trust fund and the income threshold of £13,230 to ensure that up to 40 per cent. of children will be in receipt of the £500 entitlement, and of the means-tested top-up at the age of seven.
  Inevitably, some people will not get round to opening accounts for their children. There could be a number of reasons why, but we do not want those children to miss out, so if an account has not been opened 12 months after the voucher has been issued, the Inland Revenue will open one on their behalf and tell the parent or guardian that that has been done, and that they can now take over managing it. These accounts will always be risk-controlled, child trust fund stakeholder accounts, as those are likely to give the best return; and of course, they will be with an approved provider. The Inland Revenue will not be responsible for managing such accounts once they are opened. Parents will be told that they are free to move the account to a different provider, or to move to a different type of account, if they wish. We hope that the Inland Revenue will need to open only a small number of accounts, and that the number will diminish over time. We will monitor the situation carefully.
  The Inland Revenue will also open stakeholder accounts for children in care. As such children will be in care when the account is opened, they will not be able to qualify for the additional Government payment by virtue of living in a family in receipt of full child tax credit. Nevertheless, they will automatically receive an amount equal to the initial and additional Government payments.
  The child trust fund is not, however, just about Government payments. We hope that such payments will kick-start a savings habit, and that parents and other family members will also make their own savings. We want to see a change in attitude to saving for the long term, and we have decided that child trust fund accounts should have certain advantages to encourage this.
  Mr. David Laws: Can the Financial Secretary tell us what research the Treasury has done into how much additional saving the child trust fund will generate? What is her latest estimate?
  Ruth Kelly: As I said at the beginning of my speech, the child trust fund has a number of objectives, one of which is encouraging the saving habit. Increasing the long-term level of savings in the economy through this
  1344
  vehicle is not one of those objectives. In fact, small additional contributions, from time to time, from a family member on a lower income could be a remarkably good result. On the other hand, if, on receiving the information in the child trust fund package, someone decides—because they have greater financial understanding and awareness—that they would be better off paying off a credit card debt with that money, that would also be a result. But the hon. Gentleman will see that in such scenarios, it is not possible to set meaningful targets for increasing the level of savings through this vehicle.
  We would like to see a change in attitude to saving for the long term, so we have awarded certain tax advantages to these accounts. Parents, grandparents, friends and other relatives will be able to add up to £1,200 to the accounts each year, and all the proceeds will be free of tax. As a further incentive, income tax settlements legislation will not apply to child trust fund accounts. Given that such an account will run for 18 years, the settlements legislation could have caught large numbers of people in the later years of the account. Furthermore, the Government acknowledge that people on low and moderate incomes may be concerned that any saving may affect their entitlement to benefits.
  The Government will keep under review the treatment of capital in income-related benefits, so that a sensible balance is struck between providing targeted state support and not unfairly penalising those who have acted responsibly by saving. I can announce to the House that from 6 April 2006, as a first step, we will increase the £3,000 threshold above which savings reduces eligibility to income support, jobseeker's allowance, housing benefit and council tax benefit to £6,000, in line with pension credit.
  Before closing, I would like to say something about the charge account, which interests many Members. The Government want to ensure that charges are set at levels that are good value for savers, while also allowing efficient providers to make adequate returns. The independent research that we commissioned Deloitte to undertake, and the evidence that we received from the industry and consumer groups, will enable us to take a final decision on the charge cap early next year. Further details will be set out in regulations.
  In conclusion, the child trust fund is a bold and ambitious policy. We hope that it will fundamentally change attitudes to savings, improve financial capability and extend opportunities across income groups by providing all children with an asset when they reach the age of 18. We all have an interest in creating a society that understands the benefits of saving. The child trust fund will help us to achieve that, so I commend the Bill to the House.
  4.56 pm
  Mr. George Osborne: I suppose I should begin by taking part in this Dutch auction of interests. In common with the Financial Secretary, I have a daughter who will qualify for the child trust fund. I hope that I am not betraying any confidences in saying that my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr. Goodman), who will be winding up for the Opposition, is hoping to receive a voucher next year, as is my hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron). Indeed.

  1345
  it is a strange quirk of fate that the Minister who is introducing the Bill, the two Opposition spokesmen shadowing it, the Chancellor who dreamt it up, and apparently half the hon. Members in their places today, will benefit from it. The Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards would probably have a fit if he knew.
  Mr. Robathan: May I say, for the benefit of the whole House, that the fact that my children are too old to qualify—albeit by only two years—is not the reason why I oppose the measure?
  Mr. Osborne: Later in my speech, I shall come on to what can be done for children who, because they were not born after 1 September last year, do not qualify.
  Let me make it clear from the outset that we greatly support the principle that the Bill is designed to promote. Conservative Members believe in the virtue of savings. We think that having savings, like owning one's home, gives people a stake in society, gives them independence, encourages self-reliance and bolsters the freedom of the individual against the overbearing state. In that sense, it is the most practical manifestation of liberty. That, of course, is why, when the Conservatives were in government, they encouraged wider share ownership and gave council tenants the right to buy. It is also why, when in opposition, we have been alarmed at the halving of the savings ratio and the spread of the means test.
  Conservative Members did not stumble across a belief in savings through some focus group or seminar. It is rooted in a Tory tradition that stretches from John Locke and Edmund Burke to the present day. Any policy that has the prospect of increasing savings and the freedom that they bring is something to which we should give a fair wind.
  Whether the child trust fund works in practice is another matter. For a start, we do not know many of the key details. Indeed, we are none the wiser after the Financial Secretary's speech on aspects such as the level of the charge cap or the form of the sales regime. Given that the Treasury started talking about child trust funds almost three years ago, it is astonishing that so much is still so unclear at so late a stage. It is particularly astonishing that the Financial Secretary admitted in her speech that she had not yet considered some of the regulations, even in draft. I welcome at least her promise that they will be available during the passage of the Bill. I hope that she meant the passage of the Bill through this House and not through the other place.
  From what we know, it is clear that, despite their good intentions, the Government have fallen prey to their characteristic habits of over-complexity and means-testing—ironically, the very factors that have caused such a mess in the welfare system to date, and have contributed to the savings crisis that the Bill seeks to address. We have serious concerns about the detail, but it would be churlish to oppose the principle behind the Bill. As I said, Conservatives believe in the virtue of savings.
  The Financial Secretary comes to the subject by a different route—the Institute for Public Policy Research. When the Government were desperately scratching around for something new to say before the last election, the IPPR did what it is supposed to do by
  1346
  helpfully supplying the child trust funds, dressing them up in a new-fangled theory called asset-based welfare. The IPPR is, of course, the king of the Blairite think tanks—not for it obscure meetings in shabby offices on the fringes of Westminster; when it held a seminar last year on the child trust fund proposals, it took place at No. 10 Downing street, no less.
  What was said at that seminar? That may give us a clue about the thinking behind the Bill. The Financial Secretary knows, because she was there and said much of what was said. I know, too, because I have got hold of a copy of the minutes. [Interruption.] I can hear that my hon. Friends are excited about that. They will be interested to know that child trust funds are known in new Labour circles as a
  third way within the Third Way".
  I did not even know what the third way was, let alone that there were three different versions of it. By my calculation, if each way has three separate ways, there may be as many as nine ways in total: the House can see why I am on the Treasury team.
  It is good to discover that someone is still talking about the third way. It is a bit like discovering a group of Esperanto speakers, or a Rubik's cube convention. The phrase "the third way" certainly has not passed the Prime Minister's lips for at least two years, and the Financial Secretary reminds me of one of those Japanese soldiers discovered on remote Pacific islands long after the war was over: she is still fighting a cause that her political masters gave up on long ago.
  The minutes are full of other fascinating insights into the thinking behind the Bill. For example, a Mr. Kevin Rudd, apparently a leading light in the Australian Labour party, told the seminar:
  The left has begun to realise that assets and wealth are important to people who want to 'get on'. It taps into deeply felt aspirations and should be harnessed to progressive ends rather than left to the clutches of the right".
  I suppose that we are the clutches of the right".
  The minutes go on:
  Kevin finished his presentation with a potential problem. The long-term nature of the Child Trust Fund could mean that it does not fit well with the electoral cycle."
  Oh dear! Thankfully, the Government have been able to solve Kevin's problem. They announced their child trust funds just two months before the last general election, and they plan to send child trust fund vouchers out to the parents of 1.8 million children just a month before the likely date of the next one. Gosh! There I was naively thinking that this was all about helping other people.
  Ignoring the third way clap-trap and setting aside the cynical electioneering, I still, despite provocation, believe that the Chancellor has produced a policy whose ambition is not ignoble. We all want the savings habit to be encouraged in all parts of our society. However, I must raise four questions, here and in Committee: first, will they work and encourage saving; secondly, will they reach the right people; thirdly, will they be ready on time; and fourthly, will they help develop a lifelong savings habit?

  1347
  The honest answer to the first question—whether they will work and get people saving—is that the Government simply do not know. As the Financial Secretary said before the Treasury Committee, the child trust fund approach is
  "not one that has been tried … anywhere else in the world".
  She quoted Association of British Insurers surveys and examples from the United States about individual development accounts, but those are no substitute for proper research into whether the policy will achieve the objectives hoped for. All she could say was that she hoped that it would kick-start a savings habit.
  Hope rather than research is a dangerous thing when expensive new legislation is being introduced. In the words of the Chairman of the Treasury Committee's Sub-Committee on the matter, it is a "leap in the dark". I take this opportunity to thank the Chairman of the Treasury Committee, the hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall), who is here, and my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon) and his Sub-Committee for producing an excellent report to inform the Second Reading debate.
  From my reading of the evidence in the report, and from having attended a session myself, I note that the Financial Secretary was strangely reluctant, when questioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Ruffley)—I thought that they struck up some rapport at the time—to set any kind of target for how many people she wants to see saving under the child trust funds scheme, or even to hazard a guess. It is hardly a sign of confidence in her own policy that she refuses to predict how successful it will be.
  The Financial Secretary must acknowledge that the policy will be regarded as a success only if most parents, other relatives and children themselves top up the funds with additional savings, however modest those top-ups might be. The policy will have failed on the Government's terms if it soon becomes clear that many trust funds become dormant, with the only content the Government's initial deposit and the money earned on it. Each dormant account will signal a failure of the policy to encourage the savings habit, but only time will tell how many such failures there will be.
  If the Government cannot answer the first question about child trust funds—whether they will work—perhaps they can answer the second, which is whether they will reach the right people: lower-income families who do not use other vehicles to save for their children? The Financial Secretary was strangely reluctant to be drawn on that issue when she appeared before the Select Committee and was questioned on that point by the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb). Encouraging low-income families to save is clearly the principal purpose of the whole policy, but the Financial Secretary seems to have a grander purpose. She told the famous IPPR summit that one of her concerns was the current unequal distribution of wealth. She continued:
  "What is more, there are signs that wealth inequality is increasing."
  She added that child trust funds are
  "part of the response to that situation."
  I do not want to disappoint her, but I fear that the Bill may have an effect exactly opposite to that which she intends. The unequal distribution of wealth—as she
  1348
  puts it—could be exacerbated by the policy. Middle-class parents who put in the maximum amount of£1,200 a year will give their child a nest egg that could be worth £34,000 by the time they reach 18, but children from lower-income families whose parents make no contribution will have only one thirty-fourth of that—around£1,000—in their trust fund.
  Mr. Cameron: Will my hon. Friend consider the specific case of children in care? The Financial Secretary has confirmed that they will receive child trust funds, but they will not have anyone to put in contributions on their behalf. Given that the state is effectively in loco parentis and that those children do not receive child benefit, is not there a case for at least a portion of the child benefit that they do not receive going into their trust fund, so that they will benefit from the policy like everyone else?
  Mr. Osborne: My hon. Friend has anticipated how I intended to spend a couple of hours in Committee. That possibility is worth exploring. In response to the good point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink), the Financial Secretary said that local authorities might contribute, but no one receives child benefit on behalf of children in care, and we should at least consider whether some of the money saved in that respect by the Treasury could be paid into the child trust funds of children in care.
  Mr. Weir: I am interested in the hon. Gentleman's argument and the figures that he has cited. However, the position is worse than he suggests. His figures assume that only one child in a family obtains a trust fund. A low-income family with three or four children will find it much more difficult to put extra funds in and the situation will be much worse in such circumstances.
  Mr. Osborne: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. I do not suggest that the objective of the policy should be to reduce the current unequal distribution of wealth, but that is the Financial Secretary's objective. It is difficult to see how the policy will do that. I understand that she will wind up the debate, so she can address some of those points then.
  The great disparity in the potential value of the trust funds is one of the great concerns of the Child Poverty Action Group, and I am sure that it has made its points forcefully to the Financial Secretary. To address those fears—at least in part—will require a big effort from the Government and from the financial providers themselves to encourage low-income families to save. It will not be enough for the Government simply to open a child trust fund account for every baby, give them a voucher and hope that a thousand savers will bloom. People will have to be marketed to, targeted, coaxed and enticed by the financial institutions, and that will cost money. Putting it bluntly, those institutions will spend that money only if there is something in it for them.
  That brings me to the charge cap, which is the single most important unresolved issue in the Bill. In other words, how much will the financial provider be allowed to take out of a trust fund? Clause 3, which deals with that point, could not be more vague. Like so much of the rest of the Bill, it will be left to regulations to determine.

  1349
  Given the amount of time that the Treasury has had to prepare the policy, it is extraordinary that we still have not been told what the charge will be.
  In the Government's consultation paper, published two months ago, they said that there
  "is a high threshold of persuasion for any move from a 1 per cent. charge cap".
  For many accounts, that will mean a return of only £2.50 or £5 a year for a financial provider in the early stages, and I am sure that the Financial Secretary is aware that financial providers claim that it is not economic to provide child trust funds at that rate of return. Those that do so will inevitably focus their marketing on middle-class families, who are likely to top up their children's funds, and not bother with the more expensive and less lucrative marketing to lower-income families.
  That is not just my judgment; it is also that of the Association of British Insurers, the Association of Friendly Societies, the PEP and ISA Managers Association, the Building Societies Association and the British Bankers Association—I have been busily engaged in the Pugin Room during the past couple of weeks giving tea to all those people. It is also the judgment of Norwich Union, the biggest long-term savings provider in the country and one of the biggest in the stakeholder pension market. The company said that if the charge cap is set at 1 per cent. it will not offer child trust funds. It is also the judgment of David White, chief executive of the Children's Mutual—someone whom the Financial Secretary knows well, as he has been intimately involved with the Treasury from the start in helping to draw up the policy. He told the Select Committee:
  "If the charge cap on the Child Trust Funds were reduced as low as 1 per cent. … I am not sure, in our view, that there would be any providers in the market at all. I think the danger would be, at best, that you would force people to cherry pick at the rich end of the market … and the lower income groups would be left out."
  The level of the charge cap is important.
  The consultation paper stated that
  "the Government will issue a report detailing the charge cap for the CTF … later this year."
  We could hardly be much later in the year; there are only two weeks left, so I should be interested to hear—perhaps in the winding-up speech—what has happened to the report that we were promised only two months ago.
  Dr. Tonge: I was interested to hear how many teas the hon. Gentleman had had to give for the providers of trust funds. Does he agree that if the Government had not allowed most of our post offices to close, they could have undertaken functions under the Bill, which would have been much more convenient for people who wanted to invest?
  Mr. Osborne: The hon. Lady makes a good point: many of the people to be targeted by the policy have no experience of dealing with companies such as Norwich Union or the Children's Mutual, or indeed with high street banks. Probably, their only contact with a financial institution—if we can call it that—is the post office counter.
  1350
  On the charge cap, I suggest that it is time for the Financial Secretary to swallow her pride and back off the 1 per cent. charge that the Government announced at the time of the Sandler report. Alternatively, she should radically simplify the way in which child trust funds are operated and sold, so that financial providers can make a return and it is worth their entering the market and trying to sell those products to low-income households.
  That brings me to my third question, whether the child trust funds will be ready on time. Everyone in the industry agrees that the timetable is getting very tight indeed. The Government hope to start sending out the initial letters to parents later this year, and the first 1.8 million vouchers and information packs will go out in 12 months' time. Furthermore, the Inland Revenue must have ready a system for redeeming the vouchers, opening the accounts where parents fail to do so and policing the annual limits. That is a major administrative task. We all remember the hash that the Inland Revenue made earlier this year when the new tax credits were launched. The task is made much greater by the news that the Revenue has just sacked its IT provider, EDS. We must all hope that lessons have been learned from that fiasco earlier this year and that the Inland Revenue can cope, but that is not a hope born of experience.
  The timetable is an even greater challenge for the financial industry. It is no good sending parents a voucher if there is no company around for them to open a child trust fund with. The financial institutions have only 12 months to design their products, set up their administrative systems, prepare their marketing strategy, train their work force and check that the whole thing works, yet they cannot even start that process until the Government decide what the charge cap will be and what the sales regime will look like, which may not be until early spring.
  Again, every financial organisation and company that I have spoken to says that the Government are leaving it dangerously late. The Financial Secretary could make things a lot easier for the companies at a stroke: she could set the charge cap now, set out the simple sales regime now and abandon the ludicrously bureaucratic and outdated voucher system, which is set out in clause 5.
  By all means, send parents—such as the Financial Secretary and myself—a nice certificate telling them that they can open a child trust fund, but why not let them do so by telephone or the internet? Why require parents physically to take or send the voucher to their chosen provider and then require that provider to store the voucher in its vaults for ever? This is not the 19th century; many financial transactions take place over the phone or online these days. The Government refer to fraud, but we are dealing with low-risk products, as their own money-laundering regulations make clear. No one in the industry understands why the Financial Secretary insists on this costly, complicated, bureaucratic and prehistoric paper trail that will make it even more difficult to get the systems ready on time—so much for e-Government.
  By the way, while we are on the subject—I address the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan)—why not let parents open child trust funds for children born before 1 September 2002,

  1351
  without the initial Treasury voucher, of course? Treasury officials have already confirmed to the Select Committee that the cost, in terms of extra tax relief, would be negligible. and it would help encourage savings for all children, not just newborn babies. Like the Financial Secretary, I have a child who will qualify and a child who will not, and explaining why one will get a huge lump sum at 18 and the other will not is going to be tricky.
  The fourth and final question was whether child trust funds will help develop a lifelong savings habit. That is what we all want to happen, but we would have a far greater chance of developing that savings habit if child trust funds sat alongside other policies that encouraged lifetime savings. Sadly, they do not. What might 18year-olds do when they have been given the keys to their trust fund? Of course some, perhaps many—we will not know for 18 years—will blow the whole lot on a trip to Ibiza or a new hi-fi.
  As the Financial Secretary said, and as the Select Committee accepts, it would be impossible to legislate to try to stop that happening, but the Government could make it a lot less likely by removing the positive disincentives to keep the savings—disincentives that have caused the savings ratio to halve in the past six years. Of course those disincentives have been created by the spread of the Chancellor's means test. The political debate in the House has tended to focus on the way that the pension credit discourages people from saving for their retirement, but the means test ensnares younger people too.
  What is the Financial Secretary's advice to young people who qualify for income support or jobseeker's allowance? What are they to do with their child trust fund? If they keep it and it is above the modest £3,000 disregard allowed, their fund will quickly vanish as their benefits are reduced. The best thing those young people could do in those circumstances is to spend the trust fund immediately. What sort of message does that send about saving? Treasury officials told the Select Committee:
  "We are aware of the implication and we cannot say at the moment what exactly we plan to do about it".
  That hardly inspires confidence that they have thought through the whole policy. The Select Committee is right when it says that the Government need to clarify how those different bits of the Chancellor's—
  Ruth Kelly: The hon. Gentleman misses the fact that I reported to the House that we have increased the £3,000 threshold above which savings reduce eligibility for means-tested benefits.
  Mr. Osborne: To what?
  Ruth Kelly: To £6,000, in line with pension credit.
  Mr. Osborne: Of course, simply increasing the disregard does not solve the problems. The Government hope that people will put more than that sum into trust funds, so that they can use the money when they turn 18, but the problems will remain, and I have quoted what the Treasury officials said.
  1352
  What about a young student thinking about going to university? The Government's top-up fees will be means-tested, as far as we are aware, so hanging on to a child trust fund might involve paying the full whack of top-up fees the moment that students leave college. We will not know about that until the top-up fees Bill is published, whenever that may be, but we could find that the smartest thing that young students could do is spend the trust fund on drinks in the college bar. What sort of message would that send about saving?
  My hon. Friend the Member for Witney highlighted the ultimate irony that although child trust funds are supposed to encourage saving, they are themselves an extension of the means test. All children will be means-tested at birth to determine whether they qualify for the£500 voucher, so the Chancellor will achieve his ambition of a cradle to grave means-tested welfare system.
  We have many questions about the Bill. We want to know about means-testing and the scheme's key details, which remain a mystery. We have questions about whether trust funds will encourage people to save and how they will reach low-income families. We have questions about the tight timetable that the Government have imposed on themselves and the industry, and above all, questions about how the scheme fits in with an overall approach from the Chancellor that discourages saving. It is a shame that the scheme is over-complex and that it will extend means-testing because it is precisely those vices that have caused the current crisis in savings, which the Bill cannot address by itself. A far more radical lifetime approach to savings is required to deal with that crisis, but that will have to wait until the next Conservative Government are in power—owing to recent developments, that might be just around the corner.
  The Bill demonstrates the Labour party?s recognition—at last—that promoting savings is important. It is long overdue, and although it might be a third way within the third way, it is none the less welcome. On the basis of the Government's important change of heart, and despite our many reservations about the specifics of the scheme, we shall not oppose the principle underlying child trust funds or vote against the Bill tonight.
  5.21 pm
  Mr. John McFall: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak to the Child Trust Funds Bill. I am delighted to note that there is already one enthusiastic supporter of child trust funds in the form of the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne). He said that one of his two children will receive a trust fund while the other will not. It will be his job to explain to them why one will receive a huge amount and the other will not, so the fact that he is signed up to, and enthusiastic about, child trust funds must warm the cockles of the Minister's heart. The hon. Gentleman came to a sitting of the Treasury Committee for a tutorial. I was going to give him a bare pass, but given the way in which his speech went on and descended into ideology and partisanship, I shall have to reappraise that. However, at least he came along to listen.
  The Treasury Committee has undertaken an examination of this important Bill and I commend the work of my colleague, the hon. Member for Sevenoaks

  1353
  (Mr. Fallon), and other Committee members to ensure that we got the report out in time for Second Reading. That is an example of Parliament working at its best.
  I am pleased to note that under the proposals, all children born from 1 September 2002 will be eligible for a child trust fund. The Government will provide children with an endowment of £250 and the children of families who receive full child tax credit will receive a further £250. It is good to note that the Government will make further payments when children are aged seven, and that they will encourage families to provide £1,200 every year with a tax break. The objectives of the trust funds are those to which the Treasury Committee has signed up: first, to help people to understand the benefits of saving and investment; secondly, to encourage parents and children to develop the savings habit and engage with financial institutions; thirdly, to ensure that in future all children will have a financial asset at the start of their adult lives to invest in the future; and fourthly, to build on financial education to help people to make better financial choices throughout their lives.
  Hon. Members have asked whether the Bill will promote a savings culture. The Treasury Committee asked for submissions from many potential providers and took evidence from them. The Association of British Insurers viewed the Bill
  "as offering the possibility of creating a savings culture among the next generation and, in so doing, building a mass market for financial services."
  The Association of Investment Trust Companies said that it
  "wholeheartedly supports the creation of the Child Trust Fund",
  which
  "offers the prospect of a new 'asset-based' approach to welfare that could be extremely beneficial to many young people who might otherwise start adult life without any assets and consequently suffer from poorer life chances."
  The Building Societies Association said that it is
  "a strong supporter of the Child Trust Fund",
  as is the Association of Friendly Societies. The National Consumer Council also welcomed the Government's proposal, noting:
  "it is an excellent far-sighted policy, of particular benefit to low-income families
  that
  "will eventually extend access to an accumulated asset to all young adults
  and
  "may trigger additional individual private savings by parents."
  The Minister must be reassured by the fact that those potential providers give the proposal a fair wind.
  The point was made in the evidence sessions that a small amount of assets can have a big impact. Research by Mintel has shown that 35 per cent. of parents with children under 15 are not saving anything for their children's future, and that 26 per cent. of parents save only rarely or occasionally—so more than 50 per cent. of parents in this country do not save at all or save only a small amount intermittently. We need to ensure that young people develop a savings culture. Given the problems that the Treasury Committee has considered with pensions, long-term savings, split capital investments and endowment mortgages, good consumer education and a savings culture has emerged as the
  1354
  important theme if we are to expand financial education. There is no better opportunity than the Bill to ensure that young people have that education.
  Mr. Robathan: We all agree about the savings culture, but what does the Bill do to encourage the more than 50 per cent. of parents who do not save substantial amounts for their children to do that? Nothing in the Bill will achieve that
  Mr. McFall: I have a quote on that subject, which I shall come to later.
  The Financial Secretary told the Treasury Committee:
  "if you look at figures on savings of young people under the age of 25 which is the best proxy we have for 18-year-olds, the British Household Panel survey suggests that the average young person has zero financial assets. Now that is across income groups."
  Only when we get to the 75th centile—the person three quarters of the way up the income distribution—are their financial assets a mere £400. The policy could make quite a difference to income distribution and a significant difference to the vast majority of young people's lives.
  Research based on the national child development survey 2001 suggested that holding assets has a positive impact on health, the labour market and educational attainment. The amount of assets needed to achieve those outcomes was low, in the region of £300 to £600. The experience of individual development accounts in the United States, where about 20,000 people have the opportunity to benefit from matching schemes, is that assets accumulate over a certain period. The evidence is that incentives are beneficial in encouraging even poor people to put money away. That research makes it clear that even a small amount can induce a savings culture.
  The middle-class subsidy has been mentioned. What amazes me is that such criticism largely comes from the official Opposition, who on this subject argue against the middle class.
  Mr. George Osborne: Perhaps I did not make myself clear. If the objective is to reduce wealth inequality in our society, which is what the Minister claims, I cannot understand how the policy will achieve that. I am not against the policy or against the middle class, or any other class, receiving savings tax breaks, but the child trust fund will not achieve what the Minister sets out to achieve.
  Mr. McFall: So I can take it from the hon. Gentleman that he is in favour of middle-class people getting child trust funds, and he is also in favour of low-income families getting them. What is the problem? There is no problem. He agrees that everybody should enjoy the provisions of the Bill. If there is evidence to show that even small sums generate and inculcate a savings habit, that can only augur well for the future.
  We took evidence in our inquiry from Caroline Rookes, the business director of the pension and share schemes at the Treasury. She referred to the research that was being undertaken at the savings gateway. It was only at an early stage, but it was found that two thirds of those involved claimed that they would continue saving. Those are people on low incomes. Surely everyone on

  1355
  both sides of the Chamber should encourage those on low incomes to participate in such schemes to ensure that they develop a savings habit. That can only be good.
  Mr. Hilton Dawson: In welcoming the Bill, which I think my hon. Friend has deduced is supported by right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House, does he agree that the most disadvantaged group of children and young people in the United Kingdom are those in local authority care? While the White Paper makes some positive references and expresses good intentions towards those children and young people, we need to see something that is more positive in the Bill about the Government's intention to include this group in the overall group of people who benefit from child trust funds.
  Mr. McFall: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend, but not everyone in the House agrees with child trust funds. It is a centrepiece of the Liberal Democrat programme that they do not agree with them. There was not room, given the 2,556 commitments that the Liberal Democrats made, to include child trust funds. Given their flexibility in response to Queen's Speeches, perhaps they will include something about the trusts next year. Then, we will welcome everyone on board.
  Dr. Tonge: I shall ignore that rather idiotic approach to debate.
  The hon. Gentleman was talking earlier about child development and the evidence that he is producing that the idea set out in the Bill is a good one. Does he agree that in terms of child development, whether children are lower class, middle class, upper class, or whatever, all the evidence shows that early intervention in a child's life in the form of child care and good nursery education is what matters? It outweighs any other consideration. Therefore, should we not he spending the money that the Government intend to expend on baby bonds on expanding much more rapidly the early years centres and children's centres?
  Mr. McFall: I do not follow the hon. Lady's logic. She talks about early intervention, and this is the earliest intervention that we can make. The Government are saying that they are expanding provision for health and education. I would not like—
  Dr. Tonge rose—
  Mr. McFall: I shall examine the hon. Lady's logic.
  I would not like to recommend a child trust fund if the Government were cutting expenditure on health and education, and intervention in those areas. That is the key. I have personal professional experience as a teacher. I taught in areas that were very much middle class, and in other areas that have been described as ones of urban development. I know from that experience that if we inculcate a habit in children in poorer areas, it lives on. I taught in the south side of Glasgow, an area which is extremely poor. A gifted music teacher ensured that an orchestra was developed at the school. It was a joy to
  1356
  travel to the school each day and see the kids going to the school with their drums, guitars or whatever. Why did they do that? The answer is that it was inculcated in them at an early stage. I am at one with that philosophy.
  The Children's Mutual is one of the possible providers. The result of its survey in 2003 was that 79 per cent. of parents with children eligible for child trust funds are likely to top-up Government moneys. It says that if there is a small amount they will top it up and they will save. I suggest that 79 per cent. is a good start.
  Mr. Weir: I am interested in what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but how realistic is that prospect? The research in the Treasury White Paper that he cited also reports that a large number of parents, when asked why they do not save for their children's future, simply said that they could not afford to do so. That will not change. The fund relies on a top-up to be effective, so I wonder how many families on low incomes or benefits will be able to give any amount of money to bring the fund up to a realistic level.
  Mr. McFall: When the Government introduced their proposals, the Financial Secretary said that it was an ambitious programme. The hon. Member for Tatton said that it had not been tried elsewhere. I agree that it is an ambitious programme, and it is difficult to ask parents to save. However, the Children's Mutual, a possible provider, says that 79 per cent. of parents surveyed said that they would top up the fund, which suggests that there is an opportunity to make a good start. It is extremely important to introduce a savings culture.
  The Financial Secretary answered a number of questions on financial education when she appeared before the Select Committee. Caroline Rookes of the Treasury said:
  "We are going to work with and have started talking to voluntary and community organisations. We are going to be looking at resources in schools. There is a whole effort going into creating a financial education initiative to run alongside the account so that, at the end, it is probably true that children from poorer families will have less money but we hope that they will be provided with financial education and a better understanding of how to interact with financial services".
  A savings culture is therefore being developed, and I commend the Government on ensuring that financial education starts in schools. One theme that has emerged in the Treasury Committee in the past is that there is not enough consumer education in adult life, never mind for young people. It is therefore important to ensure that financial education is available in schools, which is why the Treasury Committee concluded:
  "The child trust fund is an ambitious, pioneering programme which seeks, through a significant long term investment … to provide a financial asset … and to change people's behaviour towards saving."
  The Treasury Committee therefore gave the recommendation a fair hearing.
  I mentioned that I had five points to make, the second of which concerns the extension of the scheme, not with Government endowments, but by making tax breaks available. I should like the Minister to look at that again, because in our evidence sessions I put it to Treasury officials that it would be invidious for a parent to establish a child trust fund for one child, but not

  1357
  another. The Government should keep open the opportunity to open a child trust fund for children born before 1 September 2002. They should not give endowments, but offer the same tax breaks for such funds. The Minister told the Committee that the extra tax relief afforded by the child trust fund is negligible. If that is the case, why cannot the Government consider extending the provisions of the Bill to children born before 1 September 2002? That is a relevant point, and I urge the Financial Secretary to give it consideration.
  Thirdly, advice to parents is crucial, particularly for those with no previous financial experience. The Committee strongly endorsed the hierarchy of savings that the Minister elucidated when she appeared before us. In other words, any moneys must be used first, to pay off debt, and secondly, to provide for a rainy day. Only after such provision should they be used to make contributions to the child trust fund. We agree entirely with that hierarchy, but the information and advice for parents must be clear and unambiguous. The Treasury is sending an information pack to all parents, hut that message must be loud and clear.
  My fourth point relates to what the hon. Member for Tatton said about the interaction between welfare and the Government's needs. An 18-year-old receiving jobseeker's allowance or income support will be in an invidious position if his benefit is disregarded because of the extra income provided by the allowance. The Financial Secretary has come up with one or two surprises already, and I hope that that point may be clarified today, but if that is not possible it must be clarified in Committee.
  Pension credit has been mentioned. I am delighted to hear from the Financial Secretary that the disregard has been increased from £3,000 to £6,000, but it was pointed out that there is a barrier somewhere along the line. This scheme has the potential to have profound effects, but if the wrong message is given to those who will be adding to the savings—parents, grandparents and friends—that will do it no good.
  The Financial Secretary told the Select Committee
  "I do not think it would be appropriate for me outside the ordinary PBR/Budget timetable to make any further comment."
  She needs to have a word with our right hon. Friend the Chancellor. I should be interested to know the result of that conversation.
  The fifth issue that exercised the Committee was the achieving of a balance between the costs that can be charged by the providers and the regulatory regime—in other words, the effect of regulation on the cost. I know the Government are very determined. The Financial Secretary told the Committee that
  "there is a high threshold of persuasion for any move from a 1 per cent. charge cap for stakeholder products."
  I agree.
  Like other Members, I have been lobbied on the I per cent. cap over the past year. In my capacity as Chairman of the Committee, I have taken a lot of evidence and spoken to a good many people. Moreover, as I said earlier, we have conducted inquiries about pensions misselling, split capital investment trusts and endowment mortgages. Here we have an industry that has not been doing too well in consumer terms, which is why the Treasury Committee has been considering how
  1358
  confidence in long-term savings can be restored. I think that the onus is on the industry to work with the 1 per cent. cap, and, if it cannot do so, to be entirely transparent about the reason. I have heard generalities so far, and it would take much more specific information to convince me that we should abandon the cap immediately—although I realise that some companies could experience problems.
  The Association of British Insurers saw the possibility of the creation of a savings culture among the next generation, and hence the building of a mass market for financial services. That mass market is important in the context of the 1 per cent. cap. If the Government get it right and produce a Sandler-type product—a simple product—it will not require a huge amount of selling. Each year more than 700,000 vouchers worth £230 million will be made available to parents so that they can choose a child trust fund. This is a tremendous opening for the financial services industry.
  As we stated in our evidence, given the low cost of demand generation and the certainty of high persistency rates, a cost-based price cap might be set at a lower level than for other stakeholder products. The Homeowners Friendly Society told us that it would be happy to meet the 1 per cent. price challenge, although it accepted that it could be difficult or impossible for some other providers. Some in the market are therefore already happy to accept that challenge.
  I want to consider fortnightly reporting. The British Bankers Association noted that the fortnightly reporting requirements would
  "place additional burdens and require changes to internal systems capable of accommodating both fortnightly and current quarterly returns for ISAs."
  Fortnightly reporting appears a wee bit over the top. Perhaps the Financial Secretary could explain why the Treasury persists with it. If we want simpler products and to ensure that the price cap is sufficiently low, perhaps such regular reporting adds to administration. I hope that my hon. Friend will deal with that in her summing up.
  The Treasury Committee considered the subject constructively. We applaud the Government for their ambitious initiative. We realise that by the time the young people who were born on 1 September 2002 are 18, the Government will have spent £4 billion on them. That is a great deal of public money, which has to be spent wisely and well. I am sure that the Government will do that, but they must provide the details of their scheme as the Bill progresses. Even more important, they must ensure that the implementation is right. With those cautionary words, I welcome the measure.
  5.47 pm
  Mr. David Laws: I hate to break up the emerging cross-party consensus on the Bill. However, Liberal Democrat Members believe that it is yet another of the Chancellor's well meaning but flawed initiatives. It represents more of the serial micro-meddling that he has introduced since 1997 and is not good value for money for scarce public funds. We shall therefore vote against the proposals.

  1359
  I agree with the comments of a right hon. Member after this year's Budget statement:
  "We have more overcomplicated proposals that will do little to help future long-term saving, but they will extend means-testing to even more people. There is only one thing to say about this little scheme of the Chancellor's … all the money that the Chancellor is offering to those children will have to go towards paying their tuition fees".—[Official Report, 9 April 2003; Vol. 403, c. 291.]
  Those were the words of the then Leader of the Opposition. Conservative Front-Bench Members appear to have changed their position somewhat. Their former leader described the proposals as overcomplicated and said that they would achieve little, but the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne) said today that the Bill was welcome and long overdue. I refer him to the former Conservative Chancellor, Lord Lawson, who represented Blaby. He had a good principle for his tax policy: simplicity. It has never been high on the current Chancellor's list of priorities.
  The child trust fund is an ill-considered and under-evaluated initiative in the tradition of the film industry tax relief, which was established several years ago as a modest measure but now costs hundreds of millions of pounds. It is in the tradition of the many loopholes that the Chancellor has introduced in every Budget and pre-Budget report. All those tax loopholes seem to have only one thing in common—they cost a great deal of money and nobody, certainly not the Treasury, has the slightest idea of what they do, in practice, that is of value to the economy.
  Mr. Cameron: Conservative Members are enjoying a lecture on consistency from the Liberal Democrats—that is always worth while. Has the hon. Gentleman analysed the incentive to save in relation to introducing a local income tax? Does he think that that would have an impact on savings?
  Mr. Laws: No, I do not. I will not be detained by the hon. Gentleman, who is trying—most improperly, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as I am sure you agree—to encourage us to make a detour.
  Several hon. Members referred to the Treasury Committee's report on the child trust fund. When the hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) talked about what was said by people who were consulted on that report, he cited favourable comments from certain bodies that appeared to be financial institutions. As someone who has worked in a financial institution, I suggest that we must not regard advice from that quarter as necessarily wholly impartial, because those institutions have an interest in seeing this product, like other financial market products, take off.
  In order to persuade the House that our objections to the Bill are not simply party political, I refer hon. Members to one of the more independent memorandums submitted to the Treasury Committee—the memorandum from the Institute for Fiscal Studies.
  Mr. George Osborne: The hon. Gentleman tried to pick me up on what other Conservatives have said. I am right, am I not, that there is a Liberal Democrat member of the Treasury Committee, who, I am told privately, might serve on the Standing Committee with us? That
  1360
  would be interesting, given that that Committee supports the principle of the child trust fund. I wonder how he will vote tonight.
  Mr. Laws: The hon. Gentleman should not read too much into the Treasury Committee's report, given that one of its members, the hon. Member for Wallasey (Angela Eagle), said during its hearings:
  "It appears … I am the only one that is enormously enthusiastic about this"
  proposal. Instead, I refer the hon. Gentleman—I am sure that as an assiduous reader he has already looked at it—to the memorandum submitted by the Institute for Fiscal Studies. That body is almost certainly the most independent and authoritative voice in relation to much of the UK's tax and economic and social policy, and cannot be considered to be speaking from any particular self-interest, yet it concluded in its memorandum that the child trust fund policy has not been satisfactorily justified. It went on to say:
  "It is far from clear that many families would be well advised to contribute additional funds to their Child Trust Fund account."
  It continued:
  "It is difficult to find a convincing explanation for why the Government has chosen to support young people using this policy."
  I should like to cover three issues. First, this is, as my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) said, a question of priorities. At this particular time, does this measure represent the best use of what is, as the hon. Member for Dumbarton acknowledged, a very large amount of public money? Secondly, does the substance of the proposals add up, and are they likely in practice to achieve the objectives that, according to the Bill, the Government desire? That is the specific matter that was commented on by the Institute for Fiscal Studies. Thirdly, I want to look briefly at some of the Bill's details. Although we oppose it in principle, we will do our best in Committee to take part in debates constructively and to suggest amendments that may move the Government's proposals in a more sensible direction.
  We should start by considering how much the Government plan to spend on the proposals and whether that expenditure is justified. The context of today's debate was established last week by the Chancellor's pre-Budget report, in which he unveiled a public borrowing figure of £37 billion for the current fiscal year—a figure that is significantly above the 3 per cent. that the Government previously regarded as a commitment on public borrowing. In addition to that very high figure, the Chancellor unveiled future forecasts for public borrowing that indicate that he will need to borrow some £150 billion over the five years from 2003 to 2008. Against that background, it cannot be anything but obvious to every hon. Member that next year we are in for an extremely tight and difficult public sector spending review when the Chancellor sets the spending figures for the three years starting in 2005–06. It is therefore incumbent on us all to consider not only whether there may be some merit in each individual scheme brought forward by the Government, but whether the merit of a particular scheme is greater than the alternative uses to which the money could be put.
  The Financial Secretary will perhaps confirm that the cost of the scheme over the next 10 years is likely to be some £3 billion, which consists of the £235 million up-

  1361
  front costs of issuing the vouchers to each child who qualifies; the introduction in 2009 of a top-up—the cost of which is yet to be quantified, but is likely to be at least £100 million—to children who have reached the age of seven; further administrative costs that the Government have yet to detail, but which will have to be incurred each year; and set-up costs in relation to information and communications technology. The explanatory notes to the Bill tell us that implementing the child trust fund will involve significant new one-off setting-up costs, mainly because of the need for IT support. I should be grateful if the Financial Secretary clarified the order of magnitude of those costs and whether they are still in line with the figure that was given to the Treasury Committee—that is, some £90 million a year.
  At least two other costs will fall on the taxpayer: first, the tax relief on savings that will be triggered as a consequence of the measure—the Financial Secretary's evidence to the Committee suggests that she considers that that cost will be very small—and, secondly, the significant advertising campaign that will, as ever, be undertaken by the Government. Will the Financial Secretary give some idea of how much that will cost?
  All those costs and all the money that flows from them will not make an iota of difference to child poverty. The Prime Minister said when he appeared at the launch of the child trust fund policy in April 2001:
  "We are committed to extending opportunity to all. All our children—especially the most disadvantaged—should have the chance for a proper start in life".
  However, the investment that is going into the child trust fund will not make any difference to children's opportunities. It will not affect children at school or by directing additional money to their parents. It will be a barren investment that is locked away until they reach the age of 18.
  Mr. Andrew Love: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that, in his pre-Budget statement, the Chancellor announced other measures that will have a direct and immediate effect on child poverty. Is it not sensible that he should plan for the future, so that we can deal with child poverty in several different ways?
  Mr. Laws: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his sensible intervention—he makes a fair point. In some respects, the Government are seeking to push ahead with reforms that we very much welcome: for example, the children's centres that were announced—or perhaps re-announced—in the pre-Budget report. However, the point at issue for Liberal Democrat Members, and the reason why we do not believe that the expenditure on the child trust fund is justified in comparison with potential alternatives, is the slowness of the roll-out of some of the other measures that the Chancellor and the Government are promoting—specifically, children's centres. One of the best things that the Government have done over the past few years is to establish the Sure Start scheme, because intervention in the very earliest years is the only way in which we will really be able to challenge the enormous inequalities of opportunity in society.
  My criticism of the Government is that, although they rightly start by targeting the areas of greatest deprivation, all too often, they make the mistake of
  1362
  thinking that the type of deprivation that they are seeking to tackle through the children's centres and the Sure Start schemes is restricted to the most deprived wards in the country. I represent a constituency whose deprivation levels would be considered average. None of its wards appears among the 20 per cent. most deprived in the country. However, there is a crying need in the most deprived wards in towns such as Yeovil and Chard for initiatives such as children's centres and Sure Start schemes, which are being rolled out in some parts of the country but not in others.
  Dr. Tonge: I am glad that my hon. Friend is addressing this issue, and that he has congratulated the Government on what they have done on Sure Start, on nurseries and on early years education. That work is admirable and it is to be supported. He is right, however, in what he says about the children's centres. By 2006, they are expected to be serving about 650,000 children, which represents only 20 per cent. of the children in the most deprived wards. Would it not be much better to spend the money that the Government expect to spend on baby bonds on expanding those children's centres much more quickly, thus benefiting children here and now, rather than in 18 years' time?
  Mr. Laws: My hon. Friend is right. I seem to recall that the Minister's own Parliamentary Private Secretary made a similar point in an article in the Financial Times only a few months ago, implicitly criticising the Government for their slowness in rolling out children's centres and Sure Start schemes to all the population. I was in a primary school in Yeovil on Friday, and the crying need for early years intervention was only too apparent. We need to tackle problems that arise when young people start at infant and primary schools without adequate educational support and other problems in society in terms of child poverty and poor parenting.
  It was notable in that school that, in a cohort of sevenyear-olds, about 60 per cent. came from single parent families or from families in which one of the two adults was not the original parent. That shows the extent of the problems of inequality that need to be challenged in society today. I give great credit to the Government for taking on the challenge of addressing inequality, but it is far more important to finish that job before rolling out a large amount of expenditure into a project whose social and economic returns are extremely dubious, as I shall go on to demonstrate.
  Mr. Dawson: The hon. Gentleman is dramatically understating the significance of the Government's approach to children's centres, and he would benefit from looking again at the Green Paper on children. Crucially, he is missing the fact that young adults, including those from socially deprived backgrounds, have enormous energy, vitality and purpose, which would be greatly assisted if they had their own assets behind them. Is this not an exciting opportunity that entirely complements the rest of the Government's programme?
  Mr. Laws: I agree with the hon. Gentleman's first point, but not with his second. The issue that we are trying to address is that there is a widespread need for

  1363
  children's centres and Sure Start schemes throughout the country, and that they are probably the single most important thing that the Government are doing to challenge inequality of opportunity and to give children a real chance in life. That is far more important than giving money to people when they are born and locking it away in an account, creating a barren investment that can do nothing to tackle the sources of inequality.
  Mr. McFall Mr. McFall rose—
  Mr. Laws: I shall give way to my previous boss on the Select Committee, then I must make some progress.
  Mr. McFall: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I would like to examine the Liberal Democrats' policy on this issue. Is he against the principle of the child trust fund, or against the fact that the Government are spending money on it now, when he thinks that they should spend it where it can have an immediate effect, such as in children's centres?
  Mr. Laws: We believe that the overwhelming priority should be children's centres and Sure Start programmes, not child trust funds. I want to go on to explain our serious concerns about the detail of the child trust fund proposals. We share the view of the Institute for Fiscal Studies, which does not believe that the evidence behind the proposals so far supports the amount of money that the Government are going to put into the scheme. We do not believe that the amount of money going in will create an adequate return.
  I want to consider briefly the four points that the Government have made in justifying the rolling out of the child trust fund. They state that the fund should
  "ensure that in future all children have a financial asset at the start of adult life".
  However, it is not clear from the background documents why it is so important to give people a financial asset at the age of 18—as the hon. Member for Tatton pointed out, the Government are about to persuade about 50 per cent. of our young people that, at that time, they should not only have a financial asset but take on a very large financial liability. The Government seem to be sending out a muddled message, saying that it is tremendously important for young people to have a significant financial asset while telling them that they should be extremely relaxed about getting into serious amounts of debt that they can pay back from their income in later life. That raises a fundamental question about whether savings at particular points in people's lives or careers make any economic sense, and whether the Government have any business interfering with the decisions that people make about their own priorities.
  What will the students do with this financial asset when they get it at the age of 18? It will be obvious to many of them that they should use it to help to fund their university careers and to offset the debts that the Government are happy to encourage them to incur. Some students will no doubt use the money to fund leisure activities—a party, perhaps, on their 18th birthday, or a holiday—which seems to be of dubious value in terms of public policy rationale. The Minister
  1364
  said that some young people may choose to use the money to establish a small business, but, as the Institute for Fiscal Studies has pointed out, if that is the primary policy aim, we should consider what alternatives are available. Most assuredly, a tiny minority of young people will use the money for that purpose.
  I shall fold the next two points together to make sure that I do not eat up too much of other hon. Members' time. They are the first two points that the Government make in justifying their policy. Their objectives are
  "to build on financial education to help people make better financial choices throughout their lives"
  and, linked to that,
  "to help people understand the benefits of saving and investing".
  The Institute for Fiscal Studies has made the point not only in the initial consultation but in its paper to the Treasury Committee that it is not at all obvious that the best way to educate young people on financial literacy is to set up an account and pay Government money into it—indeed, it is not obvious why the young people who do not operate their account would achieve greater financial literacy.
  That takes us back to the point about priorities that my hon. Friends and I have made. It is far more important to ensure that every individual in society has the basic numeracy and literacy skills to manage their own career and to make their way in the world, than to establish accounts such as these and to deliver financial education in a dubious way—it could be delivered far more effectively through the education system.
  It is also unclear what kind of signal the Government are trying to send on what they call the benefits of saving and investing. One of the issues that the Select Committee dealt with was the fact that, for many families, particularly those in lower income groups, it will not make any sense to put money in a child trust fund and to lock it up for 18 years. Many of those people end up having to borrow large sums, often for short-term purposes, at extortionate rates of interest. It is not at all obvious why it would be sensible for those people to pick up the savings habit through the child trust fund, rather than through one of the other vehicles for savings.
  That brings us to the most serious argument that the Government have advanced in relation to the child trust fund—that it should encourage parents and children to develop the savings habit and engage with financial institutions. The key question, which the Government seem unable to answer, is whether, as a consequence of being encouraged to develop the savings habit, parents and children will save more.
  That was a point that several members of the Select Committee explored robustly with the Minister, perhaps wrongly, on the issue of targets, which the Financial Secretary shied away from. Perhaps I can direct her instead towards estimates, as I tried to do in my intervention, and encourage her to let us know whether there is any assessment of the effect that the measures could have on total saving. It is possible that all we will succeed in doing is make the Government save for people, rather than people themselves saving. That will hardly encourage people into the savings habit.

  1365
  In addition—the point was made effectively by the Institute for Fiscal Studies—it is unclear why many people, particularly those in lower income groups, should save in a child trust fund, when they can enjoy the same tax breaks through an individual savings account, with all the flexibility that that implies.
  Norman Lamb: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Treasury official's evidence to the Select Committee was that, unless habits change, it is likely that middle income families, rather than low income families, would take advantage of the tax-free savings vehicle? The advice to low income families is, first, to pay off debt and, secondly, if they have money to spare, to save it in such a way that it would be available for a rainy day, and only after that to put money into a vehicle such as the child trust fund. Every indication is that low income families will not use it.
  Mr. Laws: My hon. Friend is right. He has clearly read the submission from the Institute for Fiscal Studies, in particular paragraph 12, which states that the issue in relation to the child trust fund
  "becomes even more fraught since it is quite possible that the immediate beneficiaries of the child trust fund will be richer families who can substitute the endowment payment for saving that they would have made for their children, and so increase their current consumption."
  Mr. Weir: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Laws: I must make a little progress. I shall give way later.
  In her evidence to the Select Committee on 3 December, the Financial Secretary shed some interesting light on the question whether individuals are likely to save more. She said:
  "It is a fact that each child has a tax free allowance each year of, I think, £4,600 that very few people currently take advantage of, and they could in children's savings accounts, so quite why, if they do not take advantage of it at the moment, they would choose to take advantage of it through the Child Trust Fund, I do not know."
  That makes the point effectively. It suggests that even the Financial Secretary is sceptical about whether many people, especially those in low income groups, who are currently not saving and not taking up opportunities, will do so.
  On the specific question whether there should be additional Government contributions while the child is aged between 0 and 18, the Financial Secretary went on to comment that
  "when you ask parents, the largest group of parents who come back with an answer say that they like the idea of there being additional top-ups rather than there being a one-off lump sum at the beginning, and that the account may not be reactivated, as it were, by the Government for 18 years."
  In other words, many of the people making representations on the matter to the Government fear that, if the Government do not reactivate the account by paying money into it, nobody else will.
  The general conclusion that we will end up with little additional saving is underpinned by the Financial Secretary's estimate to the Select Committee that the extra tax relief on the child trust fund would have a
  1366
  negligible cost. The IFS pointed out, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb) made clear, that
  "Families looking for tax efficient savings vehicles would be well advised to exhaust their ISA contribution limits before using Child Trust Fund Contributions … ISA funds can be accessed at a time of unforeseen need."
  There is serious concern that the Government's proposal, however well intentioned, will advantage some higher income groups, not the groups that many Labour Members have in mind. Those upper income groups will be the only people who gain anything in terms of tax advantage from the child trust fund. Nobody else in society—none of the low income groups—will get a bean from the Government in terms of tax advantage to encourage them to save. The Government are relying not only on the savings that people will make in the child trust fund, but on the fact that, once people open such an account, they will be inclined to save—even though they will have no more financial incentive to do so than they had before.
  Mr. Love: The House will understand the importance of inculcating the savings habit and the need to make up the £27 billion lacking in savings for our retirement, as well as the importance of financial education. All the studies show that that would do most to inculcate the savings habit. If the hon. Gentleman does not accept the Government's proposal as a way forward, does not he consider the matter important enough to propose some alternative?
  Mr. Laws: I shall deal in a moment with the Government's role in encouraging saving. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will have picked up from my comments that encouraging savings is not always a good thing for low income groups, who could end up having to borrow at high interest rates and save at low interest rates. For all those reasons, we share the scepticism of the Institute for Fiscal Studies about whether a great deal of Government expenditure in this area will result in a tangible return, when an expenditure of £3 billion in other areas could result in a real return. That may be why the IFS stated, in relation to the Government's consultation:
  "Prior to considering design issues, it would have been useful to have had a stage of the consultation process that invited comments on whether the new policy direction that is asset-based welfare is a good one to take."
  The Government have many questions to answer with regard to these proposals. They must decide to what extent they should be nannying citizens in relation to savings. On the subject of how the money should be spent at the end of the period of 18 years, the Chairman of the Treasury Sub-Committee asked the Financial Secretary whether children should be free at the age of 18 to spend the proceeds of the fund in any way they wished. The hon. Lady answered robustly:
  "I think the question for the Government is who is best placed to make those choices. Is it really up to us to decide what is in the best interests of a young adult at the age of 18? … Far be it … from me to tell a young person that they should not use this asset to buy, for example, a computer … or perhaps to invest in a van".
  In that respect, the Financial Secretary is making herself the enemy of the nanny state, but I ask her to consider other aspects of the child trust fund, such as the

  1367
  limitation on the way in which the money can be used. Perhaps it could be far better used by parents making decisions for their own families, rather than the money being locked up by the Government. Is that nanny state attitude justified? I ask the hon. Lady to consider whether it makes sense to encourage some families to have very small financial assets to invest in equities—assets that are essentially risky. I understand the arguments for that, but that is not the behaviour that lower income groups would normally demonstrate with their own money. I ask her to consider also whether it makes sense that some parents aged 17 in England, Wales and Northern Ireland will not be able to take many decisions themselves—they will be able to do so in Scotland—because the Government will insist on managing their fund and that of their child.
  Those are some of the fundamental objections to the scheme. It is clear that a series of amendments will need to be tabled in Committee, not least on whether there should be an allowance for draw-down either before 16 or, at least, for 16-year-olds who are going into the labour market. There seems no obvious reason why they should have to wait two more years before getting their hands on a financial asset that might help them in their job.
  Another issue is whether the Government's insistence on the managed accounts being invested in equities, at least in part, makes sense. Some hon. Members have alluded to the interaction between the child trust fund and the benefits system, not only in relation to jobseeker's allowance but in relation to the issue, raised by the Select Committee, of the deprivation of capital for family members, a question that was not fully answered by the Financial Secretary at the time.
  There are many reasons to object to the Bill and there are many better uses for the money that the Government will spend. There is inadequate justification that this expenditure of money will lead to the results that the Government claim it will. Even at this late stage, I hope that the Government will think again about using the money for a purpose that is so unclear.
  6.21 pm
  Mr. Michael Jabez Foster: It is unusual for the Liberal Democrats to be against some kind of public spending; their usual position is to demand a doubling of the contribution. More important than that is the mean-spiritedness shown by the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Laws)—who represents a town that is not one of the poorest in Britain—to my constituents in Hastings and Rye, the 27th poorest town in Britain. We have the highest levels of child poverty in the country, although we have benefited from children's centres and other measures introduced by the Government. I find it difficult to understand the idea that it is not beneficial for an individual to be a stakeholder from the very beginning. I suspect that the
  1368
  length of the hon. Gentleman's speech was indicative of the difficulty of his task of opposing something that is so obviously sensible and right for people on low incomes.
  Mr. Laws: If the hon. Gentleman had the choice in his constituency, as I might have in mine, between having a children's centre or the expenditure on the trust fund, which would be choose?
  Mr. Foster: That is an unreal choice, because the Government are investing in children's services at a level way beyond anything for which the Liberal Democrats have ever asked. It is not a real choice to say that a children's centre—important as it is—should be "instead" of this once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for young people from modest backgrounds or poverty to receive something that is theirs and to which they can look forward for the future.
  Middle-class families will provide for their children anyway, and I do not begrudge them the opportunity of doing so in a tax-efficient way. That is the proper thing to do, but the scheme will give poorer children an opportunity that the Liberal Democrats would deny them.
  Bob Spink: Although I can, on balance, support the measure, it will increase the gap between rich and poor. The poorest people will end up with around £911 at the age of 18, whereas those from families with disposable incomes who can invest £100 a month will end up with a fund of between £35,000 and £40,000 at 18, thereby increasing relative poverty.
  Mr. Foster: The hon. Gentleman is wrong, for this reason. The poorest will receive a higher contribution from the Government, which will push them above where they would have been otherwise. The middle classes will always look after their own and would make those contributions in any event. We are giving the poorest groups an opportunity to have something, whereas the better off will always act to achieve their own objectives. The gap will not grow and the scheme will enable everyone to save more towards whatever is needed at 18. This innovative scheme, making everyone a stakeholder, is to be welcomed.
  I have three other points to make. First, I encourage my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to hold firm to the 1 per cent. cost. The scheme is very cheap to operate. It is cheaper than the average stakeholder pension scheme as there is no possibility of withdrawal for at least 18 years; it is only a matter of collecting contributions. If the Portcullis pension scheme can offer 0.4 per cent.—I agree that it has a captive audience—it ought to be entirely possible for providers to offer 1 per cent. or thereabouts.
  Secondly, although the scheme will be good in itself—its purpose must be to encourage parents to contribute in a tax-efficient way to their offspring—children themselves must be encouraged to save, which has not happened for a long time. I remember that, in the dark ages of the 1950s—under a Conservative Government—I was encouraged to contribute sixpence for a Princess Anne stamp and 2/6, or half a crown, for a Prince Charles stamp. That Conservative Government gave me no interest on the investment, so I was contributing to

  1369
  the repayment of the national debt without any help at all. None the less, that was an aid to saving, and I paid my sixpence each week, saving up a total of £18 by the age of 12.
  Such a measure is required now, giving young people collectively an encouragement to save. The scheme itself will do that, because every child, in due course, will have a savings fund. I do not know if they will check in the pink pages to see how their shares are doing, but they will know that they have an asset for the future. If we could encourage youngsters to put cash aside in some form of savings scheme, it would be helpful.
  Mr. Ian Liddell-Grainger: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the ethos of saving has changed totally? When we were younger, saving was part of our pride in this country. Does he think that we might have to re-educate an entire generation of youngsters to save for the future, as they have not been encouraged to do so?
  Mr. Foster: I entirely agree that the "me now" society, which developed some time ago and which we hope to dissuade people from continuing, changed the saving habit among ordinary people, who thought that they could borrow all the time to get what they wanted. There is a difficult cultural issue. I do not want to be over-political, but today's parents are Thatcher's children, which may be part of the problem. I agree that the objective is to try to get people into a different culture and to understand that there has to be a payment day. The scheme is a move in that direction.
  Thirdly, I want to impress upon my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary the fears of my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) and his Committee about the extension of the scheme to other children. I do not want to plead a special case for my four grandchildren, but they are aged five and below and none of them will qualify. The Financial Secretary said in her opening remarks that the scheme is for all children, but it is not for all children if 80 or 90 per cent. will not be included. The cost of extending the scheme to pay the cash would be unaffordable, but that is not my plea. I hope that, in Committee, she can deal with the problem of allowing certain young people, but not others, to enjoy tax benefits.
  Extending the scheme to all would be a popular choice and an important one, for three reasons. First, it would be important for equity, as it is unfair that some young people should be treated differently from others. Secondly, it would be important for simplicity. Despite what the Financial Secretary said earlier, the existing schemes—I wonder whether she has investigated them—are rather complex. Thirdly, and perhaps most importantly, they are jolly expensive, often taking some 4 to 5 per cent. of children's funds. So it would be much more sensible to have one scheme—the child trust fund—that is clearly worked out, and to allow all children to benefit from it.
  Given the excellence of these proposals, I very much hope that, in Committee, the Financial Secretary will feel able to extend them to all children.
  6.31 pm
  Mr. Andrew Robathan: The hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Mr. Foster) spoke about the Bill with great enthusiasm. I have to say that I share neither his enthusiasm nor his view that, although the middle classes will look after their own, we will have to look after "these poor people". I found that somewhat condescending, to put it mildly. I am afraid that his enthusiasm will not save him at the next general election, but never mind—I am sure that we will miss him.
  I was rather more in agreement with the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Laws). I hasten to add that I did not agree with everything that he said, and nor did he need to take 35 minutes to say it; nevertheless, many of the issues that he discussed needed to be raised. In a debate such as this, it is difficult to come out and say that one does not want to give a boost to the 1.6 million beautiful, bouncing, bonny babies; however, this scheme looks to me like a gimmick. The Financial Secretary spoke winningly—indeed, I almost wanted to believe that she was right—but notwithstanding her comments, at the end of her speech she seemed not to believe herself what she was saying. That was rather worrying.
  The scheme will cost £4 billion over 18 years, but is it really a good way to spend our money? After all, this is a Government who are very capable of spending money rather than very good at spending it. They have raised taxes 60 times, and through the abolition of advance corporation tax they have raised £30 billion to £35 billion from people's pension fund savings. Now they want to take away money by taxing parents such as me, and to give a gift to new babies. I do not see the logic of that. How does that encourage prudence, saving and self-reliance?
  This gimmick was first announced in 2000, before the last general election. In fact, the figure of £1,000 was then gaily bandied about, but now we learn that it will be only £250. Perhaps that is one reason why the Home Secretary is disappointed with the scheme. I question the principle of a gift that is unrelated to the actions of the individual. After all, it is not intended to help those in dire straits; it has no relation to what they—or, if they are babies, their parents—do. The Financial Secretary said that the scheme will kick-start a savings habit, but why should it? Why should giving back to taxpayers' children part of their own parents' money lead to—as she described it—a change in attitude to saving? Nothing in her speech led me to believe that it will.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne) made a fine first speech in his new role. He rightly pointed out that members of the middle class—of course, most of us in this place are members of the middle class—such as himself, the Financial Secretary, the hon. Member for Yeovil and I all received a private, Oxbridge education. We understand about saving. I already have savings accounts for my two small children, who are aged seven and four, and I suspect that the Financial Secretary has such accounts for hers.
  Ruth Kelly indicated dissent.
  Mr. Robathan: Perhaps she is introducing this Bill, at the enormous cost of £4 billion, just in order to have them. But we know that most middle-class parents save for their children, which is very sensible. Furthermore,

  1371
  people in my position will certainly take up this savings account, because it is a good deal for us. Of course, from a personal point of view I applaud the Government's assisting me and my children, but is this the best way to spend Government money?
  The hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) spoke of the 50 per cent. or more of parents who save nothing, or next to nothing, for their children, but nothing in the Bill will encourage them to save more. They probably do not have the money, as the hon. Member for Angus (Mr. Weir) pointed out; if so, how will they save for their children? As has been pointed out, the money will be locked up in an account to which they will have no access.
  Returning to my point about the middle classes, this is a very patronising measure. It takes the view that poor people must save, and that the nanny state will make it easier for them. Yes, of course we want it to be easy for them, but we should encourage all members of society to save. We should not patronise them; we should give them opportunities, not handouts.
  What will happen at the age of 18, long after the current Blair Government are just a distant, unhappy memory, lamented by none? The Financial Secretary was 18 more recently than I was, but I should point out that I know quite a few 18-year-olds. Many are leaving school and going on to university—of course, the Government want 50 per cent. of young people to go to university—and some are going on to work. What will these 18-year-olds do? The Financial Secretary will perhaps correct me if I am wrong, but according to some, if only the initial £250 has been invested, they will have some £400; at a growth rate of 5 per cent., they would have some £602. She said that at the age of 18, the children themselves should decide what to do with the money. They obviously will not be able to pay a year's tuition fees. With top-up fees, the figure might be anywhere between £2,000 to £10,000 a year. With a mere £400, £600 or £900 in their account, they will not be able to repay the student debt, which may be £10,000 or even £20,000.
  The Financial Secretary suggested, rather sweetly, that one could use the money to buy a van and set up a business. As it happens, I have a business, which is included in the Register of Members' Interests. I am a farmer, and last year I bought a Land Rover, which cost me a grand. Since then, I have spent about £2,000 repairing it, so it was not necessarily a good buy, but my point is that although £400, £600 or £1,000 will perhaps help, it is not much when it comes to starting a business. It is a nice idea, and perhaps some people will be able to use it for that purpose; but not many will be able to do so.
  Most of the 18-year-olds whom I know like to go to Ibiza. I do not know why—I have never been—but something goes on in the bars and on the beaches that 18-year-olds seem to like. Even those who are not rich want to go on holiday. According to today's copy of the Evening Standard, the last few seats are available for
  1372
  flights to Madeira. A Christmas holiday there costs £499; my own taste, however, runs more to Auckland for £539 return. But this is what 18-year-olds—
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): Order. I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman might return a little more to the subject of debate.
  Mr. Robathan: Of course, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am trying to establish what young people of 18 want to do with their money, and I do not blame them for wanting to do such things. When I was 18, I wanted to travel, and I suspect that the same is true of the Financial Secretary and others. It is travelling to exotic parts with other young people that makes being young fun. We see that in the culture of gap-year students and of backpackers, and I do not blame them.
  Mr. Michael Jabez Foster: Would it not be a good idea to give young people a choice? At the moment, if they have no cash they have no choice.
  Mr. Robathan: We are all in favour of choice, but is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that young people should be able to say, "Can you give me some money, as I want to go on holiday?" If so, I doubt whether the Minister would back it. In a funny sort of way, however, that is effectively what the Bill proposes.
  I applaud the intention of giving small amounts, but I do not believe that it will work to encourage savings. I suggest that matching funds are what really encourage savings. If a young person—or their parents—puts aside £100 and the Government match it with a further £100, that is truly rewarding actions and encouraging people to take a prudent look at life. We could encourage savings by not taxing pensions in the way that the Government have taxed them. What message does that send to people who have put some money aside?
  We could also encourage savings by not having so many means-tested benefits. I am sure that I am not the only Member of Parliament whose constituents include pensioners who complain at surgeries that their savings count against them. They might say that they have a small pension or have saved £5,000—soon the threshold is to be £6,001—so they cannot get the minimum income guarantee or the benefits that they would otherwise receive. Many people rightly complain about that. The Government have discouraged people from making small savings.
  What message does the Bill send out about savings? I suggest that it will turn people against the savings culture. The Government have discouraged savings and I understand that the savings ratio has halved under the Government and is now only 4.5 per cent. compared with 9 per cent. in 1997—[Interruption.] I am advised that it was 10 per cent.
  The Bill will not address the problem of low savings, which is why it amounts to just a gimmick or stunt —albeit perhaps a not very expensive one. My hon. Friend the Member for Tatton suggested that it could have something to do with the fact that the vouchers will arrive shortly before the next general election. It seems to me to be an expensive way of giving back to some taxpayers a little of what the Government took from them in the first place.
  6.41 pm
  Mr. David Cameron: I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to the debate and pleased to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan). I thought that he was perhaps a little tough on the Government. He is in favour of saving and I am in favour of encouraging it. He is probably looking more towards the lifetime savings product. Perhaps that could be done better than through the Bill, but if the Government come up with a simple and neat way of encouraging saving for young people, we should support it tonight.
  I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members' Interests. As my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne) implied, it is important to declare that my wife has a baby on the way in February, so if the vote goes the right way tonight, I shall obviously be a beneficiary. I hope, in passing, that my paternity leave will last a little longer that that of my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow). He was in his place earlier today, just nine days after the great event, and made one of his very good interventions. We also have a son, Ivan, who was born in April 2002, so sadly he is going to miss the cut—though I shall return to him later.
  Bob Spink: No, he will receive it.
  Mr. Cameron: No. September 2002 is, I believe, the cut-off date.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Tatton introduced our position clearly. We believe that saving is a good thing and that encouraging saving—if done simply—is a proper aim for the Government, as the Minister set out. Vitally, we believe that encouraging people to build up assets gives them independence, freedom and the ability to make choices for themselves rather than being too reliant on the state. As my hon. Friend said, the privatisations, council house sales and many other policies of the last Conservative Government did spread the ownership of assets, which is to be encouraged.
  I do not want to be churlish—indeed, I want to avoid some of the churlishness that we heard from Liberal Back Benchers—but the Government have to examine the backdrop to the Bill. As my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby said, the Government did much to discourage savings. We have had 60 tax increases and advance corporation tax changes that sucked money out of people's pension funds. We have seen an enormous increase in means-testing. If they do not own their own home, a couple now have to save £180,000 to avoid a means test on becoming a pensioner. There are still anti-saving taxes such as inheritance tax, which bites far too early on, and the capital gains tax regime, though reduced and reformed, is hideously complex. That too discourages saving.
  Instead of a broader, more sweeping approach, we have a range of small initiatives. I agreed with the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Laws) that, in general, we should be promoting simplification, tax reduction and encouragement of independence. Again, in general, I fear that the Government are moving in the opposite direction. Nevertheless, it would be churlish not to welcome a relatively simple scheme that provides people with an opportunity to build up savings. As the hon.
  1374
  Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) said, the need is quite clear when 35 per cent. of parents with children under 15 save nothing and a further 26 per cent. save only occasionally.
  I have four small suggestions and one bigger one about how to improve the Bill. The first, as I mentioned in an intervention, is about children in care. They do not receive child benefit, but they will get child trust funds. As the Bill stands, however, no one is going to contribute on their behalf. Such children have the toughest start in life, with 18 years in care. The state acts in loco parentis, so it could contribute by using the child benefit that would otherwise be paid. The money could be put into the child trust fund so that when the children came out of care at 18, they would have some money to give them a decent start. If not, these children will be greatly disadvantaged by comparison with others. I hope that the Minister will reflect seriously on that point, which my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton promised to debate further in Committee.
  Mr. Dawson: I commend the hon. Gentleman for that first-class suggestion. Does he agree that we often denigrate and overlook the potential and abilities of young people on leaving care? In fact, there could be no more important group to encourage into an entrepreneurial future.
  Mr. Cameron: Absolutely. It is good that we have secured agreement on both sides of the House. The more hon. Members we can encourage to agree, the more pressure we can exert on the Minister to carry out this reform, which would not be too expensive and would give some of the most disadvantaged people in our society a better start in life.
  My second point is means-testing. I know that it is a simple idea, but it is worth saying again that means-testing discourages saving. The Minister should have that stencilled on her desk. In my earlier intervention, I pointed out that a family on £13,230 would get the £500 voucher for their child while one on £13, 231 would get only £250. The Minister said that she could see the logic behind my argument that that might discourage saving. The logic is simple: someone who puts money aside and has some income from savings could well be placed beyond the threshold. The Chancellor now goes over more thresholds than Zsa-Zsa Gabor: there are thresholds all over the place. If people save a bit to have a little more money, they could be denied a benefit. That does put people off saving.
  Means-testing applies to the child trust fund in two ways. The first is, as I have already mentioned, on the way in, where either £250 or £500 is to be provided. What do we say to families who are just above the threshold? What message does it send to them? There is also a concern, which was expressed to the Treasury Committee by the National Consumer Council, that companies selling these products might use the means-tested additional endowment as a signal and decide that it is better to market to the family with the £250 rather than the £500 vouchers.
  Ruth Kelly indicated dissent.
  Mr. Cameron: The Minister shakes her head, but the National Consumer Council, which is a serious

  1375
  organisation, was concerned about that point, which provides another reason why means-testing is unwelcome.
  Norman Lamb: Will the hon. Gentleman say what he views as the solution to the means-testing problem that he identifies?
  Mr. Cameron: We have to deal with the Bill as it is. If it were my Bill and my idea, I would opt for a flat rate. It is simpler to say that all children will receive the same sort of account and start with the same sum of money. As soon as means-testing is introduced, it creates unfairness and sends out a signal that saving is bad.
  The second type of means-testing—on the way out rather than in—is perhaps the more serious. The Government's proposals are not wholly clear. When asked in the Treasury Committee about the problem of losing jobseeker's allowance because of the savings in an 18-year-old's account, Mr. Holgate said:
  "We are aware of the implication and we cannot say at the moment what exactly we plan to do about it".
  I know that, theoretically, they have 17 years in which to make up their minds, and the Minister said that she would keep the point under review, but it would be better to say now what the intention is. If we want to encourage people to save, we have to send clear signals.
  I am not entirely certain about my third point; perhaps the Minister will put me right if I am wrong. I understand that subscriptions to the funds can be only monetary, and that equities or gilts can then be bought or the money kept in cash. Donations cannot be made in shares, for example. The Minister could look at that point. In some cases, godparents, parents or relations might want to transfer some shares to a child, and if we want a share-owning democracy, which the Conservatives definitely do, we should encourage the movement of shares into the new funds.
  Fourthly, I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton and the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Mr. Foster) that parents of children born before September 2002 should be able to open these accounts. By all means, do not give them the £250 or the £500, but let them open the accounts and save for their children. It will be difficult, as many hon. Members have said, to explain to one child why they have this nice little baby bond building up and to another why they do not. The Minister should be generous about that.
  Those are my small suggestions. I have one big one. must, again, admit an interest, in that Ivan, my son, who is 20 months old, was born severely disabled. I have learned a lot from looking after him and coping with having a disabled child. I have learned as much again from parents of other disabled children coming to my surgeries to explain all the difficulties that they have in accessing funding, getting services and getting equipment. The Minister probably knows that in this country we do not support families who have disabled children very well. More children are surviving and living longer. The national health service has made huge advances in helping those children to survive birth, often with complex and difficult disabilities. But social services have not kept up. If the Minister has not read
  1376
  the Audit Commission report on services for families with disabled children, I recommend it to her. It is a superb piece of work, discussing patchy services and the lottery of provision depending on whom one knows, where one lives and how hard one pushes. It talks about equipment provision, saying how incredibly uneven it is and how often, for example—as I know from my own child—a wheelchair takes so long to arrive that by the time it does, the child has grown out of it.
  Having disabled children means massive extra costs. As I said in an Adjournment debate, one problem is that many things are done outside the national health service by social services, and those families who do the most to try to help look after their child at home often receive the least. If a family packs it in all together, the state has to look after the child. If a family struggles to try to cope, there is not a lot of help.
  Why do we not do something for those families—I say this selfishly, but I know that it will benefit others—through child trust funds? Disabled children with complex needs are living a lot longer now. Children, like my own child, who have cerebral palsy and epilepsy are living into their teens and twenties, and I hope that my son will. At 18 there is a real question about what to do and who is to look after those adults. Who is going to pay? My big idea is, therefore, to ask why we do not delimit the amount of money that can be put into the baby bond for families with disabled children. Let the contributions go as high as we like. Anyone who knows someone with a disabled child will know that everyone wants to help—families, charities and friends. If we could allow extra money to go in, many families would have an ability to help their child to live a much more independent life in adulthood after the age of 18.
  The other change that the Government could make for those families would be to allow some dipping into the fund before the child reached 18. Families with disabled children have to make major purchases—equipment such as prams, chairs, stair lifts and bath hoists. There are huge costs, and some sort of trust fund that could be dipped into—topped up without the £1,200 limit that the Minister mentioned for the general trust funds—could work very well.
  I think that there is something in those ideas, and I hope that the Minister will take them away. They go with the grain of both the Government and the Conservative policy of giving people more independence in their lives. They go with the Government approach of saying that with disabled children there should be more freedom about spending benefits, often in a lump sum—the individual payment concept under which the money is given and the person decides what support or equipment to purchase. They would help some of the most vulnerable people in society, people who are disadvantaged through no fault of their own. I do not think that all that would be complicated to do: we know a lot about who looks after disabled children because of disability living allowance, and it could be done in conjunction with that.
  I hope that the Government will look at my ideas; I hope that my Front-Bench colleagues will. too. I offer the idea freely to all. The Government have been accused of promoting child trust funds as a gimmick. I think that that is a bit unfair, but if they want to make them more real, my ideas would be worth pursuing.
  6.55 pm
  Mr. Michael Weir: I am probably one of the few speakers in the debate who is not claiming some benefit from it since both my children are far too old and I am, I hope, many years yet from being a grandfather.
  The proposal has been a long time coming, since it was first announced back in 2001. The funds themselves will not be available until 2005. In principle, the idea of providing a capital sum for a young person reaching 18 has merit, but I am not convinced by the Prime Minister's argument that it is a way to tackle child poverty. The sad fact is that, despite the Government's claims, very many children in Scotland still grow up in poverty. Since 1999, there has been a 2 per cent. increase in child poverty, and since 1968, the rate of child poverty in Scotland has trebled, with the proportion of children living in poor households rising from one in 10 to one in three. Those figures come from the latest report of the Joseph Rowntree Foundation.
  Against that background, I must ask how the measure will help those who grow up in poverty. The plain fact is, as many hon. Members have said, that the proposal will be of great benefit to those who are already well off. The chances are that their parents, rather than those of children who live in poverty, are already making some contributions for their future. The scheme allows families and friends to contribute up to £1,200 a year— £100 a month—to the fund. Few families who exist on low wages or benefits will be able to contribute that or anything like it, particularly if they have more than one child.
  The hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) quoted from his Select Committee on the Treasury report the number of parents who are interested in the funds. The report, however, went on to note research on why parents do not currently save for their children's future, which came up with the completely unsurprising observation:
  "The survey shows that one of the main reasons for not putting aside money for their children is that some parents just cannot afford to."
  The report also noted the views of the Child Poverty Action Group:
  "Despite higher initial payments for children from low income families, the reality is that many families are too poor to contribute. The tax relief provisions will be of greater benefit to the better off, since they are most likely to be able to top up the fund."
  The hon. Member for Dumbarton and the Minister mentioned that 75 per cent. of parents surveyed were interested in the funds and would seek to contribute to them. I must ask how realistic that figure is. Many families simply do not have the funds. The way in which the funds are being structured will dissuade many families from attempting to contribute, because it seems that they are to be equity-based investments. I do not pretend to be an expert in equity funds—in any funds for that matter—but my experience is that such funds seek fairly substantial regular payments, not small weekly or monthly payments. Excluding many smaller building societies from being able to offer the funds—the Building Societies Association called that a -perverse" decision—will mean that many poorer families are excluded from the chance of taking out a traditional building society account into which small sums can be
  1378
  regularly paid in. It might not provide the returns that an equity-based investment would—in theory, at least, although many have not in the recent past—but it would give poorer families the opportunity to contribute to the trust funds. Almost every hon. Member who has spoken has noted that, if the funds are to be a success, families will need to contribute to them. Even a small contribution would make a big difference, but that would require allowing the use of traditional investment vehicles through building societies.
  It all comes down to child psychology. I have two children, who are not so small any more, but I remember that seeing the money in their piggy banks or building society accounts grow meant something to them. The hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Mr. Foster) mentioned reading the pink pages, but I cannot see many youngsters running out to buy the Financial Times. If they can see the amount in a building society book, it makes a difference.
  The proposed structure of the funds will mean that many poorer families will not be able to contribute. I ask the Government to look again at that aspect of the trust funds, because broadening the base of the investment would be a good way to bring more poorer families into the scheme. As the trust funds are structured in the Bill, it would be the middle classes who will benefit most. That is not necessarily a bad thing—especially for the middle classes—but it is wrong to claim that the proposals will tackle poverty.
  When I spoke to representatives of the National Union of Students last week, I was given a postcard that is part of its latest campaign against tuition fees. It is addressed to the Minister's ultimate boss, the Prime Minister, and it states:
  "Students already facing decades of loan repayments in this post-grant era will, according to you, graduate with a total of up to £21,000 of debt."
  I did a quick, back-of-the-envelope calculation; to end up with a trust fund containing that sum at age 18, a family would have to put the best part of £100 into the fund every month for each child. The trust fund would be swallowed up by tuition fees and student debt for those who go on to university. I can see how the fund would be very attractive for parents and grandparents who wish to ensure that youngsters from relatively prosperous backgrounds have the money to go into higher education, but again it will not do much for those from less well-off backgrounds.
  I fully accept that it is impossible to guess what a person will need at 18 when they are born. It would therefore be difficult, if not impossible, to design a fund that set out exactly how it was to be used. However, I was interested to note that the Select Committee Report said:
  "People feel strongly that proceeds of the fund should be spent on a worthwhile purpose. Education is by far the most mentioned use for the fund, whether this be higher education or of a more vocational nature."
  When asked by the Committee whether the Government had considered an incentive for using the funds for educational purposes, the Minister said that they had not ruled out some sort of benign encouragement. That is an interesting phrase and perhaps the Minister could tell us when she winds up what is meant by it and what is being considered.

  1379
  I was very interested in the point made by the hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) about disabled children. I, too, have a disabled child and fully understand the points that he was making. Unfortunately, a trust fund set up on the basis he suggests would face exactly the same problems as those proposed by the Government—it would disproportionately benefit those who can put more money in, not those in the greatest need, who find it difficult to obtain the extra help that they need.
  Mr. Cameron: The point that I was trying to make is that a trust fund would make it easier for other people to help a family with a disabled child. Often, friends, families and charities want to help, and a trust for the child, which could go on to be their trust after age 18, would provide an easy and neat way for people to contribute. Of course it would not help everyone straight away, but it would help many people and that must be a good thing.
  Mr. Weir: I do not dispute that point, but I repeat that it is those with the family and friends who have the money to contribute who would benefit most. I have been involved with a trust in a professional capacity which was set up to help people with disabilities, and we were able to help the poorest, who needed that help, not those who were able to set up their own trust funds. The idea has merit and I do not write it off, but it faces the same problem as all trust funds. How do we ensure that those most in need are the ones who are helped most? There is no easy answer.
  The interaction of the child trust fund with the welfare system could also cause a problem. If no further funds are contributed other than the initial payments, that will not be a great problem when the person reaches 18. Similarly if the person goes on to full time education after 18, there will not be a great problem. However, a problem will arise—as the Minister admitted—if someone has had money paid into their fund but unfortunately has to claim benefits when they reach 18. The Treasury anticipates that a payment of £10 a month could build up a fund just short of £4,000. That is more than the disregard figure for benefits at present, although I appreciate that the Minister has said that the disregard will rise to £6,000. That is welcome, but I do not know what it will mean over an 18-year period. Will it be up rated with inflation every year to ensure that the full value of the up rating still applies when a child with a trust fund begun in 2005 receives the benefit of it 18 years later? Otherwise, payments made to the fund could reduce or wipe out any benefit entitlement. It may be impossible to get round that problem entirely, because the trust funds are bound to create some unfairness in the benefit system and the Government will have to address that fact.
  Many of the other points that I would have made have been covered by other hon. Members. I may have given the impression of being completely negative about the Bill, but that was not my intention. The idea has merit but it needs to be tweaked. More thought needs to be given to how we can help the poorer sections of society more. The fight against poverty should be the principle
  1380
  behind this. In their present form, the trust funds will not help, but there may be a way to start making progress.
  7.7pm
  Bob Spink: The hon. Member for Angus (Mr. Weir) spoke well and made some good points. It is always a pleasure to follow him, but I wish to refer in particular to the speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron), who made an interesting and original contribution to the debate. I am sure that his cry from the heart for disabled children will have been heard by the House and will be considered carefully.
  I approach the Bill with four key points in mind. The first is the principle; the second is the objectives; the third is the detail, including how the fund will work throughout its life and how we can help those born before the start date of 1 September 2002; and the fourth is the outcome, if the measure passes into law. The principle is good, but only in part. The objectives are sound and I congratulate the Government on them. The details are well thought out, as far as they go, but it will still take a lot of effort to make the system work and to ensure that the objectives are secured and the money not wasted. The outcome, of course, remains to be seen. I hope for the best, but I fear the worst, given the Government's track record on delivery. At this stage of the Bill's life, therefore, I would award the Government two out of four on those key considerations. Fortunately, that enables me to support the Bill, but I want to improve it, to ensure that the objectives are secured and that the outcomes are positive.
  The child trust fund may help to encourage people to adopt a savings habit. As the savings ratio has fallen to disastrous levels we certainly need to do something to encourage people to rediscover Britain's savings culture and to make provision for a rainy day. Indeed, the Government's disastrous performance on the savings ratio is storing up a major problem for our future. The proportion of household resources in savings has fallen from 10 per cent. in the second quarter of 1997, when Labour formed their Government, to less than 5 per cent. in the second quarter of this year. As the Government claim that everyone is now much better off, how could they have got savings so badly wrong? They are driving down the savings of ordinary households to less than half what they were when the Conservatives handed over to Labour in 1997.
  The principle behind the Bill is questionable, at least in part. It is a typical nanny-state, patronising, Government-knows-best measure, as the Liberal Democrats have rightly pointed out. It takes some people's hard-earned money and gives it to others, with no control over how that money will eventually be spent. The Government may of course have their eye on the election, another point on which we might question the principle. That may also be one of the reasons why they want to rush the Bill through.
  The objectives of the Bill are not ignoble, however, so I shall make some positive points. The measure will help people to understand the benefits of saving and investing and building up funds for their future. Starting from the cradle, it gives encouragement to children and

  1381
  a mechanism to parents and grandparents to invest in their children's future. That is entirely helpful and laudable. In essence, the Bill is designed to change people's saving behaviour—it is social engineering, and I accept it. It will also help to engage more families and younger people with our great financial institutions. We hope that those institutions will not go the same way as blue-chip organisations such as Equitable Life; nevertheless, encouraging such engagement is probably a good thing.
  The measure will ensure that all children have a financial asset at the start of their adult life. I cannot fault that, although I hope that, as there will be no control whatever over how the money is spent, it will be spent wisely. That will not always be the case of course, but the objectives are praiseworthy and I welcome them.
  The Bill will help to develop financial awareness so that people make better financial choices throughout their lives. It will create habits and understanding that will be helpful for the long-term stability of society, and I welcome that, too. However, will the detailed scheme actually deliver those objectives? As always, the devil is in the detail.
  The proposals are extremely complicated and extend the socialist principle of means-testing. Those factors may act as a major disincentive to save, thereby frustrating the Bill's objectives. I seriously question whether we need more means-testing, especially bearing it in mind that, as a result of Government policy, it will be extended to about 75 per cent. of retired people.
  Labour's 1997 manifesto promised tax reform to promote savings—very laudable; yet the Chancellor, in his first Budget, levied a £5 billion a year stealth tax on pensions by abolishing the dividend tax credit payable to pension funds. At a stroke, the Government made a major tax reform, not to promote saving but to discourage it, hence the disastrous fall in the savings ratio.
  Much work will need to be undertaken to ensure that CTF accounts will be available on time, in 2005. The Government need to ensure that the various products are safe and that the money will be underwritten so that people are not robbed of their assets, which is exactly what has happened to many of my constituents—and probably to many of yours, Madam Deputy Speaker—who took Government advice and put their savings into pension funds. They have been deserted by the Government.
  Hon. Members may call me cynical, but I remain deeply sceptical about the fact that £250 per child is to be paid out only two months before the likely date of the next general election. As borrowing is rising to £37 billion, way above the 3 per cent. good governance rate that the Government told us about, and as the overall cost of the CTF will be about £4 billion, and there will be a significant advertising campaign, one must be cynical about the Government's motives, especially as they are rushing the measure through.
  We do not yet have clear details about how the child trust funds can be held. Much work needs to be done on administrative matters. We have insufficient information about the impact of those resources on people's entitlement to means-tested benefits. Will 18year-olds be encouraged to blow their windfall? I realize
  1382
  that the disregard will be increased to £6,000, but I agree with the hon. Member for Angus that the figure must be watched carefully and indexed.
  The scheme adds to the complications relating to various savings products. If the Government really want to promote a savings culture and improve the savings ratio—as they should—they should simplify the range of savings products available, rather than making the system more complicated. A simple system with a single tax relief on an indexed amount invested each year would be far better than the multi-level ISA and other systems that currently exist—but I digress.
  I am deeply concerned about the flexibility of the scheme. What will happen to funds if, tragically, a child does not live until the age of 18? Such points need careful consideration.
  I agree with the line taken by the Liberal Democrats: they say that the scheme is painfully thin on details and that its benefits to children are unclear. They make a lot of sense when they say that the Government should be using any available cash to help children get the best start in life. It is undeniable that getting a child's early development right is the best way to use the money that is available. They make a sound point, but we should implement both that early years investment and the Bill, to encourage a savings culture. The Liberal Democrat view does not address the difficulty of encouraging a savings culture and restoring the savings ratio to what it was in 1997 when the Conservatives handed over the economy to Labour. I hope that the Liberals will continue to push for more spending on early years, as that is certainly the more important of the two factors, but I believe that we can have both.
  The outcomes of the Bill remain to be seen, and although I hope for the best, I fear for the worst. As the Government cannot even organise a simple system to distribute passports on time, and given their record on tax credits earlier this year, I am deeply concerned about their ability to deliver the long-running and complicated CTF system, especially as there is such a tight time scale.
  In any event, young men and women of the future will need the endowment to pay for their education, if the Government get their way on tuition fees—although I hope that they do not. The bottom line is that the Government will give those young people someone else's hard-earned money and then take it back again through tuition fees.
  Given that the pot of cash will be available to youngsters at 18, and given the scare stories that we will undoubtedly read about in years to come, with some youngsters blowing their money on holidays, fast cars or even drugs and booze, I can envisage the Government seeking in future to control the way in which the money is spent, perhaps indirectly by forcing up education fees or some other mechanism, so that the choice over the use of funds will be removed or constrained by this control-freakish Labour Government.
  Like the majority of people in this country, I simply do not trust the Government. I remain deeply sceptical about the two-level payments. The initial endowment will be £250 for most children, but children from low-income families who also qualify for the full child tax credit will receive the higher payment of £500. The Treasury states that around a third of children will be entitled to the higher sum, although, again, I do not

  1383
  trust the Treasury forecast on that. Family fortunes can go up and down year to year, decade to decade—so youngsters who receive the higher level of public money, when they are born or when they are seven, may end up being better off than those who receive the lower amount of public money. That will not be perceived as fair or appropriate by anyone.
  Of course, many issues need to be ironed out in Committee. For example, can we ensure that children born before 1 September 2002 will be able to benefit from the tax exemptions in a parallel fund, even though they will miss out on the lump sum payments? Other issues include children in care, and I am very grateful to the Financial Secretary for her earlier comments, so I will not pursue that issue. Of course, children who live overseas will need to be dealt with. We must consider the charging levels for administration—the charge cap—and the fact that marketing strategies may well be focused on the middle classes and higher income groups, rather than lower income groups. We will have to ensure that that is tightly controlled. We must also consider the scheme's impact on the take-up of child tax credit, since any household on an income below CTC threshold—currently, £13,230—will need to claim CTC before becoming eligible for the additional £250 CTF. The operation of the age-related endowments—the further payments into the CTF on the seventh birthday—also needs to be carefully designed.
  Again, additional payments will be made to children in families with lower incomes, presumably at or before the seventh birthday. I should very much like the Treasury to provide evidence about how many children whose households fall into certain wealth categories when they are born or when they are seven years old will still fall into those wealth categories, rather than moving into a higher wealth category, by the time they are 18—and, of course, vice versa. There will be a very weak correlation between household wealth category at birth and the wealth category at 18—that is certainly my experience in my family and in my community—so the benefit received at 18 may be unrelated to financial circumstances when the benefit is paid. That would be seen as an inequitable use of public funds.
  There is also an additional election bribe—I am sorry, rather than election bribe, I intended to say problem. Although accounts will not be available until 2005, children born from 1 September 2002 will be eligible for CTF accounts. Since CTC was not available before 6 April 2003, it cannot be used to identify entitlement to the additional endowment. Clearly, some fancy footwork will be needed during the Bill's detailed consideration in Committee.
  Moving on to the accounts themselves, there are many questions. Providers will need to make a profit on the accounts, and the 1 per cent. charge cap should be very carefully considered. I am not convinced that that is the right level. Various types of account will be available, and some will be more successful than others. The CTF will be a wrapper in a similar way to ISAs, but we all know that the complication of the multi-layered ISA—with cash, equities and insurance—has led to a fall in the savings ratio.
  1384
  Some of my constituents are not familiar with the financial wrapper philosophies. Of course the Treasury Committee has reviewed that matter, and it was told that a low-income family investing £500 in a safe account but making no extra contributions might see their bond increase to only £911 in 18 years. A more financially aware family could invest only £250 in a more sophisticated way, contribute £40 a month and see their investment increase to £14,000 in 18 years. However, a family with sufficient disposable income and financial nous could invest the maximum of £100 a month in the stock market and in bonds and build up a fund worth about £35,000 to £40,000 in 18 years. That will not narrow but widen the unequal distribution of wealth in the country. Of course, many of the investment funds will involve displacement, rather than additional investment—as the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Mr. Foster) confirmed in his reply to my earlier intervention—so the savings ratio will not be improved.
  Moreover, some of my constituents do not trust financial products, following the Equitable Life debacle and many of the problems in pension schemes whereby people could lose much of their life savings, especially given the Government's refusal to address those problems and rescue those people who have already suffered from the collapse of some private pension schemes. Clearly, as with any financial product invested over a long time, there will be an exposure to risk. We all thought that risk was very low in the major blue-chip companies, such as Equitable Life—the House has probably got my drift.
  My bottom line is that the Bill has some merit but needs detailed work to make it sound. In any case, the principle of taking someone's hard-earned money, giving it to someone else in a lump sum when they reach 18 years of age to spend as they wish, with the Government adjusting education fees to ensure that they take back the money where they possibly can, represents yet another nanny-state, patronising, socialist intervention that may end in tears, so very careful work needs to be done in Committee.
  We have had three such consultation exercises in the past two years. We have had announcements and re-announcements, and I suspect that the Government are proceeding with the scheme because it is superficially attractive, and they hope that it will help to secure the middle England socialist vote that they have destroyed by introducing tuition fees. The proposals are overcomplicated and therefore may be a net disincentive, rather than an incentive, to saving.
  Mr. Love: I rise only because, for the third time, it has been suggested that the Bill is an electoral ploy. May I remind the hon. Gentleman that the young people concerned need to reach the age of 18 before they get access to their accounts?
  Bob Spink: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, but the Bill is designed to influence parents and grandparents. That may be a good thing, because parents and grandparents will be able to invest in their children's future, and there can be no greater or better investment. That is one of the reasons why I shall support the Bill tonight. On balance, it is a good Bill, but I hope that we can find ways to improve it, and in

  1385
  particular to widen its provisions so that those people who were born before 1 September 2002 can contribute to parallel funds.
  One of the ways in which the Bill is not good is that it extends means-testing, which is quite wrong. I am also disappointed that the Chancellor has not sought to focus on other more appropriate areas of welfare reform. At the very least, if he wishes genuinely to promote a savings culture and improve the savings ratio, he should simplify savings products rather than complicating them further.
  I have made several negative points, but I acknowledge that if we can get the initiative right it may be worthy and something that we can all support. I shall try my best to make the scheme work for my constituents and their children, and on balance I shall support the Bill.
  7.29 pm
  Mr. Ian Liddell-Grainger: Just for the record, I should mention for the fourth time that the Bill is an election ploy.
  Unlike my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink), I do not think that I can praise the Liberal Democrats, because it would not be in my nature to do so. However, the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Laws) gave us a pretty balanced view, on the face of it.
  Norman Lamb: The hon. Gentleman agreed with him?
  Mr. Liddell-Grainger: I would not go as far as that.
  The Bill is interesting because it addresses the whole ethos of saving, which I suspect changed in this country during the late 1950s and the early 1960s. There used to be an idea that saving for the future represented pride in one's family and oneself. One of the Bill's biggest problems is that, regardless of the amount given to children, the extent to which it will be topped up, and the amount with which they end up at 18, the ethos of saving no longer exists among families. I am not suggesting that the Government can do anything about that, because they cannot, but they could help people to save in the longer term. I remember Post Office savings accounts from when I was a boy, but sadly, they will disappear in the near future, although again that is not the Government's fault. Surely it must be up to the Government to require people to save for the future. An enormous amount goes out for health and education from central Government. Surely the Bill could, and should, push down to peoplenormal people like us, with parents, children, grandchildren and great grandchildren—the principle of saving for their future.
  All Members of Parliament hold surgeries several times a month at which many people come to see us. We have all met families who we know will be unable to cope with the money that their children will receive when they turn 18. Such people might be on benefits or have enormous problems such as being single parents or having a disabled child. We know that children in such families will not be able to cope with their £900—perhaps more if money has been put aside—when they turn 18, and that they will face the biggest problems.
  1386
  The Financial Secretary should consider carefully the Inland Revenue's role in the scheme. Perhaps the most powerful organisation in the country will be responsible for setting up accounts for people who cannot, or perhaps will not, cope with the money. The Inland Revenue will administer the scheme, because although the Government say that that will not happen, it will administer it indirectly. Additionally, it will know the background to children's upbringing and development when they turn 18. Surely it could encourage a situation in which the Government could get a child to invest the money rather than blowing it on fast women and booze, as many hon. Members ably put it. The success of the scheme will boil down to the fact that an 18-year-old who is given money will have the inclination to spend it.
  Why should children save? Let us consider the problems that will be faced by people who will turn 18 in 10 years. They will face problems with pensions, the stock exchange, individual savings accounts, long-term investments and interest rates. Interest rates are not rising, so although there is less inflation, which is good, they are investment is not worth while. What possible reason would children have to invest rather than spending the money that they received when they turned 18? That will be true of people from all parts of society. Will 18-year-olds who receive £35,000 because their parents have put money aside for them invest that money in the stock exchange or a long-term scheme? The answer is probably not.
  That takes me on to capping. Any person with financial savings knows that it is important to watch charges on savings carefully. The Government are right to want to cap charges, but that creates a problem because people in financial institutions must be persuaded to come up with policies and a reason to save money on behalf of their clients—the children. It is interesting to note that there has been an enormous amount of feedback from people who are worried about the suggested level of capping. One of the people who gave such feedback was, rather pithily, a representative of Virgin Money—that is probably the one thing that people will not get. He said:
  "How much will providers be allowed to charge? If the industry is allowed to raise charges substantially above the current I per cent. stakeholder level, the £250 the government is offering could soon be eaten up in charges."
  Surely that is the crux of the matter. Will the Government consider using the Inland Revenue not only to cap charges but to pay part of them? Given that the money will go round in a circle, surely it would be beneficial to the country for the Government to pick up the charges. Alternatively, a fund could be set up to pay for the charges that could use the same principle as the terrorism fund into which everyone pays to look after buildings in case of an incident.
  The long-term ethos behind the Bill is to give children a start at the age of 18. Many hon.Members—some are in the Chamber but others are not—talked about children in care. As children in care do not receive child benefit, they will not be able to look forward to having more than £900 when they turn 18, but that represents a missed opportunity. Surely it would be better to pay

  1387
  child benefit for children in care into the child trust fund to build up an amount that they could use when they turned 18. Such children face the problem of leaving care with virtually nothing behind them. Although we hope that they will have a good education and be able to stand on their own two feet, they do not, as was said early, have the seed capital to buy a Land Rover for the farm.
  The Bill could have addressed that problem, because the most vulnerable in society are those who could be most affected by such a measure—children in care are the most obvious category. Given the number of parents who have still not taken up tax credits—I am told that the figure is between 650,000 and 700,000 people—how do we know that people will take up the fund that they are given by the Inland Revenue? If children are not financially astute and aware and have not taken note of 18 years of statements about the investment, how will they know what to do in the future?
  I shall move on to my final point, because I promised the Whip that I would not detain the House for too long. Let us consider how we could develop the scheme to secure people's futures. If children want to continue with their investment, who will advise them about the best route to take—the stock exchange, long-term investment, a bond or whatever? Children who want to continue to save and those whose parents continue to give them money will require advice. Given the Inland Revenue's unique ability to look into people's lives—I am not suggesting that there is a Big Brother syndrome—surely it could help people to invest in their long-term future and that of their families, which is important, because many people have children and indeed grandchildren. We have discovered today that the same is true of hon. Members.
  The Bill has a lot going for it, such as encouraging long-term saving. However, it falls down because the Government have not thought through the ramifications of putting money in the pockets of people who will probably not have the financial ability to look after it themselves. What is the point of giving children money if they end up blowing it when they reach 18? The scheme should encourage people to save for the future so that they have a secure future.
  7.38 pm
  Mr. Paul Goodman: It is usual for any Member of the House with an interest in a Bill to declare that at the start of his or her speech. Although I have an interest in the Bill, I have difficulty declaring it at the start of my speech because it has already been declared for me. My hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne) made it clear that he, I, the Financial Secretary and the Chancellor—and, indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) —have, or are expecting to have, children who will qualify for a child trust fund. [Interruption.] I hear rumblings from the far corner of the Chamber, so hon. Members might think that a cosy little club that favours the Bill outright is gathered around the Dispatch Box. My hon. Friend the Member for Tatton made it clear that we support the aim behind child trust funds to encourage a savings culture and the freedom, independence and dignity that go with that. That is why we will not divide the House and will try to improve the Bill in Committee.
  1388
  Although we are discussing one of the Government's flagship Bills and main measures, Opposition Members have made more speeches, with four Back Benchers, than Labour Members, of whom only two have spoken.
  Bob Spink: My hon. Friend makes a good point. Is he aware that only one Labour Back Bencher is in his seat?
  Mr. Goodman: I have not cast my eyes that widely. Rather than explore this avenue further, however, I urge all those who read the debate—I say this as the Financial Secretary's Parliamentary Private Secretary, the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (James Purnell), scurries back to his seat—to take note of my hon. Friends' contributions.
  Many hon. Members followed the lead of my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton in suggesting that child trust funds should be open to all. The hon. Members for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) and for Hastings and Rye (Mr. Foster) did so, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Witney. He made an extraordinarily creative contribution, in which he gave four small suggestions and one large one. In fact, he made so many small suggestions that I am not sure that I can remember them all. His large suggestion, which he also raised in an Adjournment debate a while ago, is something that we will want to consider in Committee, and I urge the Minister to do the same. Indeed, I hope that she refers to it when she winds up. In that Adjournment debate, my hon. Friend showed an accomplished understanding of the needs of parents who have to buy equipment and make difficult decisions when they are not always sure how to negotiate their way through the maze that confronts them. However, support for an aim and support for a Bill are not one and the same thing, which brings me to my main points.
  I am sure that the Chancellor and Financial Secretary want us all to view the Bill as a Christmas present to a suitably grateful nation. The right hon. Gentleman, with the recent assistance of the Financial Secretary, has been preparing, packaging and gift-wrapping child trust funds for more than three years. First, there were the press reports; then there was a consultation document, followed by a second consultation document proclaiming the success of the first; then there was an announcement from the Chancellor proclaiming the success of the second consultation document; and finally, we have the Bill. It has taken three years for the Chancellor to get ready to give us the detail.
  How many answers do we find when the gift-wrapping, the glitter and the tinsel are torn aside? The blunt truth is, not enough. Without clear answers, we cannot be sure whether the Bill is a Christmas present for anyone. It has four main flaws as it stands. My hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink) was right to say that the devil is in the detail. The first flaw is that the Government have offered no convincing evidence that it will help the less well off to develop a savings habit, a concern that was widely raised. After all, the Bill does not tell us whether payments into child trust fund accounts will reduce a child's benefit entitlement when he or she becomes an adult. Imagine the reaction of a single mum on a low income, as mentioned by the hon. Member for Dumbarton, who finds that by topping up the fund she could reduce her child's eventual benefit entitlement or that if her child is

  1389
  in need before he or she is 18, as the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Laws) mentioned in detail, she will not be able to draw on the fund to help that child. That is not much of an incentive to save. The Government have offered us no convincing evidence that they will be able to help the less well off to develop a savings habit.
  The second flaw is that the Government have no convincing evidence that the Bill will help anyone to develop a savings habit except those who will probably save anyway. Labour Members need to understand that we have no problem with the middle classes saving. Indeed, we have no problem whatsoever with any income group saving. The problem is not ours but Labour's. The express purpose of the Bill is to help poorer people to pick up a savings habit. As we heard, a single mum on a low income who is worried that her child may one day need benefits or that she will not be able to tap into the fund on her child's behalf if in real need may not add a penny to the Chancellor's original £500. A middle-class dad on a higher income, however, who is unlikely to be in similar need —I pause in case any of my hon. Friends wish to suggest an example—may add the maximum amount of £1,200 each year, leaving that child with a nest egg worth £34,000 when the child reaches 18. As the Government have published no research, set no targets and drawn up no estimates, we have no reason to think that the Bill will help people to save unless they are likely to save in the first place.
  The third flaw is that if the Bill is to help those on lower incomes, it must offer some certainty to the financial institutions that the Chancellor hopes will market child trust funds. We have no reason to think that it will make that happen because of the ambiguity and uncertainty that surrounds the charge cap, details of which are not in the Bill despite the White Paper saying two months ago:
  "The Government will issue a report detailing the charge cap … later this year."
  If the Financial Secretary does not come clean about the charge cap, which we urge her to do, that leaves the Chancellor only three more days on which the House is sitting to make an announcement, unless he plans to slip out an announcement when the House is not sitting—but he would not do that, would he?
  Norman Lamb: I am slightly confused about the Conservative party's position. Does the hon. Gentleman support or oppose the measure? He presents a good case against it. Will the Conservatives join the Liberal Democrats in opposing it?
  Mr. Goodman: If the hon. Gentleman had been in the Chamber for the opening speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton, he would have heard him make it clear, as I have, that we support the Bill in principle, but that we wish to examine the detail. I understand that the Select Committee report that the hon. Gentleman signed, although critical in detail, supports the Bill in principle. How will he vote?
  If the charge cap is to be 1 per cent. and the institutions are permitted to make only £2.50 from each £250 fund, they will surely market their products not to those who do not save, but to those who do. Child trust funds will go the same way as stakeholder pensions.
  The fourth flaw is that the Government have offered no convincing evidence that the Bill will deliver trust funds on time. The financial institutions have just 12
  1390
  months to haul their products, marketing, work force and systems to the starting line. They do not know what the charge cap will be, which worries them. They do know that the delivery mechanism will be the voucher system, which worries them no less. The initial letters to parents are due to go out later this year, which does not leave much time. The first vouchers and information packs are due to go out in just a year's time.
  Mr. Love: I want to press the hon. Gentleman on the charge cap. A brief provided by the Nationwide building society, one of the major providers of such accounts, states:
  "Nationwide believe that providing CTF within a tight price cap will be challenging but not impossible for efficient providers."
  Does that not undermine what he says about the charge cap?
  Mr. Goodman: I do not think so. If the hon. Gentleman had been in the Chamber for the opening speeches, he would have heard my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton refer to the large number of teas that he has recently had in the Pugin Room with people from financial institutions who are dubious about the charge cap. I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman's example is representative.
  Mr. Love: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Goodman: No. I have let the hon. Gentleman intervene once and I want to make some progress.
  The financial institutions, parents and, ultimately, children will all depend on the Inland Revenue to get the child trust funds off the ground on time. The Revenue is still groaning beneath the burden heaped on it by the Chancellor of running not just the tax system but, increasingly, the social security system through tax credits. The Revenue is expected simultaneously to deliver child trust funds and, according to the Paymaster General,
  "a major review of our organisations dealing with tax policy and administration."—[Official Report, 2 July 2003; Vol. 408, c. 270W.]
  The Chancellor could ease the pressures on the institutions, the Inland Revenue and, not least, parents simply by delaying the launch. A few months' delay would make no real difference to anyone.
  That brings us to one of the few things about the Bill that we do know. We do not know whether it will help the less well off to save, or offer certainty to financial institutions, or be ready on time. However, we do know that even if the funds are not delivered on time, the timetable must be delivered on time. The timetable dictates that 1.8 million vouchers must go through the letterboxes of the houses of a suitably grateful nation in the autumn of 2005.
  What could be happening around about then, I wonder? I do not believe that this is a timetable for parents who are planning to save. Instead, it is a timetable for a Government who are gearing up for an election. There are two years until the autumn of 2005, yet the Chancellor of the Exchequer has had three years to get ready to give us details and answers about child trust funds in the Bill that is before us. The Bill was preceded by lots of third-way glitter and glitz, but

  1391
  though right in principle it gives the House few details and few answers. We shall try to help the Minister to find those answers in Committee. As they are not in the Bill, we cannot support the measure tonight.
  7.51 pm
  Ruth Kelly: With the leave of the House, I shall reply to the debate.
  I shall start with an apology. I should have welcomed the h on. Members for Wycombe (Mr. Goodman) and for Tatton (Mr. Osborne) to the Opposition Dispatch Box. I look forward to working with them during the passage of the Bill. I am sure that they will both make great contributions to our future proceedings. I was delighted that at the start of the debate they said that they would welcome it. I am slightly confused because the tune seems to have changed between the opening remarks of the hon. Member for Tatton and the closing remarks of the hon. Member for Wycombe.
  David Taylor: Does my hon. Friend find it surprising, as I do, that the speeches I have heard in the Chamber and on the monitors from Conservative Members—[Interruption.] The monitors were invented in about 1932. Their speeches have consisted of carping and criticism, which seems inconsistent with their planned intention of studied indifference if there is a Division. Is not that surprising?
  Ruth Kelly: I agree with my hon. Friend. I find it totally surprising. The only message that I gleaned from the winding-up speech of the hon. Member for Wycombe was that the Opposition are confused. Perhaps I can clarify a few points for them during my reply. Before doing so, perhaps I should say to the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Laws) that I am delighted that the Liberal Democrats have forcefully started to welcome the idea of intervention in the early years to promote opportunity in later life. I am delighted also that they think that money should be earmarked for that purpose. Given their conversion to investment in the early years, perhaps that might be signalling also their conversion to top-up fees. I find it extraordinary that they say that the priority for taxpayers' money should be in the early years and yet they propose to raise taxes to fund higher education for those in their later years.
  Mr. Laws: We find it extraordinary that the Financial Secretary is saying that it is vital that 18-year-olds should have an asset at that period in their lives when the Government are bringing in a huge liability in the form of top-up fees. How does that add up?
  Ruth Kelly: I shall examine the objectives of the Bill as I progress.
  There have been some excellent contributions to the debate from both sides of the Chamber. My hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall), the Chairman of the Treasury Committee, made a powerful speech, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Mr. Foster). I enjoyed several other
  1392
  contributions, and particularly that of the hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron), who made a most thoughtful intervention.
  I shall turn to the specific points that have been raised. The hon. Member for Tatton asked whether this policy will work. He continues to test just one of the policy's objectives, which is increasing the level of savings. The policy has four objectives: increasing the savings habit of parents as well as that of children; building assets so that every child at the age of 18 has the opportunities that only a few children now take for granted; encouraging the making of responsible choices; and increasing financial understanding and awareness, which applies to parents as well as children. The hon. Gentleman seems to recognise only the first point.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton has said, evidence from the national child development survey suggests that an asset in the range of merely £300 to £600 could have a significant impact on future outcomes. Perhaps the policy could be justified merely by reference to only one of the objectives. If someone adds just £10 a month, he or she could accumulate, without any further Government endowments, £4,500. That is a significant asset at the age of 18.
  There is the objective of promoting responsibility. Again, that is a difficult objective to judge. I would argue that if children, at the age of 18, have to deal with a sum of money that they, their parents and their grandparents have contributed to, it is much less likely that they would abuse that money than if they had not contributed to it. Research by Children's Mutual gathered over 2001–02 on its savings products suggests that most young adults have responsible plans for their savings. Indeed, 47 per cent. of young adults said that they would spend the money on education. Another 27 per cent. said that they would roll over the money into another savings account.
  There must be a huge opportunity with this policy to increase understanding of the financial system, to build on financial education and to promote financial awareness. I was recently made a member of the Financial Services Authority steering group that examines financial capability. One of the issues raised several times at the group's first meeting was the opportunities afforded by child trust funds, a once-in-ageneration opportunity to increase financial education and awareness among children and, indeed, their parents. I cite evidence from the National Consumer Council that child trust funds provide an excellent opportunity to communicate risk issues to a whole generation of parents.
  I return to the issue of savings. Let us consider the evidence that low income families will contribute to the fund. We have some direct evidence in the UK. Last week, the Treasury published an interim evaluation of the savings gateway, which afforded a Government match of £1 for every pound that was invested by a low income family. The earnings cap was set at £11,000. That would not be a wealthy person by any standards. The report's author, an independent researcher from Bristol university, concludes:
  "One of the key aims of the savings gateway is to encourage more people on low incomes to save money. From the evidence to date it is certainly achieving this aim."

  1393
  She also points to further evidence from in-depth interviews, which showed that two thirds of people with incomes below £11,000 intended to continue saving regularly after the end of the Government match scheme now that they had developed the habit.
  Mr. Laws: Does the Financial Secretary agree that there is a significant difference between the savings gateway, which she has just cited, and the child trust fund in terms of savings incentives? First, in the savings gateway there are matched savings for making savings. Secondly, it is possible to take the money out when someone wants to do so. Surely the child trust fund does not have those advantages.
  Ruth Kelly: I shall come on to those points.
  Survey evidence in the UK—for example, by the Homeowners Friendly Society—found that 62 per cent. of parents in the D and E socio-economic groups intended to make further contributions to the child trust fund. I shall cite again the National Consumer Council, which states:
  "It appears that the prospect of a voucher with the child's name on it, provided by the Government, helps people feel they are being given a helping hand in meeting their personal financial needs. The child trust fund is regarded as providing a framework for giving their family a financial start in a way that they can see as beneficial to them."
  I shall cite further evidence about the development of a savings habit. Research carried out by McKay and Kempson on the impact of a windfall receipt among young teachers found evidence that such a receipt could kick-start savings behaviour. A finding directly relevant to the child trust fund showed that young windfall recipients, especially in their teens, were much more likely to be saving than peers who had not received such a windfall. Indeed, McKay and Kempson found that even very small windfalls were sufficient to cause them to start saving, with the median amount being only £57.
  Mr. Weir: I am interested in what the Minister is saying, but does she accept that there is vast difference between the intention to put money into a fund and the reality? Will she address the point that I made earlier about the structure of the funds, and whether that will deter poorer sections of the community from investing in them?
  Ruth Kelly: I intend to move on to the charge cap, as it has been raised by several hon. Members. We have yet to make an announcement on the level of the charge cap. The hon. Member for Wycombe rightly pointed to the fact that in recent proposals we said that there was a high threshold of persuasion for moving from 1 per cent. for stakeholder products. However, the fact of the matter is that we will base our decision on evidence. It would not be right for me, following anecdote, lobbying and numerous cups of tea in the Pugin Room, as I know the hon. Gentleman has been enjoying, to make an announcement now about the level of the charge cap. It is important that we should set it on the basis of independent evidence, which is why we commissioned Deloitte and Touche to produce research.
  Mr. George Osborne: The Minister said that it would be inappropriate to set a cap now. However, the White
  1394
  Paper to which she has referred said that the Government would issue a report detailing the charge cap for the child trust fund later this year. It is mid-December and there are two weeks to go before the year ends, so when will the Minister make the announcement?
  Ruth Kelly: The hon. Gentleman may be aware that we commissioned a range of research on stakeholder products and the level at which the charge cap should be set. When we made those comments, the Financial Services Authority told us that it would be ready to make an announcement about the appropriate sales regime in December, although it now appears that that date has slipped to the new year. However, to benefit the Bill's parliamentary passage and ensure that Parliament is kept fully informed, I intend to make the announcement on the charge cap for the child trust fund during the passage of the Bill. It is important that Parliament is kept fully informed.
  Mr. Osborne: Will the announcement be made to the House?
  Ruth Kelly: Absolutely.
  The hon. Member for Tatton and other Members raised the way in which older siblings are treated. and whether they could be given the same child trust fund vehicle as children who will benefit from Government endowments. We have looked at that extremely carefully, and I am disappointed to tell the House that the administrative burden on providers of allowing all children from previous cohorts to benefit from an identical tax-free vehicle is disproportionate to the benefits that would be offered. Providers would have to monitor and track the accounts of all children. We would require returns on all accounts, and the Inland Revenue would need much larger IT systems. There could be 10 million extra accounts, and it would certainly not be possible to deliver such a change in time for the launch of the child trust fund.
  Mr. Michael Jabez Foster: Is that not a problem anyway? As time goes on, greater numbers will apply, so in 18 years' time people would have to deal with that volume of applications in any event.
  Ruth Kelly: My hon. Friend is right—a greater number of children will have such accounts over time, but providers have made it quite clear that the scheme needs to be phased in. That does not preclude reexamination of the issue in future. but we would not be able to deliver the policy according to the present time scale if accounts were open to all previous cohorts.
  I shall deal in more detail with the issue of fortnightly returns raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton. We judged that a fortnightly turnaround was necessary to ensure that money is paid into the accounts as quickly as possible once they are open. We were particularly mindful of the fact that growth and interest should be maximised for all account holders. I did not want people to miss out because financial services providers were not making a return quickly enough to the Inland Revenue.
  In conclusion, the Government are committed to an active welfare strategy founded on the principles of security, opportunity and responsibility. That

  1395
  framework underpins the proposals of the child trust fund. In future, all children will have the security of the backing of a financial asset at the start of their adult life. Having a financial asset will encourage a positive outlook on life and enable more young people to take advantage of opportunities. As for responsibility, developing the savings habit early in life will promote greater independence and self-reliance in adulthood. The child trust fund is a foundation on which we can build. There is a genuine challenge to meet in delivering financial education that will achieve greater understanding about saving and investment, what it involves and how to go about it. In future years, I am sure that the policy will evolve, not just so that local authority providers can use it to look after looked-after children to a greater extent, but, to take on board the point made by the hon. Member for Witney, so that we can assist in more creative ways the most vulnerable people in our society.
  The child trust fund is the key to achieving a genuine change in people's ability and willingness to save for the future so that they can make the most of opportunities as they arise. It will go further and help to equip children to make better financial choices, not just about savings and investment but throughout their lives. The child trust fund is a leading example of progressive universalism, creating a policy that will benefit all children, while also making sure that greater resources go to those who need most help. I am proud that the Government are introducing this radical and far-sighted policy, and I commend the Bill to the House.
  Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time:—
  The House divided: Ayes 297, Noes 39.

  Division No. 8]

  [8:06 pm

  AYES

  Ainger, Nick

  Browne, Desmond

  Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

  Bryant, Chris

  Allen, Graham

  Burden, Richard

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale &

  Burgon, Colin

  Darwen)

  Burnham, Andy

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Byers, rh Stephen

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Caborn, rh Richard

  Austin, John

  Cairns, David

  Bailey, Adrian

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Baird, Vera

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Banks, Tony

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Barnes, Harry

  Caplin, Ivor

  Barron, rh Kevin

  Casale, Roger

  Battle, John

  Caton, Martin

  Bayley, Hugh

  Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

  Beckett, rh Margaret

  Challen, Colin

  Beggs, Roy (E Antrim)

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Bell, Stuart

  Clapham, Michael

  Benn, rh Hilary

  Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

  Bennett, Andrew

  Clark, Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh

  Berry, Roger

  Pentlands)

  Belts, Clive

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Blackman, Liz

  Clarke, rh Charles (Norwich S)

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge &amp;

  Blizzard, Bob

  Chryston)

  Blunkett, rh David

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

  Clelland, David

  Brennan, Kevin

  Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

  Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Wallsend)

  Cohen, Harry

  1396

  Coleman, Iain

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Colman, Tony

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N &

  Connarty, Michael

  Sefton E)

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Howells, Dr. Kim

  Cooper, Yvette

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Cousins, Jim

  Hughes, Beverley (Stretford &

  Crausby, David

  Urmston)

  Cruddas, Jon

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Cummings, John

  Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

  Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

  Iddon, Dr. Brian

  Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

  Illsley, Eric

  Darling, rh Alistair

  Irranca-Davies, Huw

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  David, Wayne

  Jenkins, Brian

  Davidson, Ian

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

  Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Hatfield)

  Davis, rh Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Dawson, Hilton

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

  Denham, rh John

  Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Dhanda, Parmjit

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

  Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

  Dobson, rh Frank

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Donohoe, Brian H.

  Keen, Alan (Feltham)

  Doran, Frank

  Keen, Ann (Brentford)

  Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

  Kelly, Ruth (Bolton W)

  Drew, David (Stroud)

  Kemp, Fraser

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Khabra, Piara S.

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Kidney, David

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Edwards, Huw

  King, Andy (Rugby)

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

  Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

  Kumar, Dr. Ashok

  Etherington, Bill

  Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

  Farrelly, Paul

  Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

  Field, rh Frank (Birkenhead)

  Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Lazarowicz, Mark

  Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

  Lepper, David

  Flint, Caroline

  Leslie, Christopher

  Flynn, Paul (Newport W)

  Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

  Follett, Barbara

  Lewis, Terry (Wors/ey)

  Foster, Michael (Worcester)

  Liddell, rh Mrs Helen

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings

  Linton, Martin

  &Rye)

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Foulkes, rh George

  Love, Andrew

  Gapes, Mike (Ilford S)

  Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

  Gardiner, Barry

  Luke, Iain (Dundee E)

  George, rh Bruce (WalsallS)

  Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)

  Gerrard, Neil

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Gilroy, Linda

  McCabe, Stephen

  Goggins, Paul

  McCafferty, Chris

  Griffiths, Jane (Heading E)

  MacDonald, Calum

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  McDonnell, John

  Grogan, John

  MacDougall, John

  Main, rh Peter

  McFall, John

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

  McIsaac, Shona

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  McKechin, Ann

  Hanson, David

  McNamara, Kevin

  Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

  McNulty, Tony

  Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil &

  McWilliam, John

  Rhymney)

  Mahmood, Khalid

  Healey, John

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Mallaber, Judy

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Mann, John (Basset/aw)

  Hendrick, Mark

  Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Marshall, David (Glasgow

  Heppell, John

  Shettleston)

  Hermon, Lady

  Meale, Alan (Mansfield)

  Hesford, Stephen

  Michael, rh Alun

  Heyes, David

  Milburn, rh Alan

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Miliband, David

  Hinchliffe, David

  Miller, Andrew

  Hood, Jimmy (Clydesdale)

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Hope, Phil (Corby)

  Mole, Chris

  1397

  Moonie, Dr. Lewis

  Smith, rh Chris (Islington S &

  Moran, Margaret

  Finsbury)

  Morley, Elliot

  Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe &

  Mountford, Kali

  Lunesdale)

  Mudie, George

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Mullin, Chris

  Southworth, Helen

  Munn, Ms Meg

  Spellar, rh John

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

  Naysmith, Dr. Doug

  Steinberg, Gerry

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Stewart, David (Inverness E &

  O'Hara, Edward

  lochaber)

  Olner, Bill

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Organ, Diana

  Stoate, Dr. Howard

  Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

  Stringer, Graham

  Owen, Albert

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Pearson, Ian

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Perham, Linda

  Tami, Mark (Alyn)

  Picking, Anne

  Taylor, rh Ann (Dewsbury)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

  Plaskitt, James

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Pound, Stephen

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham

  Timms, Stephen

  E)

  Tipping, Paddy

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

  Primarolo, rh Dawn

  Touhig, Don (Islwyn)

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Trickett, Jon

  Purchase, Ken

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Purnell, James

  Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton

  Quin, rh Joyce

  Kemptown)

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Robertson, Angus (Moray)

  Vis, Dr. Rudi

  Robertson, John (Glasgow

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Anniesland)

  Watts, David

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry

  Weir, Michael

  NW)

  White, Brian

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Whitehead, Dr. Alan

  Rooney, Terry

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Ruane, Chris

  Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)

  Ruddock, Joan

  Wills, Michael

  Russell, Ms Christine (City of

  Winnick, David

  Chester)

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster

  Salter, Martin

  C)

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  Woodward, Shaun

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Woolas, Phil

  Sawford, Phil

  Worthington, Tony

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Wright, Anthony D. (Gt

  Sheridan, Jim

  Yarmouth)

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Wright, David (Telford)

  Singh, Marsha

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Gillian Merron and

  Vernon Coaker

  NOES

  Allan, Richard

  Holmes, Paul

  Berth, rh A. J.

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

  Keetch, Paul

  Breed, Colin

  Kirkwood, Sir Archy

  Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

  Lamb, Norman

  Bruce, Malcolm

  Laws, David (Yeovil)

  Burnett, John

  Moore, Michael

  Burstow, Paul

  Oaten, Mark (Winchester)

  Cable, Dr. Vincent

  Öpik, Lembit

  Calton, Mrs Patsy

  Sanders, Adrian

  Campbell, rh Menzies (NE Fife)

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

  Carmichael, Alistair

  Kincardine)

  Chidgey, David

  Stunell, Andrew

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Thurso, John

  Harris, Dr. Evan (Oxford W &

  Tonge, Dr. Jenny

  Abingdon)

  Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

  Heath, David

  Webb, Steve (Northavon)

  1398

  Wilkinson, John

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Williams, Roger (Brecon)

  Bob Russel and

  Willis, Phil

  Richard Younger-Ross

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Bill read a Second time.

  Child Trust Funds Bill

    CHILD TRUST FUNDS BILL (PROGRAMME)
    Motion made, and Question put, pursuant to Orders [28 June and 6 November],
    That the following provisions shall apply to the Child Trust Funds Bill:

    CHILD TRUST FUNDS BILL (PROGRAMME)
      Committal
      1. The Bill shall be committed to a Standing Committee.

      Standing Committee
      2. Proceedings in the Standing Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on 15th January 2004.
      3. The Standing Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it meets.

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

      Other proceedings
      7. Any other proceedings on the Bill (including any proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments or on any further message from the Lords) may be programmed.—[Mr. Jim Murphy.]
      Question agreed to.

    CHILD TRUST FUNDS BILL [MONEY]
    Queen's recommendation having been signified—
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 52(1) (a) (Money resolutions and ways and means resolutions in connection with bills),
    That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Child Trust Funds Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any expenditure incurred by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue under or by virtue of the Act[W. Jim Murphy.]
    Question agreed to.

    CHILD TRUST FUNDS BILL [WAYS AND MEANS]
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 52(1) (a) (Money resolutions and ways and means resolutions in connection with bills),
    That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Child Trust Funds Bill, it is expedient to authorize—
    (1) the making of provision for securing that losses accruing on the disposal of investments under child trust funds are to be disregarded for the purposes of capital gains tax, and
    (2) the making of payments into the Consolidated Fund.—[Mr. Jim Murphy.]
    Question agreed to.

    DELEGATED LEGISLATION
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation) and Order [27 November],
    DELEGATED LEGISLATION

      SECTION 5 OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES (AMENDMENT) ACT 1993
      That this House takes note with approval of the Government's assessment as set out in the Pre-Budget Report 2003 for the purposes of section 5 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993.—[Mr. Jim Murphy.]
      The House divided: Ayes 279, Noes 43.

      Division No. 9]

      [8:19 pm

      AYES

      Ainger, Nick

      Clarke, rh Charles (Norwich S)

      Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

      Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge &

      Allen, Graham

      Chryston)

      Anderson, Janet (Rossendale &

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Darwen)

      Clelland, David

      Atherton, Ms Candy

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Cohen, Harry

      Austin, John

      Colman, Tony

      Bailey, Adrian

      Connarty, Michael

      Baird, Vera

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Banks, Tony

      Cooper, Yvette

      Barnes, Harry

      Cousins, Jim

      Barron, rh Kevin

      Crausby, David

      Battle, John

      Cruddas, Jon

      Bayley, Hugh

      Cummings, John

      Beckett, rh Margaret

      Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

      Begg, Miss Anne

      Darling, rh Alistair

      Bell, Stuart

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Benn, rh Hilary

      David, Wayne

      Bennett, Andrew

      Davidson, Ian

      Berry, Roger

      Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

      Betts, Clive

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Blackman, Liz

      Davis, rh Terry (B hamHodge H)

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Dawson, Hilton

      Blizzard, Bob

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

      Denham, rh John

      Brennan, Kevin

      Dhanda, Parmjit

      Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E

      Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

      Wallsend)

      Dobson, rh Frank

      Browne. Desmond

      Donohoe, Brian H.

      Bryant, Chris

      Doran, Frank

      Burden, Richard

      Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

      Burgon, Colin

      Drew, David (Stroud)

      Byers, rh Stephen

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Cairns, David

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Etherington, Bill

      Caplin, Ivor

      Farrelly, Paul

      Casale, Roger

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      Caton, Martin

      Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

      Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

      Flint, Caroline

      Challen, Colin

      Flynn, Paul (Newport W)

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Foster, Michael (Worcester)

      Clapham, Michael

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings

      Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

      & Rye)

      Clark, Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh

      Foulkes, rh George

      Pentlands)

      Gapes, Mike (Ilford S)

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Gardiner, Barry

      1400

      George, rh Bruce (Walsall S)

      McCafferty, Chris

      Gerrard, Neil

      MacDonald, Calum

      Gilroy, Linda

      McDonnell, John

      Goggins, Paul

      MacDougall, John

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      McFall, John

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Grogan, John

      McIsaac, Shona

      Hain, rh Peter

      McKechin, Ann

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      McNamara, Kevin

      Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

      McNulty, Tony

      Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

      McWilliam, John

      Hanson, David

      Mahmood, Khalid

      Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil &

      Mallaber, Judy

      Rhymney)

      Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

      Healey, John

      Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

      Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

      Marshall, David (Glasgow

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Shettleston)

      Hendrick, Mark

      Meale, Alan (Mansfield)

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Michael, rh Alun

      Heppell, John

      Milburn, rh Alan

      Hermon, Lady

      Miliband, David

      Hesford, Stephen

      Miller, Andrew

      Heyes, David

      Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

      Hill, Keith (Streatham)

      Mole, Chris

      Hinchliffe, David

      Moonie, Dr. Lewis

      Hood, Jimmy (Clydesdale)

      Moran, Margaret

      Hope, Phil (Corby)

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Morley, Elliot

      Howells, Dr. Kim

      Mountford, Kali

      Hoyle, Lindsay

      Mudie, George

      Hughes, Beverley (Stretford &

      Mullin, Chris

      Urnston)

      Munn, Ms Meg

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      lddon, Dr. Dr Brian

      Naysmith, Dr. Doug

      Illsley, Eric

      O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      Irranca-Davies, Huw

      O'Hara, Edward

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Olner, Bill

      Jenkins, Brian

      Organ, Diana

      Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

      Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

      Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn

      Owen, Albert

      Hatfield)

      Pearson, Ian

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Perham, Linda

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Picking, Anne

      Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

      Pickthall, Colin

      Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Plaskitt, James

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

      Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      E)

      Keen, Alan (Feltham)

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Keen, Ann (Brentford)

      Primarolo, rh Dawn

      Kelly, Ruth (Bolton W)

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Kemp, Fraser

      Purchase, Ken

      Khabra, Piara S.

      Purnell, James

      Kidney, David

      Quin, rh Joyce

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Quinn, Lawrie

      King, Andy (Rugby)

      Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

      Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

      Robertson, John (Glasgow

      Kumar, Dr. Ashok

      Anniesland)

      Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

      Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry

      Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

      NW)

      Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      Lazarowicz, Mark

      Rooney, Terry

      Lepper, David

      Ruane, Chris

      Leslie, Christopher

      Ruddock, Joan

      Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

      Russell, Ms Christine (City of

      Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

      Chester)

      Liddell, rh Mrs Helen

      Sarwar, Mohammad

      Linton, Martin

      Savidge, Malcolm

      Love, Andrew

      Sawford, Phil

      Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Luke, Iain (Dundee E)

      Sheridan, Jim

      Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Singh, Marsha

      McCabe, Stephen

      Skinner, Dennis

      1401

      Smith, rh Chris (Islington S &

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Finsbury)

      Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton

      Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe &

      Kemptown)

      Lunesdale)

      Turner, Neil (Wigan)

      Smith, John (Glamorgan)

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Southworth, Helen

      Vis, Dr. Rudi

      Spellar, rh John

      Wareing, Robert N.

      Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

      Watts, David

      Steinberg, Gerry

      White, Brian

      Stewart, David (Inverness E &

      Whitehead, Dr. Alan

      Lochaber)

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Williams, Betty (Conwy)

      Stoate, Dr. Howard

      Wills, Michael

      Stringer, Graham

      Winnick, David

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      C)

      Tami, Mark (Alyn)

      Woodward, Shaun

      Taylor, rh Ann (Dewsbury)

      Woolas, Phil

      Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

      Worthington, Tony

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Wright, Anthony D. (Gt

      Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

      Yarmouth)

      Timms, Stephen

      Wright, David (Telford)

      Tipping, Paddy

      Wright, Tony (Cannock)

      Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Touhig, Don (IsIwyn)

      Gillian Merron and

      Trickett, Jon

      Vernon Coaker

      NOES

      Allan, Richard

      Laws, David (Yeovil)

      Beith, rh A. J.

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

      Moore, Michael

      Brake, Tom (Carshafton)

      Oaten, Mark (Winchester)

      Breed, Colin

      öpik, Lembit

      Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

      Pugh, Dr. John

      Bruce, Malcolm

      Robertson, Angus (Moray)

      Burnett, John

      Sanders, Adrian

      Burstow, Paul

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

      Cable, Dr. Vincent

      Kincardine)

      Calton, Mrs Patsy

      Stunell, Andrew

      Campbell, rh Menzies (NE Fife)

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Carmichael, Alistair

      Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

      Chidgey, David

      Thurso, John

      Cotter, Brian

      Tonge, Dr. Jenny

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Webb, Steve (Northavon)

      Heath, David

      Weir, Michael

      Holmes, Paul

      Williams, Roger (Brecon)

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

      Willis, Phil

      Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

      Keetch, Paul

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Kirkwood, Sir Archy

      Richard Younger-Ross and

      Lamb, Norman

      Bob Russell

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

      BROADCASTING
      That the draft Media Ownership (Local Radio and Appointed News Provider) Order 2003, which was laid before this House on 13th November, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.—[Mr. Jim Murphy.]
      Question agreed to
      Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

      EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES
      That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the European Communities (Definition of Treaties) (Euro-Mediterranean Agreement Establishing an Association between
      1402
      the European Communities and their Member States and the People's Democratic Republic of Algeria) Order 2003 be made in the form of the draft laid before this House on 4th November, in the last Session of Parliament.—[Mr. Jim Murphy.]
      Question agreed to.
      Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),
      That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the European Communities (Definition of Treaties) (Euro-Mediterranean Agreement Establishing an Association between the European Communities and their Member States and the Republic of Lebanon) Order 2003 be made in the form of the draft laid before this House on 4th November, in the last Session of Parliament.—[Mr. Jim Murphy.]
      Question agreed to.
      Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

      NORTHERN IRELAND
      That the Northern Ireland Act 1998 (Modification) Order 2003 (S.I., 2003, No. 3039), dated 27th November 2003, a copy of which was laid before this House on 27th November, be approved.—[Mr. Jim Murphy.]
      Question agreed to.

    EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 119(9) (European Standing Committees),
    EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS

      SECURITY AT EUROPEAN COUNCIL MEETINGS AND OTHER COMPARABLE EVENTS
      That this House takes note of European Union document 10965/3/03, draft Council Resolution on security at European Council meetings and other comparable events; shares the Government's view that the general aim of the measure will encourage police services across the European Union to cooperate to prevent the violence at international events and to facilitate peaceful protest; acknowledges that personal rights and freedoms are protected as far as possible; and supports the Government's position on this measure.—[Mr. Jim Murphy.]
      Question agreed to.

    COMMITTEES

      SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
      Ordered,
      That Mr Parmjit Dhanda be discharged from the Science and Technology Committee and Paul Farrelly be added.—[Mr. McWilliam, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

      ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS
      Ordered,
      That Mr. David Curry be discharged from the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee and Mr. Ian Liddell-Grainger be added—[Mr. McWilliam, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

      TRANSPORT
      Ordered,
      That Mr. George Osborne be discharged from the Transport Committee and Miss Anne McIntosh be added.—[Mr. John McWilliam, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

  Flooding (Somerset)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Jim Murphy.]
  8.32 pm
  Mr. Ian Liddell-Grainger: Seven thousand years ago, half my constituents were fish. The Somerset levels were part of the seabed, Bridgwater was a bustling port, and if one wanted to go anywhere outside that area, one had to go by boat. Six thousand years ago, the tide turned; I was not there myself, but perhaps one or two hon. Members were. The peat bogs began to develop and the landscape started to look a little like what we see today. There has always been a lot of water and a high risk that high tides and high rainfall will bring flood. They still do, but why on earth does it have to be that way?
  I asked for this debate because political memories are often far too short, in this place and others. We have had a long, hot summer and a lack of rain ever since, and the reservoirs are still half empty. It is easy to forget what happened at the start of the year, or during the previous year or the year before that, but unfortunately my constituents, as well as those of my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. Flook) and of most Somerset MPs, cannot forget—and, as the Minister knows, many do not forgive. The rivers broke their banks and the sea surged inland: people were driven from their homes and farmers watched valuable fields sink beneath the torrent. Millions of pounds worth of damage was caused in a very short space of time.
  I am sure that the Minister knows the figures, but I want to give him some idea of the frightening price of flooding in this country. The national cost of the last floods was £800 million. I obtained that figure from Britain's biggest insurance company, Norwich Union. Unfortunately, it will probably not surprise the Minister to learn that I also got from the company a rather strong taste of how it feels about flood defences. This year, it issued a helpful pack to all its policyholders—including me—entitled, "How to lobby your MP". Some hon. Members might have received it; if any have not, because they are not policyholders, I will let them have a copy. The insurance industry is far from satisfied that enough is being done to protect us from flooding, and I fear that it might be right.
  This year, the Government have said that they will spend roughly £564 million on flood protection in the financial year that ends in 2006. The insurance industry is far from satisfied with that. It might sound like a great deal of money, but let me put it into perspective. Two years hence, the Government intend to shell out £250 million less than it cost to clean up the last big floods that we had two or three years ago. They simply are not aware of the risks involved in that. If I may be so presumptuous, I should like to quote the Prime Minister's own website, which states:
  "Did you know that flooding has the potential to affect 5 million people and inflict damage on assets valued at over £200 billions?"
  Far be it from me to criticise the Prime Minister's sums, but, set against a £200 billion risk, an annual expenditure of £564 million is obviously not enough.
  I should like to give the House a couple of homegrown examples. The experts—the very people whom the Government employ to protect us from flooding—
  1404
  tell me that the water levels in the parts of Somerset represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton, my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory), the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) and me could rise by up to 3 ft in the next 50 years because of global warming and other effects. Let us just think about that. I know that the Minister is a fine, upstanding fellow with a good, solid girth, and he would be waist-deep in water if that were to happen in my constituency. He would certainly see birds of a different feather in those circumstances.
  There is a cure, however. Those same experts have worked out how to defend Bridgwater, Taunton and other areas of Somerset. The Bridgwater barrage—or sluice, or whatever you want to call it—is going to cost about £40 million at today's prices. Down the road, however, in the middle of the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton, experts have calculated that the defence work needed to protect Taunton will cost about £130 million in today's money.
  Mr. Adrian Flook: No doubt my hon. Friend is aware that recent calculations by the Environment Agency show that Taunton now has a one in 30 year risk of flooding, which worries people such as me who own a house in the centre of the town. Does he have any comment to make on that?
  Mr. Liddell-Grainger: The most appropriate comment probably comes from Norwich Union, which says that incidence of flooding is becoming more and more frequent. I remember that, two years ago, Taunton came within an inch of being under water. Unless we spend the money now, the generations that follow us here and in our constituencies of Taunton, Yeovil and elsewhere are going to be affected by flooding for many years to come. I am afraid that, if we continue as we are doing, the one in 30 year risk will decrease rapidly to one in 20 or one in 10. I know that, across the levels, the risk used to be one in 75 years and is now down to one in 30, as my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton so eloquently said.
  So where is the money coming from? This year, Somerset has about £15.7 million in the bank to spend. Big bucks, you say; well, maybe. I agree that it is enough to tackle the short term problems, but it would not buy one third of the Bridgwater barrage or pay for an eighth of the work that we have to do in Taunton. I have not come here to advocate a profligate increase in public expenditure. I shall modestly leave that to the Liberal Democrats. There is, however, a powerful case for the Government to identify the intense flooding risk in Somerset and to set about finding—dare I say it—new and adventurous mechanisms for tomorrow's vital defences. It is in the national interest to do so, and the Minister has spoken eloquently about this on many occasions. I pledge tonight that the Minister can rely on my co-operation and that of other Somerset Members. We have all said that we will co-operate. My Somerset colleagues and I are prepared to talk any time about what defends our constituents against nature's worst.
  May I make an initial suggestion? The Minister is aware of the responsibility of the South West of England Regional Development Agency. Perhaps he or his

  1405
  colleagues can encourage that body to spend a little of its money on conducting a long-term scientific study. I know that the agency, which I have visited many times, regards Bridgwater as a vital industrial area. Such a study might cost, say, a third of a million pounds, but it would protect the long-term viability of not just one part of the area, but the whole of it. It must be remembered that the agency covers an enormous part of Somerset, parts of Devon, Dorset and a little bit of Wiltshire. It could produce a very intelligent, long-term flood protection brief for the south-west—it is an ideal organisation to do so.
  I am impressed by some of the recommendations of Lord Haskins to streamline the way in which flood defences are managed. The Government will soon implement those recommendations. From next April, some long-overdue administrative common sense will begin to kick in. At last the people who know how to deal with floods and undertake the major defence work can start to get on with their job properly. I refer to the Environment Agency.
  I pay tribute to Dr. Tony Owen at the Environment Agency and his team in Bridgwater, who have done a phenomenal job, sometimes in the most difficult circumstances. They have a vested interest. If Bridgwater floods, their building goes underwater. Let me assure you that they are good at keeping their control room on the third floor. If you have not visited, Minister, I suggest you do. It is a most impressive organisation.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): Order. I know that this is an Adjournment debate, but the hon. Gentleman must try to use the correct parliamentary terminology. He keeps using the word "you", which is not accurate in these circumstances.
  Mr. Liddell-Grainger: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Thankfully, we are in the dying days of a muddled system that gave Somerset county council the biggest say in what we did. We will bid a tearless farewell to many of the unnecessary flood defence committees. In future, the bulk of the money—public money—will go directly to the Environment Agency, not through the coffers of county hall. That will mean less paperwork and more action. I am sure everyone will agree that that is good news.
  I hope that that is good news. I shall not dwell on the subject for long, but Somerset county council is notorious for creating a waffle shop of well-meaning worthies who waste money willy-nilly. Public enemy No. 1 is Mr. Humphrey Temperley. He used to be leader of the county council until the electors suggested he move on. Do not worry—Humph did not get the hump; he simply shuffled sideways, taking on the chairmanship of an outfit of his own creation, the Parrett catchment project. If hon. Members are puzzled, I hasten to point out that that has nothing to do with ornithology. The Parrett is the river that runs through Bridgwater. It needs a lot of looking after, and it has the double problem of tides coming down and tides coming up.
  The people who do the donkey work there are the Environment Agency. The Parrett catchment project does the diplomatic bit, talking to the interested parties,
  1406
  and produces voluminous documents, almost enough to dam the Parrett. It is the Andrex puppy of paper, running out roll upon roll of its own reports—absorbent, soft and very long winded. It finally dawned on Lord Haskins and others that the Parrett catchment project might usefully be absorbed itself. That course of action was suggested some time ago by the Minister, who said that we would have to evolve and look ahead.
  Why not, I suggest to the Minister, include the Parrett catchment project in the new Haskins proposals, along with other stakeholders such as English Nature and many others? Humphrey has already jumped ship, not once, but twice. First, he took the chair of the Somerset flood defence committee. He has now found an even comfier chair on the Wessex flood defence committee. Surprisingly enough, this is not a gratuitous attack on Mr. Temperley. I am genuinely anxious about him and about what he has done, is doing and, I am afraid, has failed to do.
  There have been various scare stories about the quality of the Environment Agency's work. The Environment Agency must lead from the top and not allow others to set the agenda for flood defence in our area. A successful policy will result in the Environtnent Agency being allowed to do its job.
  We cannot have people such as Mr. Temperley strutting round Bridgwater like a latter-day Napoleon, telling everyone how he will persuade the Government to protect people from floods. That is not his responsibility, but that of the Environment Agency. Has the Minister heard about the barrier that the experts want, which has been mentioned many times by Mr. Temperley? It is difficult to know how to move forward if the Minister has not heard all the stories.
  Next April, things will change. The Environment Agency will get more money direct from Whitehall and there will be less involvement from county councils and—dare I say it?—the Temperley faction. County councils will still get about £800,000 a year for flood defences. Neither the county nor the Environment Agency knows what the county's responsibilities will be and how much influence they will have in the new order of things. If the Minister provides an answer, it will go not only to Somerset county council, but throughout the UK.
  I want to refer to the Steart peninsula, about which the Minister and I have had many debates. Many people worry about what is going to happen there. We are not talking about a risk of an extra 3 ft in 50 years; if things go wrong, Steart could become an island this winter. It might rain too hard or the tide might come up, and Steart needs a sluice or safety valve now. That is on the Environment Agency's shopping list; it costs about £3 million. However, a wave of worry is being created in Steart about what the future will hold.
  Under new European flood defence rules, all member states, understandably, have to follow a policy of give and take with nature. For every barrier or alignment created, one must give part of the area one is dealing with back to nature. However, I can see some problems. What happens when the Environment Agency completes its work at Steart and removes the risk to the people who live there? Which bit of Somerset or the surrounding area gets flooded as a trade-off? I am not suggesting that homes will be flooded, but land. Does it have to be Somerset?

  1407
  The Government have set targets for flood protection in this country over the next year and aim to safeguard about 80,000 people. How on earth will we achieve that if every time a bit of Somerset is protected, another bit has to be sacrificed to the rising tide? It is not a question of people being nimbys; everyone in our area is fair-minded. But should we not be looking to the long term, rather than looking to the less populated areas of England to meet the requirements of the European rules? Should not this be a national matter? The decisions, and the interest, must be taken at national level.
  While the Minister is considering flooding, I shall mention another concern. A lot of Somerset is a flood plain; it is agricultural land that is kept clear by the drainage boards and the Environment Agency. The farmers on the levels get paid to maintain the land; it is not a great deal, but it is enough to make the task not only bearable but worth doing. The money comes via Europe through the common agricultural policy, which is currently having its mid-term review. I warn the Minister that if the grant money dries up, there will be little incentive for hard-pressed farmers to bother with the important maintenance work. If the farmers stop bothering, the land will go under water. The drainage boards, the farmers and everybody involved in the common agricultural policy must work together to create harmony in nature and not try to control nature in the wrong way. At the end of the day, there must be funding and it must be real money.
  The whole story of flooding in Somerset is rather a sad cycle: inadequate funding over the long term to tackle long-term defences, and huge bills when the water inevitably comes up. Who pays? The insurance company and thus, unfortunately, all of us, pay. Some countries handle things better than we did. America offers incredibly generous flood aid in federal grants and soft loans—far more than British compensation under the Bellwin rules. We could emulate the US method, or we could find a new way of raising money to resolve the most acute flooding before it happens.
  As the Minister is aware, 684,000 people in Somerset could be affected by flooding. Some 11,500 homes stand in the line of a rising tide, and 1 million acres of very valuable land are under threat. We have gone through this issue before, and it does not involve special pleading. It is an appeal, I suppose, for common sense. Yes, the Minister could reel off a long list of the fine things that the Government have done to improve defences, but that would be a pity. I do not begrudge the efforts made by the Minister, the Environment Agency or anybody else, but I am appealing for something more important, which politicians rarely think about. May we please have a long-term strategy—a very long-term strategy? It is not a question of what happens today, tomorrow or before the next election. We need to think about the big future, and as the Minister is well aware, it is in the interests of us all to do so.
  8.51 pm
  The Minister for the Environment (Mr. Elliot Morley): I congratulate the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Liddell-Grainger) on securing what is the second debate
  1408
  this year on flood defences in Somerset. He has a great interest in this subject, and he has advocated his constituents' concerns powerfully. I understand and share his concerns; I also share his commitment to reducing the flood risk to the people of Somerset, and to the people of this country in general.
  A projected annual budget of £564 million is a substantial amount of money. Indeed, as I have explained before, because of the demand that that budget places on contractors, experts and consultants, it has to be wrapped up in such a way that the capacity exists to spend that money. I have spoken to the Institution of Civil Engineers about the need for more civil engineers to carry out this work. It is very concerned about the need to attract more people into the profession, and I hope that that happens. It is good to see that that level of investment is also stimulating the engineering sector.
  We should also consider the range of engineering. These days, as the hon. Gentleman knows, we have moved away from a simple concrete approach. We have become much more sophisticated: we now consider different areas and needs, how to apply flood defences and water management in a more sustainable way, and how to secure a range of benefits. Indeed, the Parrett catchment plan is one of the pilot projects—funded by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs—that have examined this new approach. As I have said before, I like the fact that it involves a partnership approach. It gets the various groups—landowners, farmers, conservationists, local people and the Environment Agency—to work together and to seek innovation. Here, I echo the hon. Gentleman's point about a long-term strategy, and Humphrey Temperley has done a good job in that regard. He should receive some credit for the role that he has played.
  I understand that there is also a need to integrate the international importance of nature conservation in the area with the equally legitimate flood defence needs of householders, farmers and other landowners. I listened to the hon. Gentleman's point about support for farmers on the levels, but I believe that the reforms we achieved through the common agricultural policy, and which we are currently implementing, will be of great benefit to them. We have broken the link between production subsidies and the farming practices that, in some cases, have proved unsustainable. Such practices will no longer be the driver for subsidies. Instead, the money will be provided through direct payments and agri-environmental payments, which are ideal for an area such as the Somerset levels, because schemes can be tailored to proper management and the skills of farmers can be utilised in the man-management.
  Mr. Liddell-Grainger: That is excellent and I thoroughly applaud it. However, could the Minister expand on how the money will reach areas such as the Somerset levels and how it will be utilised practically?
  Mr. Morley: The hon. Gentleman will be aware of how the environmentally sensitive area schemes and countryside stewardship schemes work in the levels. They are going to change into an entry-level scheme and higher-tier schemes. I envisage that most of the farmers in the levels would want to be in the higher-tier schemes,

  1409
  which would mean extra payments for water management. There will be other changes to support payments, but they are not yet finalised and I am not in a position to spell them out. In due course, however, I will, and intense consultation is going on.
  The area has also produced a catchment management plan, which is important in assessing the various options. The catchment flood management plans are being taken forward by the agency. I was interested in the hon. Gentleman's suggestion that the proposed new land use agency, which is an amalgamation of English Nature, parts of the Countryside Agency and our own rural development service, could incorporate the work carried out by the Parrett catchment plan. I am sure that we can examine the problem as the new agency develops. It is certainly within the philosophy of having an integrated land use agency that integrated management of land use, landscape, water management, and nature conservation is possible. It also involves recognising the social needs of people in the area. The three pillars of sustainability are social, economic and environmental, so it is ideal in respect of the concept that we are debating.
  The hon. Gentleman also mentioned problems on the Steart peninsula. As he said, I have been there to examine the position and talk to the Environment Agency about the relevant issues. I have not yet seen the preferred option on which the Environment Agency is working, but the sort of ideas that we discussed involved defending the village and taking into account the need to keep the road link open. That is certainly within its thinking and planning. More sustainable defences would be required for creating additional salt marsh.
  In that sort of scenario, there would be no requirement, as I understand it, for compensatory land measures, because additional habitat is being provided. Compensatory habitat would not have to be found: it would be necessary only if some form of hard structure were proposed that meant taking some habitat away. In that scenario, under the habitats directive, compensation would certainly have to be provided. However, the way in which the agency has discussed the issue with me suggests that that is not the case with respect to the hon. Gentleman's area. I hope that that will reassure him.
  The Environment Agency is progressing with the development of the sea defence strategy for the Steart and Stolford peninsula, and options for future management are currently being explored. I understand that the agency has just appointed consultants who have also been involved in the preparation of the Parrett catchment flood management plan and the water management strategy action plan produced in spring 2002.
  The hon. Gentleman also spoke about support for the area and the need for an increasing programme of flood defence capital works in Somerset. That has been recognised and continues to be recognised in DEFRA's allocations. The allocation to the agency's Somerset local flood defence committee for grant-eligible expenditure has increased from £3.5 million in 2001–02 to £5.5 million in 2003–04.
  As the hon. Gentleman rightly stated, with the advent in 2004–05 of the grant-in-aid for the EA flood defence, we will no longer allocate the grant rates through local
  1410
  authorities. Grants in aid will be allocated by the EA headquarters direct, taking into account DEFRA's announced priority score thresholds. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that that is a better and more open and transparent scheme. It will allow the agency and flood defence committees to move faster and have more control over decision making.
  It is none the less still important to have local links and local accountability and to have an involvement with local government. In that respect, I see a continued role for the county councils in flood defence. Following the funding review, they will be able to fund local service through the continuing levying arrangements, and they will continue to be represented on the new streamlined single-tier committees. I do not want to break that link, and I want to give them flexibility when it comes to deciding some of their own priorities. The Environment Agency's distribution for 2004–05, based on indicative DEFRA national allocations, will provide Somerset with an increase of 10 per cent. over the 2003–04 levels.
  The hon. Gentleman touched on the building of a tidal sluice on the River Parrett. I am advised that the EA has the tidal sluice proposal on its programme of works for detailed further investigation, so it is taking the idea seriously and putting it forward for consideration. The proposal is one component among the possible solutions to some of the flooding programmes suggested in the Parrett catchment project report. As he rightly said, it is a big scheme, and a great deal of consideration is needed for any such project by the EA and other agencies. A lot of engineering assessment, modelling and other work needs to be done. It is not a minor scheme, and it will not appear overnight. Like any such scheme, it will have to satisfy the normal technical, economic and environmental criteria, and the priority score arrangements for funding, including under the flood defence grant in aid.
  I have been advised that the hon. Gentleman was briefed in detail at a meeting on Friday 28 November about the time scales and hurdles that any capital scheme for a tidal sluice at Bridgwater would have to cross. I also understand that the agency provides him with regular updates, and he will be aware that no scheme has yet been put forward for formal approval. Such a scheme would have to be prepared in detail, and I stress that major engineering works of that kind, which might well be the preferred option in the end, would have to go through careful consideration.
  I reassure the hon. Gentleman that some features in Somerset, such as the high conversation status of the Somerset levels and moors and the Severn estuary, mean that it is already given special consideration. The area is well known to me, and the management of water there has a long history, as have flood defence works.
  I take the hon. Gentleman's point about the impact of global warming: it is a serious issue and of great concern to the Government. I recently attended the climate change conference in Madrid at which we made a number of detailed presentations, with our Hadley centre and Tyndale centre, about the impact of global warming and what it means for the UK and regions around the world. We also made a presentation on what the UK is doing to reduce greenhouse gases, and that was "standing room only". There is enormous

  1411
  international interest in the commitments that we are making and the fact that we take the matter seriously. That links to the hon. Gentleman's first point, which was that we are spending a lot of money on flood defence but that it pales into insignificance when compared with the massive value of the assets that we are protecting, not least when compared with the inconvenience, misery and distress caused to people who are victims of floods.
  Mr. Liddell-Grainger: The Minister is hitting the most salient points throughout his speech, and I am grateful to him for it. He knows that if we lose it completely, we will lose the M4, the railway and the A303. The west country would be cut off by one river system. I am grateful to him for labouring the point because one of the most important problems facing this country is that our peninsula could be cut off if we get matters badly wrong.
  Mr. Morley: That is right, and the protection of infrastructure is a criterion that we use when assessing
  1412
  whether to spend money on flood defences. Much important infrastructure, as well as many people, is at risk in the hon. Gentleman's area.
  We can never completely eliminate risk, but we can ensure that we minimise the risk that people face. The measures that the Government have taken have reduced risk. Incidentally, I must correct what I said about the climate change conference being in Madrid—it was in Milan. It is important that we develop the long-term strategy that the hon. Gentleman requested. Water management and coastal defence are long-term businesses, as is predicting the kind of climate changes that we will face in future. We are committed to those issues financially, and we want to put a long-term strategy in place, to the advantage of the hon. Gentleman's constituents and many others in this country.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at five minutes past Nine o 'clock.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Disadvantaged Young People
  Mr. Hancock:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) if she will contribute to the partnership of the Prince's Trust Football Initiative, FA Premier League, Football Foundation and Professional Footballers Association in helping disadvantaged young people; and if she will make a statement;[143447]

  (2) what assessments she has made of the contribution made by the Prince's Trust Football Initiative to tackling social exclusion of young people.[143444]

  Mr. Caborn:
  The Government fully support the aims of the Prince's Trust Football Scheme, which uses sport to offer personal development programmes to young people aged 16-25, the majority of whom are unemployed, have recently left social service care, or are ex-offenders. It is noteworthy that of 4,000 participants between 1997 and 2002, some 73 per cent. went on to find employment, or to further education or training.

  The Scheme receives £250,000 a year from the Football Foundation's Community and Education Fund, which is part-funded by Sport England and the New Opportunities Fund.

ELECTORAL COMMISSION

  Devon (Ward Boundaries)
  Nick Harvey:
  To ask the hon. Member for Gosport, representing the Speaker's Committee on the Electoral Commission what progress the Electoral Commission is making towards making orders giving effect to the Boundary Committee's recommendations for Devon county council's ward boundaries; and if he will make a statement. [143736]

  Mr. Viggers:
  I understand that it is the intention of the Electoral Commission to make the order implementing new ward boundaries by summer 2004 so that they will be in effect for the county elections due in 2005.

LEADER OF THE HOUSE

  Big Conversation
  Norman Baker:
  To ask the Leader of the House pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) of 9 December 2003, Official Report, column 355W, what estimate he has made of the amount of time spent by (a) Ministers and (b) special advisers on the Big Conversation; and what costs are associated with that time. [144118]
  628W
  Mr. Hain:
  The involvement of Ministers and special advisers in this exercise is undertaken in accordance with the requirements of the Ministerial Code and the Code of Conduct for Special Advisers. It is not possible to provide an estimate of their time spent on the exercise but the cost will be minimal.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Animal Health
  Mr. Cawsey:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what progress has been made in implementing the Animal Health (Amendment) Act 1998. [142777]

  Mr. Bradshaw:
  The Animal Health (Amendment) Act 1998 extended the scope of the Order-making powers relating to importation in the Animal Health Act 1981 to cover the welfare of animals in quarantine. Between December 2000 and March 2001, MAFF undertook a consultation exercise on proposals for legislation to update the law on quarantine by reforming the quarantine rules to bring quarantine kennels up to the best modern practice and by introducing statutory welfare provisions.

  Owing to the impact on resources of the foot and mouth disease outbreak during 2001, follow-up to that consultation was deferred. Since then, we have reached agreement on the EU Regulation on the movement of pet animals which will require some changes to the quarantine legislation. We are also preparing for consultation on an Animal Welfare Bill. We shall therefore need to review the proposed changes to the quarantine legislation to take account of these and other developments. I expect to complete the review in the first part of 2004.

  Paddy Tipping:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on how she intends to implement the recommendations of the Farm Animal Welfare Council's Report on the Welfare of Farmed Animals at Slaughter or Killing. [143558]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  [holding answer 11 December 2003]I refer my hon. Friend to my earlier answer given on 8 December 2003,Official Report, column 209W. Decisions on how to implement the recommendations will be taken once the public consultation exercise on the draft response has been completed.

  Arable Crops
  Andrew George:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what sanctions apply to (a) farmers and (b) her Department in circumstances where an incorrect assessment has been made of areas planted for (i) wheat and (ii) other arable crops in the annual (A) June return and (B) IACS system. [143666]

  Alun Michael:
  The June census is a UK survey designed to provide information for statistical purposes and to support policy decisions. In England it is carried out under the Agricultural Statistics Act 1979 which requires farmers to provide the information requested.

  629W
  Any mistakes are normally simply corrected and we are not aware of any sanctions ever being applied in such issues. Defra seeks to produce the best estimates it can at particular points in the year. By the nature of the information, some figures will be provisional and subject to revision. The Department will republish if a mistake that significantly affects the results is found.

  The IACS rules are part of the EU legislation governing the operation of the Common Agricultural Policy. In respect of arable area payments, they treat wheat and other arable crops in the same way. Where farmers claim arable area payments for less than their planted area there is no sanction. Where they overclaim by a small margin the claim is merely corrected. For larger overclaims the IACS system prescribes a scale of sanctions, which at the extreme can lead to the loss of all payment for the current year and to an equivalent sum being recovered from the claims made over the following three years. No automatic sanctions apply to Defra in such cases, but the European Commission has power to apply ad hoc financial penalties to member states who are found not to have sufficiently robust systems for inspecting claims and applying the prescribed sanctions.

  Biopesticides
  Hugh Robertson:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps the Government are taking to speed up approvals for biopesticides. [143918]

  Alun Michael:
  The Government are trying to find ways of speeding up the approval process for biopesticides. The Pesticides Safety Directorate (PSD) is carrying out a pilot exercise exploring ways of reducing data requirements and thus the costs and time taken to secure approval.

  PSD has also appointed an "in-house" Small Business Champion to assist companies generally and specifically in making applications for approval of biological control agents.

  However, PSD must ensure that approved pesticides cause no unacceptable risks to people or the environment. There are, therefore, certain essential data requirements that must be met, regardless of whether an application for a pesticide is for a conventional or an alternative product. such as a biopesticide.

  Bovine TB
  Mr. Paterson:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs whether farmers are able to obtain insurance cover for TB infection in dairy cattle after a TB breakdown and subsequent claim. [141083]

  Mr. Bradshaw:
  It is Government policy to pay compensation at 100 per cent. of the market value, with no upper limit, for cattle that are compulsorily slaughtered under TB control measures. Farmers therefore do not need to take out insurance for their animals. Theoretically, insurance can be bought to cover other consequential losses for which compensation is not
  630W
  paid, but this is a commercial matter between the farmers and their insurers. Section 34 (5) of the Animal Health Act 1981 explicitly allows insurers to deduct the amount of Government compensation from the value of any payout that they make.

  Insurance companies will make their own decisions on whether to insure, and about the size of premiums, based on their assessment of the risk. Recent contact with insurance industry early in 2003 indicated that, although companies are honouring existing policies, they are not offering new policies to cover TB in cattle herds, particularly in areas where TB is increasingly prevalent. This is because farmers do not wish to take the cover in areas where the risk is low (such as Yorkshire), but do wish to purchase cover in areas of high incidence (such as the South West). However, the insurance companies consider that the financial risks in offering insurance policies in areas of high incidence are too high at present.

  Mr. Paterson:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the total cost was of compensation paid to farmers in respect of compulsory purchase of bovine animals slaughtered as a result of TB infection (a) between 1994 and 1998 and (b) since 1998. [142457]

  Mr. Bradshaw:
  The data requested are provided in the tables.

  Cost of compensation paid in Great Britain as a result of TB infection between 1994 and 1998

  Cost (£)1

  1994

  2,019,911

  1995

  1,988,820

  1996

  2,275,481

  1997

  2,386,029

  1998

  3,605,242

  Total

  12,275,483

  Source:

  1The Report of the Chief Veterinary Officer—Animal Health 1998.

  Cost of compensation paid in Great Britain as a result of TB infection between 1999 and 2002

  Cost (£)1

  1999

  5,770,983

  2000

  7,307,797

  2001

  7,074,125

  2002

  223, 138,512

  Total

  43,291,417

  Sources:

  1 The Report of the Chief Veterinary Officer—Animal Health 2002.

  2 In 2001, the TB testing and control programme was largely suspended due to the foot and mouth disease (FMD) outbreak. Since testing resumed in 2002, resources have been concentrated on herds with overdue TB tests that would have had a longer period in which to contract the disease. Also, the proportion of high risk herds being tested post-FMD is greater than that prior to the outbreak. As a result, the number of TB reactors identified and slaughtered (and hence compensated for) in 2002 is not comparable to those identified and slaughtered in previous years.

  631W
  Mr. Paterson:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the effect of shortages of large animal vets for successful control of TB in cattle. [141975]

  Mr. Bradshaw:
  There are no plans to carry out such an assessment. However, the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee issued a report on Vets and Veterinary Services on 23 October 2003 (HC 703), which considers wider concerns about the numbers of large animal practices and the contribution of the veterinary profession to the wider animal health and welfare strategy.

  The report contains a number of recommendations and conclusions, and we will be seeking the views of the veterinary profession and other interested parties on the issues raised.

  Badgers
  Mr. Paterson:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of whether badgers are capable of accessing mineral and feed troughs positioned at heights in excess of those advised by the Department; and what height that evidence indicates badgers are capable of accessing. [141503]

  Mr. Bradshaw:
  Recent work carried out by the Central Science Laboratory has established that badgers are capable of climbing into feed troughs set at 115cm above ground level, at which height they are inaccessible to cattle.

  Dead Animals
  Mr. Rosindell:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the effect of the provisions in the Hunting Bill of Session 2002–03 on disposal by farmers of dead animals. [143554]

  Alun Michael:
  The Animal By-Products Regulations 2003 permit hunt kennels to continue collecting fallen stock; however, they will be required to upgrade to knackers' yard standards if they wish to collect fallen stock for the purposes of feeding to hounds. The effect of a ban on hunting would depend on decisions made by those who currently offer a service and on choices made by farmers leading to take-up of the National Fallen Stock Scheme which the Government hope will be up and running early in 2004. Most hunts already make a charge and there is no reason why such a service should not continue as a business opportunity irrespective of the future of hunting.

  Regional Producers (Wiltshire) Ltd.
  Mr. Gray:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much public money has been paid to Regional Producers (Wiltshire) Ltd; and who the payees were. [143597]

  Alun Michael:
  Regional Producers (Wiltshire) Ltd. have received grants worth £57,784 from public sector bodies. This comprised £20,000 from Business Link for Berkshire and Wiltshire from the South West Foot and
  632W
  Mouth Recovery Fund which they administered on behalf of the South West Regional Development Agency, and the balance from Great Western Enterprise, which is also funded by the South West Regional Development Agency.

  Mr. Gray:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many farmers were participants in Regional Producers (Wiltshire) Ltd.; and if she will make a statement. [143599]

  Alun Michael:
  The conditions for providing public funding for Regional Producers (Wiltshire) Ltd. required them to secure a minimum of 25 shareholder members and this was achieved.

  Regional Waste Plans
  Mr. Drew:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when the Regional Waste Plan for the South West is expected to be published; and what proposals it will make with regard to the designation of sub-regional zones. [142274]

  Keith Hill:
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Regional Waste Strategy for the South West region is being developed by the South West Regional Assembly. Currently it is planned to commence consultation on the strategy in early February 2004 with a view to publishing the completed strategy by July 2004.

  The strategy is still under development and will be using data based on former county areas of the South West as these are currently the best available. These data will be used to develop sub regional indicative capacity allocations based on the former county areas.

  Tropical Plywood
  Mr. Wyatt:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much tropical plywood was imported by each EU member state in the last year for which figures are available. [143222]

  John Healey:
  Imports to the UK are given in "Overseas Trade Statistics", a copy of which is available in the Library of the House. Figures on trade between other countries are not available.

  Wind Turbines
  Miss McIntosh:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the impact on wildlife of wind turbines. [142042]

  Mr. Timms:
  I have been asked to reply.

  Studies of the impact of wind farms on wildlife, in particular birds, suggests that there is only a small risk of bird strikes from the operation of properly sited wind turbines. In addition, under the normal planning regime and for consent under section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989 regime or the Transport and Works Act 1992, wind farm developers are required to consider all environmental aspects of wind energy projects and produce an Environmental Impact Assessment. These assessments are available to the public.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Public Services (Ethnicity)
  Ms Buck:
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the effect of a person's ethnicity on their access to public services. [143574]

  Fiona Mactaggart:
  The Government publishes an annual edition of Race Equality in Public Services which brings together key performance management data from across the range of Government Departments. The indicators used consist of three main parts:
  The first looks at comparative perceptions of public services between minority ethnic and majority communities;
  The second part uses performance data to describe the impact of a range of key services on different minority ethnic communities, as compared with the majority community;
  The third looks at what the Government are doing to promote and improve race equality within the Civil Service and related services.

  The fourth annual publication will be published early in 2004.

  Animal Experiments
  Mr. Beggs:
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many experiments on animals were carried out in UK laboratories in 2002–03; what action he is taking to encourage alternative methods of experimentation; and if he will make a statement. [143178]

  Caroline Flint:
  For the year 2002, the most recent year for which complete annual statistics are available and published, 2,752,278 scientific procedures were carried out on animals in the UK. Mice, rats and other rodents, along with fish and birds, were used in some 96 per cent. of the total.

  The use of animals in regulated procedures is prohibited by the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 in cases where a scientifically valid non-animal alternative is available. The Act also requires that, where replacement of animals is not possible, the number used in any licensed project must be reduced to the minimum, and the procedures must be refined to ensure that no unnecessary suffering is caused. This approach—of replacing, reducing and refining—is known as application of the 3Rs.

  Most work on the 3Rs is neither done by Government nor with Government money, as industry spends many millions of pounds each year on the search for and development of alternatives. Nonetheless, every year the Home Office makes available to the Animal Procedures Committee a budget for research aimed at developing or promoting the use of the 3Rs. Details of completed research projects are published in the annual report of the Animal Procedures Committee, which is available from The Stationery Office. The amount made available to the Committee for 2003–04 for this specific purpose is £280,000.

  This is not the only money spent by the Government on the development of the 3Rs, as other Departments and public funding bodies are also active in this area.
  634W
  Indeed, it is estimated that the total spent across Government is in the region of £2 million to £10 million each year.

  To take this further on an international level, we continue to support the European Centre for the Validation of Alternative Methods (ECVAM) through contributions to the European Union, and last year we co-sponsored the 4th World Congress on Alternatives and Animal Use in the Life Sciences.

  The Government support and encourage the development and promotion of the 3Rs in a number of other ways. For example, we are currently exploring the recommendation by the House of Lords Select Committee on Animals in Scientific Procedures, which reported in July 2002, that there should be a United Kingdom centre for research into the 3Rs. This is being considered by the Inter-Departmental Group on the 3Rs, led by the Home Office.

  The Inter-Departmental Group is also reviewing the effectiveness of the Inter-Departmental Data Sharing Concordat announced in August 2000, which commits United Kingdom regulatory authorities to help resolve legal and other obstacles to data sharing between clients, in order to reduce animal testing.

  In the longer term, we believe that further significant reduction in animal use will, and must, continue to rely largely on the scientific community's own efforts to develop, validate and adopt more advanced methods based on the 3Rs. This is not an area where quick gains can be expected, but any lack of progress in research into alternatives is more often due to the limitations of science, rather than to inadequate funding.

  Correspondence
  Angus Robertson:
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he intends to respond to the letter of 23 July, from the hon. Member for Moray, with Home Office acknowledgement reference number P011706/3; and if he will make a statement. [142026]

  Beverley Hughes:
  I am sorry for the delay in replying to the hon. Member's letter of 23 July 2003.

  Regrettably, this matter was originally submitted to the wrong unit who did not follow the matter up.

  We are in the process of appointing an independent appraiser to review Mr. Christie's case. I have instructed IND officials to have the report completed by Christmas and I will then be in a position to write to the hon. Member.

  Criminal Justice System
  Mr. Allen:
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish the responses to the British Crime Survey questions on public confidence in the criminal justice system, broken down by criminal justice board area. [140596]

  Paul Goggins:
  The responses to the British Crime Survey (BCS) questions on confidence in the criminal justice system from the 2001–02 BCS were published in the Crime in England and Wales 2001–02: Supplementary Volume in January 2003. Chapter 8

  635W
  contains the information about confidence, and table 8.04 contains the figures broken down by Local Criminal Justice Board area.

  The equivalent data for 2002–03 are due to be published in January by the Research, Development and Statistics Directorate at the Home Office in the upcoming supplementary volume to the 2002–03 British Crime Survey. The final title for this publication is still being decided.

  In the meantime the confidence data for 2002–03 were made available to Local Criminal Justice Boards in July 2003 in the guidance document "Improving Public Satisfaction and Confidence in the Criminal Justice System". The document is available on the CJS website at: www.cjsonline.org.

  Foreign Seafarers
  Mr. Carmichael:
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what procedure there is for verifying that there are no qualified or experienced workers available when work permits are issued to foreign seafarers. [140670]

  Beverley Hughes:
  The usual requirement is that the employer must demonstrate that they have been unable to fill the vacancy with a suitably qualified worker from the resident labour force. Employers will normally be required to provide evidence that they have advertised the post in an appropriate medium and the grounds on which they considered resident workers who applied for the post to be unsuitable. These requirements are waived only in respect of intra-corporate transfers, board level posts, inward investment posts and those occupations where Work Permits (UK) has established, on the basis of independent labour market information, that there is an acute shortage of suitably qualified resident workers. The latter do not include seafarers.

  Immigration Control
  Mr. Malins:
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many UK immigration officers are in post working at (a) French ports, (b) Belgian ports and (c) other European ports on matters concerning immigration control. [142160]

  Beverley Hughes:
  No UK immigration officers are in post in French ports but officers are currently deployed to French ports on a daily basis. There are 200 officers across three operational grades who are based in Cheriton near Folkestone and who are liable to work in the UK control zone at the Eurotunnel site in Coquelles where the UK Immigration Service provides 24-hour coverage.

  There are 125 officers across three operational grades based at Waterloo International who perform duties in Lille Europe, Paris Gare du Nord, where the UK Immigration service covers all UK-bound Eurostar services. Officers based at Waterloo also assist the Belgian Immigration authorities in an advisory capacity at the Gare du Midi in Brussels.

  Mr. Malins:
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many potential illegal entrants to this country have been discovered at French ports in the last 12 months; and what steps have been taken against them. [142161]
  636W
  Beverley Hughes:
  The French authorities do not publish figures of illegal immigrants discovered at Channel ports.

  French policy is to remove illegal immigrants discovered in the Calais area, and take them to other parts of France to be processed where possible, thus disrupting contact with illegal networks. French police continue to arrest and imprison facilitators.

  In addition, the UK and France have together taken vigorous action to combat illegal immigration to the UK following the closure of the Red Cross centre at Sangatte. Initiatives include the deployment of high-tech freight searching equipment to Calais, and British immigration officers working in an advisory capacity alongside the French Police aux Frontieres (PAF) at the port of Calais. Plans are under way to allow British immigration officers to exercise their full control powers at the ports of Calais, Dunkirk and Boulogne, as they already do at the Channel Tunnel. PAF officers will similarly be able to operate their controls at Dover.

  Indicative management information suggests that the wide range of measures now in place in Calais and Coquelles has resulted in over 6,000 people being prevented from travelling to the UK from these points in the first nine months of this year.

  Mr. Malins:
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many heat detector machines are installed at (a) Dover, (b) Folkestone, (c) Portsmouth, (d) Cheriton and (e) other UK ports. [142164]

  Beverley Hughes:
  The Immigration Service does not use heat detector machines however, it does deploy and operate a range of detection technology to detect clandestine entrants.

  Heartbeat detectors and a gamma ray scanner are deployed at Dover. This technology is not employed at Folkestone, Portsmouth, Cheriton or any other UK ports, although x-ray scanners operated by Customs are routinely deployed at UK ports. Additionally, carbon dioxide detectors and body detection dogs, are deployed by the UK immigration service on an intelligence led basis by mobile teams operating at various UK ports in line with current threat levels in support of local immigration freight searching activity.

  Mr. Malins:
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on how many occasions in the last 12 months heat detector machines at (a) Calais, (b) Coquelles and (c) Dover have broken down or malfunctioned. [142165]

  Beverley Hughes:
  The Immigration Service does not employ heat detector machines in the detection of clandestine entrants. However it does deploy and operate a range of detection technologies to detect clandestine entrants including heartbeat detectors, gamma ray scanners, carbon dioxide detectors and Passive Millimetric Wave Imagers (PMMWI), technology that relies on naturally occurring background radiation to produce images indicating human presence in lorries. The equipment receives quarterly maintenance checks to ensure continued effectiveness. During the past 12 months occasional minor technical problems have been

  637W
  encountered. But these have been resolved, either by remote support or by prompt site attendance of an engineer.

  Mr. Malin:
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many heat detector machines are installed at (a) Calais and (b) Coquelles; and what the corresponding figures were in October 2002. [142166]

  Beverley Hughes:
  The Immigration Service does not employ heat detector machines in the detection of clandestine entrants. However it does deploy and operate a range of detection technologies to detect clandestine entrants.

  In October 2002 one heartbeat detector was in operation in Calais. There are now three heartbeat units in operation at the port together with two PMMWs (Passive Millimetric Wave Imagers), technology that relies on naturally occurring background radiation to produce images indicating human presence in lorries. This equipment has been loaned by the UK Immigration Service to the Calais port operator and is operated by their staff.

  At Coquelles the Immigration Service operate a heartbeat detector and carbon dioxide detectors within the UK Control Zone. Carbon dioxide detectors have been in operation since before October 2002 while the heartbeat detector has been in operation since May 2003.

  Oakington Reception Centre
  Mr. Malins:
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what duties there are upon those released from Oakington Reception Centre in each of the last two years to report to the police or other authorities; and how many such persons have breached such duties. [142159]

  Beverley Hughes:
  Oakington receives asylum claimants who are entitled to reside in the countries on the fast track suitable list. This list contains the 24 Non-Suspensive Appeal (NSA) designated countries and others which are believed to be suitable for a rapid decision-making process.

  CRP initiative

  Year

  Description (location)

  Funding (£)

  CCTV

  2001ߝ02

  Priority Wards Mobile System

  50,000

  CCTV

  2001–02

  St. Helens Hospital

  50,450

  CCTV

  2002–03

  Safer St. Helens

  872,000

  Reducing Burglary

  2002–03

  Windlehurst/Dentons Green Area, St. Helens

  9,500

  Communities Against Drugs

  2001–02

  Reduce impact on local communities of drugs

  171,000

  Small Retailers in Deprived Area Year 1

  2001–02

  CCTV in Finger Post Shopping Centre

  18,509

  Targeted Policing

  2002–03

  Merseyside Police—St. Helens—Vehicle crime

  397,000

  Safer Communities Initiative

  2002–03

  —

  66,646

  Communities Against Drugs

  2002–03

  £171,100 plus £165,135 Street Crime Uplift

  336,235

  Partnership Development Fund

  2002–03

  —

  20,000

  Small Retailers in Deprived Areas Year 2

  2002–03

  Junction Line, Elephant Line, Toll bar and Cambridge Road precincts

  26,599

  Building Safer Communities Fund

  2003–04

  —

  244,982

  HO Regional Directors Fund

  2003–04

  —

  12,764

  Basic Command Unit

  2003–04

  —

  162,734

  Communities Against Drugs carry forward

  2003–04

  £42,2501

  42,250

  Domestic Violence

  2003–04

  —

  3,600

  1Paid in 2002–03 but to be defrayed in 2003–04

  Sentencing
  Mr. Oaten:
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many offenders were jailed
  638W
  The outcome of claims from those on the NSA designated list will normally be removal if they have been served with a clearly unfounded certified decision to refuse asylum. An appeal may be submitted only from abroad.

  Non-NSA claimants who receive negative decisions may be detained further at a Removal Centre or granted Temporary Admission pending the outcome of any in-country appeal. Over the period referred to in the question, the network of reporting facilities and the number of those leaving Oakington who have been required to report has grown, but any restrictions are dependent upon the circumstances of the individual case.

  The information requested could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Information on Oakington and other asylum statistics is published quarterly. The most recent publication covering the third quarter of 2003 is now available on the Home Office Research Development and Statistics Directorate website at http://www. homeoffice.gov. uk/rds/immigrationl html

  Projects (St. Helens)
  Mr. Woodward:
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which projects have been (a) wholly and (b) partly funded by his Department in St. Helens since 1997; when each project was announced; when it started or was expected to start; what funding was provided by (i) Government and (ii) a third party; what third party 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. [141277]

  Ms Blears:
  The information requested is not available for Home Office funding in St. Helens prior to the introduction of the Crime Reduction Programme in 1999. Furthermore files for projects funded before the introduction of the Safer Communities Initiative in 2002–03 are now in the Government Office's registry, and to retrieve them would incur disproportionate costs.

  in (a) 2001 and (b) 2002 under section 111 of the provisions of the Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000, for a third offence of burglary. [141645]
  639W
  Paul Goggins
  [holding answer 3 December 2003] Six people were sentenced under section 111 of the Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 (previously section 4 of the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997) in England and Wales for a third offence of burglary in 2001 and two in 2002.

MINISTER FOR WOMEN

  Private Member's Clubs
  Mr. David Stewart:
  To ask the Minister for Women (1) what research she has (a) commissioned and (b) evaluated since July 2002 to identify private members' sports clubs which are voluntarily removing rules which lead to different gender playing practices; [141555]

  (2) what percentage of private members' clubs deny women members equality of membership rights. [141556]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 9 December 2003]There has been no formal assessment of sex discriminatory practices in private members' sports clubs.

  Sex discriminatory treatment in private clubs is contrary to this Government's principles of opportunity for all. We have in the past consulted informally with interested parties about their progress in reducing such discrimination by voluntary means. We are keeping this matter under review.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Arms Exports
  Harry Cohen:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many surface to air missiles have been (a) exported and (b) transferred in each of the last 10 years; and to which countries. [143076]

  Nigel Griffiths:
  The DTI holds information on licences issued but not on those not used.

  The details of all export licences are published by destination in the Government's Annual Reports on Strategic Export Controls.

  British Energy
  Mr. Chaytor:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans she has to increase the current £200 million loan facility to British Energy; and when she expects to take a final decision on the future of the company. [141666]

  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 11 December 2003]I refer my hon. Friend to the written statement made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on 1 December 2003,Official Report, columns 50 and 51WS.

  British Energy's proposed restructuring will not be implemented until all conditions, including receipt of European Commission State Aid approval, are met. The company has put a back-stop date of 31 January 2005 for the restructuring to be completed, although it is expected to be implemented before then.
  640W
  If the Government are not satisfied that British Energy will be viable in all reasonable foreseeable conditions, or if there is a material adverse change in British Energy's position, the Government have reserved the right to withdraw its support for the restructuring. The Government remain ready for administration if any of the restructuring conditions are not met.

  Business Investment
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to what she attributes the change in the 2003 business investment forecast between Budget 2002 and Budget 2003. [143427]

  Ruth Kelly:
  I have been asked to reply.

  The reasons for the change in business investment forecasts between Budget 2002 and Budget 2003 are clearly set out in Chapter B of the Budget 2003 document (HC500).

  Civil Partnership Bill
  Mr. Foulkes:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether the provisions of the Civil Partnership Bill apply to Scotland. [142626]

  Jacqui Smith:
  The Scottish Executive has stated its preference for the Scottish Parliament to be invited to agree that provisions are included in the Civil Partnership Bill to establish a status of civil partnership in Scotland. The Scottish Executive is currently consulting on its Civil Partnership proposals and a final decision on the preferred legislative route will be made when the consultation has concluded. Including Scottish provisions within a UK Bill will be subject to the agreement of the Scottish Parliament.

  The Government are prepared to include such Scottish provisions in its Bill on this basis.

  The Bill will also make amendments to legislation which is reserved to Westminster and extends to Scotland.

  Directors (Pay)
  Mr. Bellingham:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what research her Department has conducted into the pay gap between male and female directors. [140524]

  Ms Hewitt:
  My Department has not conducted any specific research into the pay gap between male and female directors, however we do know that increases in the pay gap for very high earners drove the increase in the mean full-time pay gap figure last year.

  As a consequence we provided a financial contribution towards the recent research 'The Female FTSE Report 2003' which showed that the number of female directorships currently stands at 101, up by 20 per cent. on last year. We also have a programme of work intended to encourage diversity in the boardroom.
  641W

  East Midlands Development Agency
  Mr. Robathan:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the annual advertising budget of the East Midland's Development Agency was in financial year 2002–03. [140807]

  Jacqui Smith:
  East Midland's Development Agency's advertising costs for 2002–03 were £104,000.

  Electricity Supply
  Mr. Jenkins:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what powers she has to prevent a cut in electricity supply due to severe winter weather. [141889]

  Mr. Timms:
  The market has responded to concerns about a possible shortfall by returning plant to service so that margins are at a similar level to the mid 1990's. However no system can be guaranteed and in the event of a possible power shortage there are a number of steps that NGT could take in order to maintain supplies and avoid rota cuts.

  The Government have robust, and well rehearsed plans, for dealing with extreme circumstances that cannot be dealt with by NGT's normal operating arrangements.

  Fair Trade Products
  Mr. Bercow:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether it is the policy of her 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. [142816]

  Ms Hewitt:
  Departmental policy is to promote the use of fair trade products. However, this is set against the background of the need to obtain best value for money, the EC procurement rules and the Department's objectives. Within these guidelines the Depatment is committed to supporting ethical trading wherever possible.

  Within our main headquarters buildings, fair trade tea and coffee are as a matter of course (a) sold in the Departmental Staff Restaurants and (b) used for receptions and meetings involving staff and visitors.

  Financial Advisers
  Mr. Bellingham:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the development of an international kitemark for financial advisers by the International Standards Organisation. [142846]

  Ms Hewitt:
  The International Organisation for Standardisation (ISO) is developing voluntary standards in the field of personal financial planning. The aim of the standards is to provide an international benchmark for financial planners to work towards and to increase recognition of the financial planning process to ultimately benefit the consumer. The UK member of ISO is the British Standards Institution (BSI) which is independent of Government. The current draft standards are available from BSI for public comment until 4 January 2004.
  642W

  Financial Journalism
  Mr. Bellingham:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on her assessment of the probable consequences of the proposed EU legislation regarding investment services for financial journalism. [142844]

  Ruth Kelly:
  I have been asked to reply.

  Article 6 (5) of the EU's Market Abuse Directive requires member states to adopt appropriate regulation governing the production and dissemination of investment recommendations. The regulation has to ensure that those making investment recommendations or disseminating such recommendations take reasonable care to present the information fairly and disclose any interests or conflicts of interest they have relating to the relevant financial instruments. Recital 22 to the Market Abuse Directive indicates that appropriate regulation in relation to Article 6 (5) can include appropriate mechanisms for self regulation. The technical arrangements for compliance with Article 6 (5) were set out in an implementing measure agreed by the European Securities Committee on 29 October.

  The Treasury will issue a consultation document next year on proposals to transpose the Market Abuse Directive and its implementing measures into UK legislation. At this stage it is expected that the consultation document will outline proposals that journalists either producing or disseminating investment recommendations will be subject to self-regulatory mechanisms. This approach should enable traditional media freedoms in the UK to be maintained while supporting market integrity.

  Food Supplements
  Mr. Stunell:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will list the EU meetings held in 2003 which (a) Ministers and (b) officials from the Department have attended where the maximum permitted level of nutrients in food supplements was discussed; and if she will make a statement. [141412]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien:
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by the Parliamentary Under-secretary of State for Health on 3 December 2003, Official Report, columns 76–77.

  Internet
  Linda Gilroy:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will estimate the number of people over 60 years of age who are connected to the internet. [143524]

  Mr. Timms:
  According to the July 2003 ONS Omnibus Survey, 22 per cent. of people over the age of 60, an estimated 2.7 million, use the internet.

  ISO 9001:2000
  Mr. Sheerman:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how she will ensure that more than the estimated 20 per cent. of United Kingdom companies comply with ISO 9001:2000 before 15 December. [14066]
  643W
  Ms Hewitt:
  My Department does not collect information on companies certified to the ISO 9000 standards. However figures produced by the International Standards Organisation indicate that, in December 2002, there were 60,960 ISO 9000 certifications in the UK. Companies have had three years notice that the transition period for the migration of accredited certification, from the 1994 editions of the standard to ISO 9001:2000, would end on 14 December 2003. My Department has provided information about the new edition on its website. From the information my officials have received from representatives of certification bodies, about 90 per cent. of their UK customers are expected to make the transition successfully by the due date.

  Job Creation
  Malcolm Bruce:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many jobs her Department (a) created and (b) safeguarded in each year since 1997, broken down by (i) local authority region and (ii) region; and what the cost per job was in each instance. [143138]

  Jacqui Smith:
  Information on the Department's principal scheme (Regional Selective Assistance) for job creation and safeguarding is given as follows, by region. Similar information by local authority region is not available.

  Regional Selective Assistance—offers accepted

  Expected jobs

  Region

  New

  Safeguarded

  Average cost per job (£)

  1997–98

  East

  203

  15

  2,092

  East Midlands

  1,782

  843

  3,138

  London

  899

  275

  2,421

  North East

  4,859

  1,000

  3,073

  North West

  6,587

  9,374

  4,945

  South East

  1,694

  75

  3,098

  South West

  1,549

  222

  3,623

  West Midlands

  2,445

  2,777

  6,576

  York./Humb.

  3,340

  1,228

  2,895

  England

  23,358

  15,809

  4,287

  1998–99

  East

  287

  17

  2,174

  East Midlands

  1,386

  321

  4,138

  London

  381

  169

  2,216

  North East

  4,491

  1,225

  4,444

  North West

  4,775

  3,066

  3,515

  South East

  845

  79

  5,222

  South West

  1,130

  1,496

  5,284

  West Midlands

  2,283

  1,701

  8,475

  York./Humb.

  2,806

  1,380

  3,310

  England

  18,384

  9,454

  4,606

  1999–2000

  East

  403

  59

  2,924

  East Midlands

  1,151

  1,498

  3,052

  London

  353

  185

  2,299

  North East

  5,271

  1,413

  4,428

  North West

  6,242

  4,124

  2,925

  South East

  954

  439

  3,251

  South West

  2,626

  641

  1,964

  West Midlands

  3,457

  703

  3,954

  York./Humb.

  4,557

  1,194

  2,291

  England

  25,014

  10,256

  3,152

  2000–01

  East

  290

  221

  3,853

  East Midlands

  1,970

  514

  4,680

  London

  182

  199

  3,010

  644W

  Regional Selective Assistance—offers accepted

  Expected jobs

  Regional

  New

  Safeguarded

  Average cost per job (£)

  North East

  3,857

  4,355

  10,528

  North West

  3,267

  2,056

  3,753

  South East

  822

  342

  2,466

  South West

  2,893

  594

  3,214

  West Midlands

  4,895

  1,086

  6,865

  York./Humb.

  3,698

  943

  6,235

  England

  21,874

  10,310

  6,378

  2001—02

  East

  255

  356

  4,705

  East Midlands

  342

  805

  4,623

  London

  719

  682

  2,827

  North East

  2,329

  1,196

  4,691

  North West

  2,608

  2,175

  3,364

  South East

  1,094

  214

  5,780

  South West

  628

  189

  6,674

  West Midlands

  1,039

  618

  7,780

  York./Numb.

  822

  643

  5,644

  England

  9,836

  6,878

  4,723

  2002–03

  East

  324

  57

  3,147

  East Midlands

  1,665

  414

  3,515

  London

  490

  108

  3,968

  North East

  1,782

  2,054

  6,543

  North West

  2,866

  2,704

  6,496

  South East

  316

  346

  2,689

  South West

  372

  521

  6,562

  West Midlands

  805

  1,618

  4,229

  York./Humb.

  1,826

  1,588

  5,181

  England

  10,446

  9,410

  5,426

  Joined-up Government
  Malcolm Bruce:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will list (a) joint targets and (b) areas of joint responsibility between her Department and each other Government Department. [143141]

  Ms Hewitt:
  The information requested is as follows:

  (a) Joint Targets

  The Department's Public Service Agreement targets from the 2002 Spending Review include the following joint targets:

  PSA Target 1

  Demonstrate progress by 2006 on the Government's long term objective of raising the rate of UK productivity growth over the economic cycle, improving competitiveness and narrowing the productivity gap with the US, France and Germany. "Joint target with HM Treasury"

  PSA Target 4

  (part)…improve the environment and the sustainable use of natural resources, including through the use of energy saving technologies, to help to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 12.5 per cent. from 1990 levels and moving towards a 20 per cent. reduction in carbon dioxide emissions by 2010. "Joint target with Department for Food and Rural Affairs"

  PSA Target 5

  Secure agreement by 2005 to a significant reduction in trade barriers leading to improved trading opportunities for the UK and developing countries. "Joint target with the Department for International Development and Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO)"
  645W
  PSA Target 7

  Make sustainable improvements in the economic performance of all English regions and over the long term reduce the persistent gap in growth rates between the regions, defining measures to improve performance and reporting progress against these measures by 2006. "Joint target with the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and HM Treasury"

  PSA Target 10

  In the three years to 2006, taking account of the economic cycle, increase the employment rate and significantly reduce the difference between the overall employment rate and the employment rate of ethnic minorities. "Joint target with Department for Work and Pensions"

  PSA Target 11

  Deliver a measurable improvement in the business performance of UK Trade & Investment's customers; and maintain the UK as the prime location in the European Union (EU) for foreign direct investment. "Joint target with FCO"

  In addition, "PSA target 10" requires the DTI to work with all departments to bring about measurable improvements in gender equality across a range of indicators.

  (b) Areas of joint responsibility

  The Department has joint working arrangements with a number of government departments across a wide range of its activities. Examples include UK Trade and Investment, a joint DTI/FCO organisation which has as its objective the enhanced competitiveness of companies in the UK through overseas sales and investments and a continuing high level of quality foreign direct investment; the dual support system by which the DTI and DfES provide funding for university research; the enforcement of the National Minimum Wage by the Inland Revenue; and the "business.gov" programme, through which the Small Business Service, a DTI agency, is working with departments and organisations such as Inland Revenue, Customs and Excise and the Health and Safety Executive to develop more joined-up customer-focused services for business.

  Motor Industry
  Mr. Bellingham:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much funding MG Rover has received in total from the Foresight Vehicle LINK programme. [142121]

  Jacqui Smith:
  Since the sale of MG Rover Group in May 2002, MG Rover has received one offer of grant for £62,500 under the Foresight Vehicle LINK programme.

  Overseas Relocation
  Mr. Bellingham:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what research her Department has carried out into the number of United Kingdom firms considering relocating all or part of their operations abroad. [140518]

  Ms Hewitt:
  The Government take the issue of offshoring of UK operations very seriously. However, decisions on location are commercial matters for companies to take. We nevertheless need to understand better what is happening, and to this end we have launched a consultation document inviting views from businesses, employees and their unions, and consumer groups. I will also chair a roundtable seminar in the new year, to help inform the debate on the impacts of offshoring.
  646W

  Post Office Closures
  Mr. Cousins:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what response she is making to the letter from Postwatch of 1 December about the closure of post offices at Cowgate and Felham Hall Drive, Newcastle. [142586]

  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 9 December 2003]I expect Post Office Ltd. to consider carefully the comments and representations by Postwatch and others during the public consultation on the proposed closure of Cowgate and Fenham sub post offices under the Urban Network Reinvention programme. I understand that the consultation period continues until 6 January.

  Renewable Energy
  Mr. Beggs:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what action she is taking to support derogations in support of applications to build new hydro-electric developments; and if she will make a statement; [143196]

  (2) what measures she is taking to support small and medium size companies promoting hydro-electric generating projects. [143197]

  Mr. Timms:
  Output from some hydro-electric generating stations attracts support under the Renewables Obligation (RO), a market driven support mechanism that creates an assured market for renewables generators through to 2027.

  Specifically, hydro generating stations which meet the following criteria qualify for support under the RO:
  hydro stations under 20MW, subject to their fulfilling requirements on refurbishment;
  hydro stations of 1.25 MW or less that were built before 1990 that have always been in private ownership are eligible for the Obligation without having to refurbish;
  all other stations up to a maximum capacity of 20MW and built before 1990 must refurbish to qualify;
  all new stations commissioned after April 2002 will qualify.

  Since the introduction of the RO, evidence shows an increase in the number of new hydro and refurbished hydro stations coming online. This year three new small hydro developments have received consent and a further eight applications are currently under consideration.

  Grants are also available for small community or household schemes under the Clear Skies initiative.

  Science and Society Directorate
  Sue Doughty:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the (a) composition, (b) budget and (c) activities of the Science and Society Directorate. [143542]

  Ms Hewitt:
  As part of Office of Science and Technology the role of the Science and Society Directorate is an overarching, strategic cross departmental one, working with partners to identify and tackle major issues and to provide fresh evidence, insights, approaches and solutions.

  The Directorate was established in July to contribute to driving up UK productivity and competitiveness by improving the work of the Government on: ensuring

  647W
  young people are equipped to engage with scientific issues as active citizens of the future; raising public awareness, engagement and support of science; ensuring there is a sufficient supply of scientists and engineers; and promoting the involvement of women and ethnic minorities in science.

  The Directorate includes 13 staff and brings together four teams: the DiverSETy Team, which is currently responding to the Greenfield Report; the Public Engagement Team which works to increase public awareness of the role of science in society and everyday life; the Science in Schools Team, which works with external interests to deliver activities into schools that enhance the curricula; and the Supply of Scientists Team, which is focusing on responding to the Roberts Review.

  Purpose of secondment

  Reimbursement to the Department (£)

  Cost to the Department

  A developmental opportunity to increase knowledge of environmental issues in the energy sector

  16,062 per year

  Nil

  A developmental opportunity to increase knowledge of the financial services sector.

  45,523 per year

  Nil

  A developmental opportunity to gain first-hand experience of sales and marketing in a large plc.

  Net cost nil. The Department remains responsible for the secondee' s salary costs during the secondment, but in return the Department receives a secondee from the host organisation

  A developmental opportunity to increase business awareness by working in a large plc.

  Net cost nil. The Department remains responsible for the secondees's salary costs during the secondment, but in return the Department receives a secondee from the host organisation

  A developmental opportunity to increase knowledge of the international nuclear energy business.

  Net cost nil. The Department remains responsible for the secondee's salary costs during the secondment, but in return the Department receives a secondee from the host organisation

  In addition, we also run a programme of one week attachment—the "Week in Business" scheme for Senior Civil Servants. The aim of the "Week in Business" short-term external attachment scheme is to help the Department to become more outward facing with a greater understanding of the issues facing our external stakeholders. It is also key in helping members of the SCS to gain experience of different ways of working so that good practice can be adopted internally.

  The scheme is also a mens of promoting the DTI to our external customers and making them more aware of how the Department operates and what we can offer.

  Stamps
  John Thurso:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) how many (a) first and (b) second class stamps have been sold in (i) the UK and (ii) Scotland in each year since 1999; [144078]

  (2) how many (a) first and (b) second class Scottish definitive stamps have been sold in Scotland in each year since 1999; [144079]

  (3) how many (a) post offices and (b) retail outlets sell stamps in Scotland; [144080]

  (4) what estimate she has made of the cost of making the (a) first and (b) second class Scottish definitive stamps available in book format for sale at (i) post offices and (ii) retail outlets in Scotland. [144083]
  648W
  The Directorate is responsible for the oversight of direct expenditure of £7 million this year.

  Secondments
  Malcolm Bruce:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the purpose was of each secondment of a departmental employee to a company since May; what recompense the company made to the Department for the secondee; what the cost of the secondee to the Department was over the period of the secondment, including wages and pension contribution; and if she will make a statement. [143210]

  Ms Hewitt:
  Since May 2003, we have seconded five members of DTI to companies for a period of three months or more. The information requested is as follows:

  Mr. Timms:
  These are operational matters for Royal Mail Group plc. I have therefore asked the Chief Executive of Royal Mail to reply direct to the hon. Member.

  Steel Tariffs (USA)
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment she has made of the costs incurred by UK industry arising from the decision by the US Administration to impose tariffs on steel in March 2002. [140945]

  Ms Hewitt:
  UK steel exports to the US fell significantly following the March 2002 decision. The impact on the UK industry was lessened to an extent by a number of decisions by the US to exclude particular products from the scope of the safeguard, and by the adoption by the EU of a mechanism to prevent surges of imported steel from third countries. These decisions, which followed lobbying by the Government in support of the steel industry, brought 74 per cent. of UK steel exports to the US outside the scope of the safeguard. However, the impact of the US measures continued to be negative and we therefore welcome the 5 December decision by President Bush to lift the US tariffs. This was a course of action that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister strongly urged the President to take during his visit to London.
  649W

  Swan Hunter
  Mr. Hancock:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what (a) applications have been made and (b) assistance has been granted for (i) Regional Selective Assistance and (ii) other Government grants by Swan Hunter in respect of its operations on Tyneside and Teesside since 1 January 2000. [143308]

  Jacqui Smith:
  The information requested is as follows.

  (i) For reasons of commercial confidentiality under Exemption 13—Third Party Commercial Confidences of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information. I cannot comment on whether or not individual Regional Selective Assistance (RSA) applications have been made.

  Details of approved RSA projects over £75,000 (name of business, offer amount, Travel to Work Area and Standard Industrial Classification description) are published quarterly in Labour Market Trends following the first payment of grant.

  (ii) No other applications from or grants to Swan Hunter to assist its operations at Tyneside and Teesside since 1 January 2000 have been identified from available records.

  Mr. Hancock:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what applications have been made for (a) Regional Selective Assistance, (b) other Government grants and (c) European funding in respect of Swan Hunter's Port Clarence facilities. [143309]

  Jacqui Smith:
  The information requested is as follows.

  (a) For reasons of commercial confidentiality under Exemption 13—Third Party's Commercial Confidences of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information. I cannot comment on whether or not individual Regional Selective Assistance (RSA) applications have been made.

  Details of approved RSA projects over £75,000 (name of business, offer amount, Travel to Work Area and Standard Industrial Classification description) are published quarterly in Labour Market Trends following the first payment of grant

  (b) and (c) No other applications from or grants to Swan Hunter to assist its operations at Teesside have been identified from available records.

  Unsolicited Emails
  Mr. Bellingham:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps she is taking to harmonise international laws on the sending of unsolicited emails. [142131]

  Mr. Timms:
  The UK is active in international discussions on how to tackle the global problem of unwanted e-mail advertising, both in multilateral fora (such as the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development) and bilaterally with the USA and other national governments. The Privacy and Electronic Communications Regulations, which took effect on 11 December, implement the EU-wide approach in the Directive on Privacy and Electronic Communications (Directive 2002/58/EC) of 18 September 2003.
  650W

  Value for Money
  Malcolm Bruce:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on value for money improvements in her Department for each year from 1997–98 to 2002–03. [143134]

  Ms Hewitt:
  My Department's annual spring Reports contain information on departmental management and public service delivery, including on measures taken to improve efficiency and value for money.

  For the years 1997–98 and 1998–99, value for money and efficiency savings were not reported separately in the Department's annual reports but were contained within the chapters on the Management of the Department.

  During the period covered by the Comprehensive Spending Review (1999–2002), the Department had a strategic efficiency target to achieve savings of 2.5 per cent.of its running costs each year. In 1999–2000 the DTI achieved a saving of 2.6 per cent. of running costs (£10.6 million projected costs of £406.6 million); and in 2000–01 the Department achieved a saving of 4.6 per cent. (£19.3 million on projected costs of £418.8 million).

  The CSR efficiency target was replaced for the 2000 Spending Review period (2001–04) by a Public Service Agreement Target to
  "achieve value for money improvements of 2.5 per cent. a year across the Department",
  which was carried over into the 2002 Spending Review (2003–06). In 2001–02 value for money improvements under this target amounted to 3.79 per cent. The Department's performance for 2002–03 will be reported on in the 2004 Departmental report, which is due to be published in spring 2004.

DEFENCE

  Iraq
  9. Mr. Borrow:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what impact operations in Iraq have had on the future requirement for equipment. [143776]

  Mr. Ingram:
  Operation Telic reinforced the requirement to be able in the future to deploy and sustain armed forces equipped and trained both for warfighting and peace support operations. Operations in Iraq also demonstrated the importance of integrated joint capability. These trends are reflected in the White Paper published last week.

  18. Mr. Hammond:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the security situation in Iraq. [143785]

  Mr. Hoon:
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave earlier today to my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones).

  19. David Taylor:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on his assessment of the security situation in southern Iraq. [143786]
  651W
  Mr. Hoon:
  United Kingdom forces continue to provide an effective security capability in Iraq. Recent operations against smuggling, for example, have been a considerable success and were widely welcomed by the Iraqi people. Our forces are also closely engaged in developing Iraq's own security capabilities so that Iraqis can increasingly take responsibility for their own security. Already more than 10,500 Iraqi police are on patrol in the Multinational Division (South East), and more are being trained; other Iraqi security personnel are guarding vital infrastructure, facilities and coastline.

  22. Mr. Carmichael:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on operations in Iraq. [143789]

  Mr. Hoon:
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave earlier today to my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones).

  Norman Baker:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what his policy is on sending Christmas gifts, donated by charities and other organisations, to British troops in Iraq; and if he will make a statement. [143803]

  Mr. Ingram:
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 8 December 2003, Official Report, column 270W to the hon. Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson).

  Armed Forces
  11. Bob Russell:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what progress he has made in the past three months in filling vacancies in the Army. [143778]

  Mr. Caplin:
  The latest available figures indicate that whole Army trained strength increased by 540 between 1 August 2003 and 31 October 2003.

  Mr. Flight:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many recruits have joined the trained strength of the armed services in each of the last two years. [143346]

  Mr. Caplin:
  I refer the hon. Member to Tri Service Publication 4: United Kingdom Armed Forces Quarterly Press Release which is available in the Library of the House and is updated each quarter.

  Table 4 contains figures for Gains to Trained Strength of UK Regular Forces.

  Mr. Foulkes:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the cost to his Department was of providing school places for children of Service personnel under the Service Education Allowance Scheme in each of the past 10 years. [142991]

  Mr. Caplin:
  The total sums paid annually for boarding and day school fees by the Ministry of Defence in each of the past 10 years are not held centrally.

  I refer my right hon. Friend to the answer I gave him on 3 December 2003, Official Report, columns 67–68W, about the various per child annual rates of Service Education Allowances from 1996 onwards.

  Big Conversation
  Mr. Heald:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence 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
  652W
  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. [143151]

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

  Departmental Land
  Mr. Rosindell:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what action he has taken, and what plans he has, to derive money from land owned by his Department within the UK. [142285]

  Mr. Caplin:
  I refer the hon. Member to the Ministry of Defence Annual Report and Accounts, a copy of which has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Attitude Surveys
  Angus Robertson:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the top 10 answers in the last assessed Army Continuous Attitude Survey to (a) Question 27, (b) Question 35, (c) Question 39d, (d) Question 47 and (e) Question 48; how many respondents' answers agreed with each of the top 10; and if he will make a statement. [143617]

  Mr. Caplin:
  From the latest Army Serving Personnel Continuous Attitude Survey undertaken in December 2002, answers to questions 27, 35, 47 and 48 were expressed in terms of a sliding scale from Very Satisfied to Very Dissatisfied or Very High to Low. The answer to question 39d was a straight Yes or No. Given the nature of the response options to these questions, it is not possible to analyse the data in terms of a "top ten".

  Angus Robertson:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the Army Continuous Attitude Survey last included questions on (a) overstretch and privatisation and contractualisation; for what reason those questions are not included in the latest edition of the Army Continuous Attitude Survey; and if he will make a statement. [143618]

  Mr. Caplin:
  In compiling Continuous Attitude Surveys, questions are assimilated from a range of issues identified by the Army. The latest Army Serving Personnel Continuous Attitude Survey, undertaken in December 2002, included questions on overstretch. So far no direct questions have been asked about privatisation or contractorisation.

  Angus Robertson:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Army personnel answered Scottish to Question Q6a in the last assessed Continuous Attitude Survey, broken down by rank; and if he will make a statement. [143629]

  Mr. Caplin:
  Question 6 in the latest Army Serving Personnel Continuous Attitude Survey, undertaken in December 2002, asked individuals about their nationality. The response options did not include "Scottish" and therefore information is not available to answer this question.
  653W
  Angus Robertson:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many RAF personnel answered Scottish to Question A 16a in the last assessed Continuous Attitude Survey, broken down by rank; and if he will make a statement. [143630]

  Mr. Caplin:
  The most recent issue of the RAF Continuous General Attitude Survey for which results are available covers the period May to July 2003. The number of RAF personnel who answered Scottish to Question A 16a in the last survey, broken down by rank is as follows:

  Rank

  Number

  Aircraftman/woman

  0

  Leading Aircraftman/woman

  0

  Senior Aircraftman/woman

  29

  Junior Technician

  5

  Corporal

  15

  Sergeant

  13

  Chief Technician

  5

  Flight Sergeant

  6

  RAF continuous attitude survey

  B12. 1 numbers responding

  As a percentage of those asked

  B12.2 numbers responding

  As a percentage of those asked

  Strongly Agree

  324

  16.2

  428

  21.4

  Agree

  369

  18.4

  439

  21.9

  Neither agree nor disagree

  176

  8.8

  116

  5.8

  Disagree

  123

  6.1

  17

  0.9

  Strongly disagree

  7

  0.4

  0

  0

  Don't Know/N/A

  17

  0.9

  16

  0.8

  Total not responding to item or survey

  984

  49.2

  984

  49.2

  Total number surveyed

  2000

  100

  2000

  100

  Angus Robertson:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many and what percentage of respondents to the last assessed RAF Continuous Attitude Survey responded (a) Strongly agree, (b) Agree, (c) Neither agree nor disagree, (d) Disagree and (e) Don't know/not

  RAF continuous attitude survey

  B12.5 numbers responding

  As a percentage of those asked

  B12.6 numbers responding

  As a percentage of those asked

  BI2.7 numbers responding

  As a percentage of those asked

  B12.8 numbers responding

  As a percentage of those asked

  Strongly Agree

  92

  4.6

  51

  2.5

  43

  2.1

  62

  3.1

  Agree

  163

  8.1

  72

  3.6

  87

  4.3

  143

  7.1

  Neither agree nor disagree

  314

  15.7

  360

  18

  335

  16.7

  280

  14

  Disagree

  237

  1 1.9

  280

  14

  299

  15

  281

  14.1

  Strongly disagree

  71

  3.5

  78

  3.9

  75

  3.8

  68

  3.4

  Don't Know/N/A

  137

  6.9

  174

  8.7

  175

  8.8

  180

  9

  Total not responding to Item or survey

  986

  49.3

  985

  49.3

  986

  49.3

  986

  49.3

  Total number surveyed

  2000

  100

  2000

  100

  2000

  100

  2000

  100

  Death-in-service Benefits
  Mr. Swire:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what the lump sum death-in-service pay is to widows or widowers for an army corporal; [143021]

  (2) what percentage of an army corporal's final salary is payable to a spouse following death-in-service. [143020]
  654W

  Rank

  Number

  Warrant Officer/Master Aircrew

  4

  Pilot Officer

  0

  Flying Officer

  1

  Flight Lieutenant

  2

  Squadron Leader

  3

  Wing Commander

  0

  Group Captain

  0

  Air Commodore or above

  0

  Total

  83

  Angus Robertson:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many and what percentage of respondents to the last assessed RAF Continuous Attitude Survey responded (a) Strongly agree, (b) Agree, (c) Neither agree nor disagree, (d) Disagree and (e) Don't know/not applicable to questions (i) B12.1 and (ii) B12.2; and if he will make a statement. [143632]

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

  applicable to questions (i) B 12.5, (ii) B 12.6, (iii) B 12.7 and (iv) B12.8; and if he will make a statement. [143633]

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

  Mr. Caplin:
  The current Armed Forces Pension Scheme (AFPS) final salary benefits are not based on individual earnings but on a representative rate of pay for each rank. This means that all those of the same rank with the same length of service retiring in the same year receive the same rate of pension regardless of their actual earnings. The current representative rate of pay for a corporal is £24,678 per annum. The level of death-in-service lump sum paid to a widow or widower of a

  655W
  corporal in the Regular Army depends on length of service and whether the death was attributable to service. Where the cause of death is not attributable, the current lump sum is between £23,938 and £35,907, between 97 per cent. and 146 per cent. of the representative rate of pay. If the death is attributable to service, an attributable gratuity of £11,969 is paid in addition to the non-attributable lump sum; this increases the value of the lump sum as a percentage of the representative rate of pay to between 146 per cent. and 194 per cent. Both the lump sum and gratuity are paid tax-free.

  In addition to the lump sum, the widow of a corporal in the Regular Army would receive a short-term pension which is equivalent to 100 per cent. of the individual's final salary, paid, depending on circumstances, for a period of between 91 and 273 days. When the short-term pension ceases, a long-term pension is paid. The non-attributable widow's pension is 6.5 per cent. of the representative rate of pay where the individual has served for five years; this rises to 24.25 per cent. for 34 or more years' service. The attributable widows pension is 39 per cent. of the representative rate of pay.

  European Union Defence Policy
  Mr. Luff:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent representations he has received from member Governments of NATO about European Union defence policy. [143790]

  Mr. Hoon:
  Discussions are continuing on European Security and Defence Policy with both NATO and non-NATO EU member states. In addition to these bilateral discussions, the North Atlantic Council and the Political and Security Committee meet on a regular basis to discuss ESDP issues.

  Mental Health
  Mr. Keith Simpson:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on what (a) medical, (b) financial and (c) administrative factors the decision to close the Duchess of Kent Psychiatric Hospital in Catterick was based. [143486]

  Mr. Caplin
  [holding answer 11 December 2003]I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 16 October 2003,Official Report, column 324W to the hon. Member for South Dorset (Mr. Knight).

  The decision to close the Duchess of Kent Psychiatric Hospital (DKPH) was taken on clinical grounds.

  Ministry of Defence Police
  Mr. McNamara:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what standard instructions are given to Ministry of Defence police personnel on secondment or assignment to assist the civilian police where the criminal responsibility of senior officers may be the subject of the investigation. [143137]

  Mr. Caplin:
  Ministry of Defence police officers seconded or assigned to assist a Home Department police force are subject to the operational control of that force. It would be for the force in question to issue instructions on the conduct of inquiries.
  656W

  Northern Ireland Veterans
  Mr. Barnes:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what funding is available to support Northern Ireland veterans. [142734]

  Mr. Caplin:
  There is no Ministry of Defence funding specifically for Northern Ireland veterans. MOD funds programmes aimed at preventing Service leavers, which would include those who have served in Northern Ireland, falling into social exclusion and homelessness such as the Single Persons Accommodation Centre for Ex-Services in Catterick, the Armed Forces Project in Colchester and the Joint Services Housing Advice Office. MOD also contributes towards Project Compass, a partnership project in London aimed at assisting homeless veterans back into employment.

  Mr. Barnes:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Northern Ireland veterans he estimates are homeless. [142743]

  Mr. Caplin:
  The number of homeless veterans who have served in Northern Ireland is not known at present. In January 2004, the Ministry of Defence and the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister are planning to begin a study into the extent, causes, impact and costs of homelessness and rough sleeping among ex-Service personnel in England. As part of this study, homeless veterans will be asked about their Service background and operational experience which will include Service in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Barnes:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Northern Ireland veterans are serving prison sentences. [142744]

  Mr. Caplin:
  There are no routine statistics of this kind collected on veterans who have either served in Northern Ireland or who live there. The Home Office Research Development and Statistics Directorate survey, carried out in December 2001 in 76 prisons around the United Kingdom, found that 5.6 per cent. of prisoners were veterans of the armed forces, of which 11 per cent. had been in the Royal Navy, 4 per cent. were in the Royal Air Force and 85 per cent. were in the Army.

  Territorial Army
  Angus Robertson:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many members of (a) independent units and (b) specialist units of the Territorial Army have completed (i) five years, (ii) 10 years, (iii) 15 years and (iv) 20 years of service in each of the last six years in each nation within the UK; and if he will make a statement. [143998]

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

  Vaccinations
  Mr. Hancock:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the vaccines administered to service personnel since 1990 which were not licensed in the United Kingdom at the time of administration; for what there were administered; how many personnel

  657W
  were involved in each case; what follow up checks have taken place; and if he will make a statement. [142884]

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

PRIME MINISTER

  Big Conversation
  Matthew Taylor:
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) how members of the public are being informed they can take part in the Big Conversation; and how Big Conversation events are being publicised; [144242]

  (2) how many members of the public he estimates will respond to the Big Conversation; [144243]

  (3) what proportion of the findings of the Big Conversation will be made public; and in what format; [144244]

  (4) who will be responsible for replying to those who take part in the Big Conversation. [144245]

  The Prime Minister:
  These are matters for the Labour Party.

  Honours
  Mr. Gordon Prentice:
  To ask the Prime Minister how many honours have been returned since January 1997. [142220]

  The Prime Minister:
  Since 1 January 1997 18 people returned the honours they had been awarded to the Central Chancery of the Orders of Knighthood or to my office.

  This compares with almost 18,500 honours granted to people during the same period.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice:
  To ask the Prime Minister how many people refused the offer of an honour in the latest year for which figures are available, broken down by type of honour. [142221]

  The Prime Minister:
  Because of the confidential nature of the honours process individuals are asked in confidence whether they wish to be considered for an honour; it is a matter for them whether they wish to make their decision known publicly.

  The number of people who refuse an honour has consistently been around 2 per cent. of the recommendations that are made each year.

  Ministerial Absence
  David Davis:
  To ask the Prime Minister pursuant to his answer of 8 December 2003, Official Report, column 374W, on ministerial duties, on how many occasions appropriate arrangements have been put in place as a result of the Prime Minister being absent for any reason since May 1997; and what the arrangements were in each case. [144241]
  658W
  The Prime Minister:
  A record of these occasions is not held centrally. However, as the right hon. Member will be aware, when I have been on official visits overseas, for example, the Deputy Prime Minister has deputised for me at Prime Minister's Questions.

  Nuclear Non-proliferation
  Llew Smith:
  To ask the Prime Minister what initiatives he took at the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in Nigeria to raise with his (a) Indian and (b) Pakistani counterparts the prospects of their respective states joining the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty as non-nuclear weapon states. [143511]

  The Prime Minister:
  I discussed issues of mutual concern with Prime Minister Vajpayee in the margins of the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting. However, the question of Indian accession to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty as a non-nuclear weapons state was not raised.

  Pakistan is currently suspended from all Councils of the Commonwealth.

  We regularly press both countries to accede to both the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty.

  Office Space Allocations
  Norman Baker:
  To ask the Prime Minister on what date office space was allocated by his office to accommodate the right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson), what square footage this comprises; what staff support has been made available to the right hon. Member; and if he will make a statement. [143840]

  The Prime Minister:
  Neither office space nor staff support has been allocated or made available to the right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson).

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Tyrie:
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the costs of special advisers for 2002–03 indicating the cost of administrative and secretarial staff. [143379]

  The Prime Minister:
  I refer the hon. Member to the answers I gave to the hon. Member for Croydon, Central (Geraint Davies) on 16 July 2003, Official Report, columns 327–30W.

  The information requested on costs of administrative and secretarial staff is not held centrally.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  Additional Lifetime Earnings
  Mr. Purchase:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what estimate he has made of average additional lifetime earnings accruing to those leaving full-time education at age 19 compared to age 16. [143566]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis:
  There is conclusive evidence that staying in full-time education after the age of 16 increases an individual's lifetime earnings potential. People who have two or more A-levels earn on average

  659W
  15 per cent. more over their lifetime than people who do not, even after allowing for other qualifications gained. The returns to level 3 vocational qualifications typically acquired at ages 16–19 are also significantly positive.

  The vast majority of young people remain in education until at least age 16. However, GCSE achievement rates vary. An individual who gains five or more GCSEs at grades A*-C can expect to earn 25–30 per cent. more than someone who does not achieve this level, again allowing for any other qualifications subsequently gained.

  The document "Education and Skills: The Economic Benefit" published by DfES in May 2003 presents both Government and wider research undertaken into the economic benefits of public provision of education. It highlights the social and economic value of education and skills, from a basic skills level to degree level, in terms of earnings, employment and social benefits.

  City Academies
  Mr. Hoban:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will make a statement on the components of the expenditure on city academies as set out in the table of expenditure by function by the Department in the Winter Supplementary Estimate 2003–04. [143121]

  Mr. Miliband
  [holding answer 9 December 20031 The components of expenditure set out in the table relate to Academies running costs. The main component (set out in the table of expenditure by function contained within the Winter Supplementary Estimate) relates to recurrent costs and covers the general annual grant paid by the Secretary of State to individual Academies. This figure also includes the general administrative expenditure costs incurred by the Department in the running of the programme.

  The second, smaller component relates to amounts paid to Academies by local education authorities in respect of the Standards Fund.

  Coalfield Communities
  Adam Price:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will make a statement on the levels of educational attainment in the UK coalfields, and on Government action to improve them. [142946]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis:
  In England, the increase in levels of educational attainment in coalfield areas since 1998, reflects that of England as a whole. In addition we are

  Table (a) St. Helens South

  Revenue (£)

  2001–02

  2002–03

  2003–04

  Capital (£)

  Round

  Sure Start local programme

  Year of approval

  Allocation

  Spend

  Allocation

  Spend

  Allocation

  Spend to date

  Allocation

  Claim to date

  4

  Fourways

  5/9/2001

  102,691

  102,691

  382,400

  332,170

  594,200

  253,115

  1,000,000

  0

  5

  Happy Elephant

  27/6/2002

  0

  83,652

  365,069

  281,417

  539,914

  405,695

  1,000.000

  11,500

  6

  Phoenix

  6/5/2003

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  560,000

  0

  1,000,000

  0

  Total funding

  102,691

  186,343

  747,469

  613,587

  1,694,114

  658,810

  3,000,000

  11,500

  Notes:

  1. Local programmes are allocated funds at the beginning of each financial year based on their delivery plan.

  2. Programmes claim grant quarterly using the Sure Start Unit's online claims system.

  3. n/a denotes that the programme was not operational in that year.
  660W
  already seeing evidence that the gap between attainment in coalfield areas and non-coalfield areas is beginning to close.

  DIES is committed to working closely with other Departments in order to develop a package of support for former coalfield areas. We know that coalfield areas have suffered from low levels of educational attainment and we have a range of targeted initiatives to raise attainment. We are succeeding in raising aspirations and attainment though policies that aim to ensure that all learners attain the highest standards, regardless of where they live.

  DfES also works closely with all the key coalfield organisations such as Coalfield Communities Campaign (CCC), Coalfields Regeneration Trust (CRT), Coal Industry Social Welfare Organisation (CISWO) and Coalfield Learning Initiative Partnership (CLIP) to improve our targeting and tackle problems.

  Mr. Woodward:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what funding his Department has allocated in each year to the Sure Start programme since its establishment; and how it has been spent in (a) St. Helens South, (b) St. Helens, (c) Merseyside and (d) the North West Region. [141475]

  Margaret Hodge:
  The total annual budget (capital and revenue) allocated to Sure Start local programmes since the policy was established has been as follows:

  £ million

  1999–2000

  84

  2000–01

  184

  2002–02

  184

  2002–03

  449

  2003–04

  1355

  1 Grant has been re-profiled to take account of previous year's rate of spend Individual programmes have been established through six planning rounds. In each round, eligible local authority districts were invited to identify a catchment area and set up a programme. The resulting programme has been provided with an indicative annual revenue profile and a single capital allocation to develop necessary facilities.

  524 local programmes are being developed across the country. Of these, 108 are in the north-west of England—26 in Merseyside. The St. Helens district has five programmes of which three are in St. Helens South.

  The financial information requested for the northwest region is set out in the following table. Information is drawn from local programmes' grant letters and their audit certificates as well as the Sure Start Unit's finance and performance monitoring IT system. Explanatory notes are attached at the end of each table.
  661W
  4. Where there is spend against a nil allocation, this indicates start up or advance payments, which are anticipated from the first financial year of operation.

  5. Claims for the 2003–04 financial year are still on-going—£0 indicates that a claim has either not been made or is in the process of being made.

  6. Capital funding for Sure Start local programmes is normally a single allocated sum from which programmes draw down funds for particular projects. As programmes do not make regular claims, this has been shown as spend (or claims) to date. Programmes are encouraged to use their capital allocation within 3–5 years of their delivery plan being approved.

  Table (b) St. Helens

  Revenue (£)

  2000–01

  2000–02

  2000–03

  Round

  Sure Start local programme

  Year of approval

  Allocation

  Spend

  Allocation

  Spend

  Allocation

  Spend

  1

  Parr1

  120/1/2000

  519,000

  300,600

  547,000

  405,079

  694,950

  624,509

  4

  Fourways

  5/9/2001

  n/a

  n/a

  102,691

  102,691

  382,400

  332,170

  5

  Happy Elephant

  27/6/2002

  n/a

  n/a

  0

  83,652

  365,069

  281,417

  5

  Central Link

  6/9/2002

  n/a

  n/a

  0

  98,660

  323,129

  189,236

  6

  Phoenix

  6/5/2003

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Total funding

  519,000

  300,600

  649,691

  690,082

  1,765,548

  1,427,332

  Revenue (£)

  2003–04

  Captial (£)

  Round

  Sure Start local programme

  Year of approval

  Allocation

  Spend to date

  Allocation

  Claim to date

  1

  Parr1

  20/1/20001

  755,170

  413,914

  1,250,000

  15,700

  4

  Fourways

  5/9/2001

  594,200

  253,115

  1,000,000

  0

  5

  Happy Elephant

  27/6/2002

  539,914

  405,695

  1,000,000

  11,500

  5

  Central Link

  6/9/2002

  519,094

  202,392

  1,000,000

  0

  6

  Phoenix

  6/5/2003

  560,000

  0

  1,000,000

  0

  Total funding

  2,968,378

  1,275,115

  5,250,000

  27,200

  1 Sure Start Parr was approved in financial year 1999–2000 but because of late approval, spend was negligible in that financial year.

  Notes:

  1. Local programmes are allocated funds at the beginning of each financial year based on their delivery plan.

  2. Programmes claim grant quarterly using the Sure Start Unit's online claims system.

  3. n/a denotes that the programme was not operational in that year.

  4. Where there is spend against a nil allocation, this indicates start up or advance payments, which are anticipated from the first financial year of operation.

  5. Claims for the 2003–04 financial year are still on-going—£0 indicates that a claim has either not been made or is in the process of being made.

  6. Capital funding for Sure Start local programmes is normally a single allocated sum from which programmes draw down funds for particular projects. As programmes do not make regular claims, this has been shown as spend (or claims) to date. Programmes are encouraged to use their capital allocation within 3–5 years of their delivery plan being approved.

  Table (c) Merseyside, including St. Helens

  Total funding (£)

  Number of programmes—(26 across six rounds) Revenue

  2000–01

  Allocation

  2,871,232

  Spend

  1,595,000

  2001–02

  Allocation

  5,228,760

  Spend

  3,678,612

  2002–03

  Allocation

  9,390,882

  Spend

  8,213,327

  2003–04

  Allocation

  15,999,058

  Spend to date

  5,773,821

  Capital

  Allocation

  27,199,839

  Spend to date

  3,765,510

  662W
  Note:

  1. A few round 1 programmes were approved at the end of the financial year 1999–2000 but, given the late start, spend in that financial year was negligible.

  Table (d) North West

  Total landing (£)

  Number of programmes—(108 across six rounds) Revenue

  2000–01

  Allocation

  n/a

  Spend

  n/a

  2001–02

  Allocation

  22,770,182

  Spend

  15,379,256

  2002–03

  Allocation

  33,630,120 audits

  Spend

  pending

  663W

  Table (d) North West

  Total funding (£)

  Number of programmes—(108 across six rounds) Revenue

  2003–04

  Allocation

  72,175,410

  Spend to date

  14,417,816

  Capital

  Total allocation

  110,944,324

  Spend to date

  45,800,000

  Notes:

  1. We are unable to provide an accurate picture of the overall revenue spend for the North West region as a whole for financial year 2000–01 because data processes were not set up to collect this information on a regional basis until 2001–02.

  2. Audit certificates for the financial year 2002–03 are still being submitted to the Sure Start Unit from some of the North West programmes and therefore spend figures for the region as a whole are unavailable at present.

  3. The capital spend to date figure refers to the total value of capital projects approved to date, which programmes are able to draw down. The actual amount claimed to date is £15.3 million. The discrepancy is due to building work not being completed (and so not claimed for) or accountable bodies funding work and not yet claiming it back.

  Education Projects (St. Helens)
  Mr. Woodward:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) if he will list the capital projects which (a) have been completed and (b) were in progress in St. Helens in each year since 1997; [141279]

  (2) what capital expenditure there was on (a) education as a whole, (b) nursery schools, (c) primary education and (d) secondary education in (i) St. Helens, (ii) Merseyside and (iii) the North West Region, in each year since 1992. [141470]

  Mr. Miliband:
  We hold details only of total capital allocations made to (i) St. Helens, (ii) Merseyside and (iii) the North West. We do not hold the other information requested as the bulk of capital investment for school buildings is allocated to local education authorities and to schools. Capital funding allocated to St. Helens, Merseyside and the North West is set out in the following table:

  Capital allocations (£000)

  St. Helens

  Merseyside

  North West

  1996–97

  2,286

  14,823

  66,532

  1997–98

  1,818

  23,826

  70,166

  1998–99

  3,244

  31,119

  99,517

  1999–2000

  3,802

  33,725

  127,927

  2000–01

  6,603

  202,210

  234,131

  2001–02

  5,562

  55,150

  220,608

  2002–03

  10,234

  61,114

  242,917

  2003–04

  7,152

  73,057

  334,065

  Mr. Woodward:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills which projects have been (a) wholly and (b) partly funded by his Department in St. Helens since 1997; when each project was announced; when it started or was expected to start; what funding was provided by (i) Government and (ii) a third party; what third party 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. [141276]
  664W
  Mr. Miliband:
  We do not hold the information requested as the bulk of capital investment for school buildings is allocated to local education authorities and to schools. Capital funding allocated to St. Helen's LEA is set out in the following table:

  Capital funding allocated to St. Helen's LEA

  St. Helen's LEA capital allocations

  Total (£000)

  1996–97

  2,286

  1997–98

  1,818

  1998–99

  3,244

  1999–2000

  3,802

  2000–01

  6,603

  2002–02

  5,562

  2002–03

  10,234

  2003–04

  7,152

  Foundation Courses
  Chris Grayling:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what estimate he has made of the average cost of each place on a foundation degree course in the current academic year. [143652]

  Alan Johnson:
  The Higher Education Funding Council for England funds honours degree and foundation degree courses on the basis of a formula which varies according to subject, institution and student factors. The funding is allocated to institutions as a block grant and how they allocate it is for them to determine. Institutions also receive funding from other sources, both public and private and may use it to subsidise some courses or faculties. The actual cost may therefore vary between institutions and subjects.

  Further Education Colleges
  Mr. Mahmood:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what assessment he has made of the effect of the proposals contained in the White Paper, "The Future of Higher Education", on further education colleges which provide higher education courses; and if he will make a statement. [143640]

  Alan Johnson:
  The Higher Education Funding Council for England has recently run a bidding round for additional student numbers for foundation degrees. Further education colleges (FEC) have been invited to bid for those places in collaboration with higher education institutions, Sector Skills Councils and Regional Development Agencies. An announcement on the outcomes of this bidding round will be made early next year.

  I have asked the Chief Executives of the Higher Education Funding Council and the Learning and Skills Councils to work together to reduce the bureaucracy faced by further education colleges that provide courses of higher education. I expect them to produce a consultation paper by early 2004.

  The Quality Assurance Agency, Ofsted, and the Adult Learning Inspectorate have recently piloted a parallel review and inspection of a FEC, which should reduce burden and bureaucracy for the FEC. The agencies are currently evaluating the success of this pilot and will provide a report to me early in the New Year.
  665W
  White Paper Commitment

  Foundation degrees will often be delivered in further education colleges and we will build and strengthen the links between further and higher education, to give students clearer progression pathways and support the development of work-based degrees. As part of this, we will streamline the funding regimes to make collaboration easier.

  GCSEs
  Mr. Gibb:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills in how many schools fewer than 20 per cent. of pupils achieved (a) qualifications equivalent to five GCSEs at grade A* to C and (b) five GCSEs at grades A* to C in each year between 1996 and 2002; and what his estimate is for each year from 2003 to 2006. [142989]

  Mr. Miliband:
  The number of schools with fewer than 20 per cent. of pupils who achieved five or more grades A* -C at GCSE and GNVQ combined is:

  Academic year

  Number of schools with less than 20 per cent. Of pupils achieving 5 + A* -C at GCSE/GNVQ

  19961

  384

  1997

  361

  1998

  325

  1999

  277

  2000

  241

  2001

  196

  2002

  157

  1 1996 figures includes GCSE results only, GNVQs commenced in 1997.

  The number of schools with fewer than 20 per cent. Of pupils who achieved five or more grades A*—C at GCSE only is:

  Academic year

  Number of schools with less than 20 per cent. Of pupils achieving 5+ A* -C at GCSE only

  19961

  384

  1997

  368

  1998

  339

  1999

  312

  2000

  279

  2001

  245

  2002

  240

  1 1996 figures includes GCSE results only, GNVQs commenced in 1997.

  The number of schools where fewer than 20 per cent. of pupils achieved five or more GCSEs at grade A* to C or the equivalent has dropped significantly year-on-year since 1996, and we are confident the efforts of pupils, schools and LEAs mean that this trend will continue. Through increasing use of contextualised pupil-level data, our Advisers are working closely with schools and LEAs to ensure that every pupil's chances of exam success are maximised. This work has a particular focus on narrowing the attainment gap between the lowest performing schools and the highest.

  Higher Education
  Mr. Steinberg:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the limit of parental income
  666W
  would be beyond which students would receive no financial assistance under the Government's proposals for higher education funding. [142999]

  Alan Johnson:
  All students, regardless of their family income, will be eligible for some financial assistance under the Government's proposals. The non-means tested element (75 per cent.) of the maintenance loan will continue to be available to all students, while the remaining 25 per cent. will be linked to family income. We do not intend to means-test loans for fees, which are to be introduced from 2006–07. Additional support will. as now, be available on a means-tested basis in the form of tuition fee remission and, from 2004–05, a new higher education grant will be introduced for those from poorer backgrounds. This financial assistance is in addition to existing targeted support for specific groups such as disabled students or student parents.

  Leadership and Management
  Mr. Hoban:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what initiatives the Department has introduced to improve (a) leadership and (b) management skills in schools; and what assessment he has made of their effectiveness. [141952]

  Mr. Miliband
  [holding answer 4 December 2003]We set up the National College for School Leadership in November 2000 to deliver a wide range of professional development and leadership training opportunities for headteachers, aspiring headteachers and other school leaders at every stage of their careers, including middle managers. Ofsted regularly inspects the effectiveness of school leadership and management and from September this year introduced a new framework for inspecting these skills more rigorously. In June this year Ofsted reported that the proportion of schools with very good or excellent leadership and management has more than doubled since 1996–97. In his statement to this House on 29 October about school funding, the Secretary of State announced that KPMG had been commissioned to work with NCSL and headteacher associations to design and develop a varied menu of support and guidance to help schools' budget and resource management. In the remaining months of the current financial year £1.5 million is being made available for this programme which includes a website, workshop, helpdesk and consultancy.

  Leadership Initiative Payments
  Mr. Kidney:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will list the schools that have received leadership initiative payments. [143130]

  Mr. Miliband:
  The list of the 1406 schools eligible for the Leadership Incentive Grant is available on the DfES Standards website at www.standards.dfes.gov.uk/schoolimprovement

  Music Lessons
  Helen Jones:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what steps he is taking to ensure that musical instrument lessons are available to all pupils who wish to benefit from them; and if he will make a statement. [143489]
  667W
  Mr. Miliband
  [holding answer 11 December 2003]We have pledged that, over time, all primary school pupils who want to should have the opportunity to learn a musical instrument. Ofsted are currently evaluating 12 pilots that aim to demonstrate how schools, LEA Music Services and other providers can work together to offer a programme of wider musical opportunities which builds on the National Curriculum for Music. We will publicise the results of this evaluation in the New Year, along with some new guidance from QCA on how teachers can incorporate instrumental tuition into their classroom work.

  In addition, the Department continues to support LEA Music Services. Almost £60 million a year goes to LEAs via the Music Standards Fund, which can be spent in any way which enhances opportunities for pupils to access musical education of high quality, including instrumental tuition.

  National Learner Satisfaction Survey
  Mr. Mahmood:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what assessment he has made of the National Learner Satisfaction Survey published by the Learning and Skills Council in November; and if he will make a statement. [143643]

  Alan Johnson:
  The result of the 2002–03 National Learner Satisfaction Survey, commissioned by the Learning and Skills Council, is excellent news. It shows that learners' needs and aspirations are being met, with more than 90 per cent. overall satisfied with their learning experience. This important customer feedback, taken with other measures of quality we have put in place, is an important indicator against which to judge the success of the learning and skills sector.

  Qualified Teachers
  Mr. Willis:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will make a statement on the number of qualified teachers in schools. [143416]

  Mr. Miliband
  [holding answer 11 December 2003]In January 2003, there were 408,400 full-time equivalent regular teachers with Qualified Teacher Status employed in the maintained schools sector in England. That is 12,200 more than in January 1997 and the most at anytime since January 1984.

  Pupil Behavioural Programmes
  Mr. Hoban:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how much has been spent by his Department on pupil behavioural programmes in each year since 1997. [141732]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  [holding answer 3 December 2003]: Since 1997 the DfES has provided funding for a range of activities related to pupil inclusion and disaffection, including behaviour and attendance. The Standards Fund has been the main channel for such funding. The following table shows relevant DIES grants to LEAs made through the Standards Fund or its predecessor from 1997–98 to 2002–03. It excludes LEA contributions. These funds were spent on a wide range of measures and services including Learning Support Units, Pupil Referral Units and Education Welfare Officers.
  668W

  £ million

  1997–98

  10.4

  1998–99

  11.4

  1999–2000

  28.5

  2000–01

  69.1

  2001–02

  85.9

  2002–03

  84.5

  In 2002–03 the DfES also provided £50 million for targeted schools through the Behaviour Improvement Programme. Building on that, we will be providing over £150 million in 2003–04 to support schools and LEAs in improving behaviour and attendance.

  Research Funding
  Helen Jones:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what assessment he has made of the effect on the development of the North West regional economy of the revised distribution mechanisms for university research funding; and if he will make a statement. [143452]

  Alan Johnson:
  Research funding is allocated to institutions according to quality and volume, using the results of the Research Assessment Exercise. There is no regional element. In 2003–04 the North West region received £108 million in quality-related research funding, an increase of over £9 million on the previous year.

  The recent consultation on research assessment, carried out by the Higher Education Funding Council for England and the other UK higher education funding bodies, received over three hundred responses from higher education institutions and sector stakeholder bodies. The higher education funding bodies are considering the responses and are expected to make an announcement about a new system of assessment and funding distribution early in the New Year.

  School Buildings
  Mr. Willis:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many school buildings in use were built before 1975; and where these are situated. [141665]

  Mr. Miliband
  [holding answer 9 December 2003]: Our categorisation of LEA asset management plan data returns allows buildings constructed up to and including 1976 to be separately identified. The total number of separate school buildings (excluding temporary buildings) within this category, for which information has been provided, is approximately 52,000. This large number reflects the fact that many schools have several buildings of different age categories on their sites. The LEA/school number codes for each building on the attached spreadsheets indicate where they are situated. In view of the large size of the analysis document, it has been made available on the DfES web site at: www.teachernet.gov.uk/amps

  School Trips
  Mr. Goodman:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills whether schools are obliged to publish risk assessments in relation to school trips. [143534]
  669W
  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  [holding answer 11 December 2003]: The Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 require employers (local education authorities for most schools in England) to tell employees about the measures taken to manage risk. There is no requirement to publish the risk assessment.

  Science Examinations
  Malcolm Bruce:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many (a) girls and (b) boys sat examinations in science subjects at (i) A Level and (ii) AS Level in each year since 1997; and what the pass rate was in each case. [143147]

  Mr. Miliband:
  Information requested has been placed in the Library.

  SEND Tribunal System
  Mr. Andrew Turner:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the cost to public funds of the Special Educational Needs and Disability tribunal system was in the last year for which information is available (a) in total, (b) per case dealt with and (c) per application. [143669]

  Margaret Hodge
  [holding answer 11 December 2003]: The total cost of the SEN and Disability Tribunal (SENDIST) for the year 2002 to 2003 was £4,715,000 plus £1,252,000 central overheads giving a total of £5,967,000. 3,445 appeals were registered during that period, giving a cost of £1,732 per appeal. 3,780 appeals were received, giving a cost per appeal received of £1,578.

  Skills Agenda (West Midlands)
  Mr. Jenkins:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills who is responsible for the Skills Agenda for the West Midlands region. [143219]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis:
  There are a number of different agencies responsible for delivering different aspects of the skills agenda in the West Midlands. This reflects the wide range of national, regional and local bodies involved in the Government's national skills strategy. The strategy aims to integrate existing structures and focus them more effectively through stronger partnerships at national and regional level.

  At regional level, we have asked each Regional Development Agency to work with delivery partners to create a Regional Skills Partnership. These will bring together the Learning and Skills Council, the Small Business Service, Jobcentre Plus, the Skills for Business network, Government Offices and others with an important regional perspective. Regional Skills Partnerships will address regional economic competitiveness and deliver the agenda set out in the Skills Strategy for their region.

  Streaming
  Mr. Gibb:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will make a statement on the educative value of ability grouping for English lessons. [142988]
  670W
  Mr. Miliband:
  A review of research conducted by the National Foundation for Educational Research (NFER) in 1998, concluded that there are no significant differences between ability grouping, setting, mixed ability teaching and streaming in terms of outcomes, and that the overall effects are inconclusive. However, the review suggested that it is possible to identify a list of benefits and limitations for the main kinds of grouping at the level of the institution, teacher and pupil.

  Pupil grouping by ability is not mandatory for English lessons. It is for schools to develop and determine for themselves, the best form of pupil grouping to meet the learning needs of all their pupils. To support this, both the Primary and the Key Stage 3 National Strategies in English have produced a range of resources for schools to use in meeting the needs of their pupils, particularly those below the expected levels. This allows schools the flexibility of being able to provide for their pupils whole class teaching; short-term optional modules suited to needs and abilities; within class pupil grouping for better differentiation of teaching; mentoring, booster and master class arrangements.

  Student Finance
  Mr. Drew:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the average student loan taken out by students from (a) Stroud, (b) the South West Region and (c) England was in each year since 1999–2000. [143105]

  Alan Johnson
  [holding answer 9 December 2003]: The table shows the average full-time income-contingent loan taken out by students in the South West Government Office Region and England.

  Average income-contingent1,2,3 loan taken out by domicile of student-academic years 1999/2000, 2000/01 and 2001/024

  Academic year

  1999/2000

  2000/015

  2001/026

  South West Government Office Region7

  3,240

  3,190

  3,250

  England

  3,180

  3,160

  3,190

  1 Loans available to students who entered higher education from September 1998, excludes the fixed rate loans (£500) for eligible part-time students, introduced in September 2000.

  2 Mandatory award holders, i.e. those eligible for mortgage style loans, made applications for student loans through their education institution; data are therefore not available for these students.

  3 Data at a level below England have been taken from available data and may include a small number of loans which have been authorised for payment but not paid; England data are only those loans actually paid.

  4 Figures have been rounded to the nearest £10.

  5 The apparent fall in the average value of income-contingent loan taken out in 2000/01 can be explained mainly by the fact that this was the third year of this loan scheme; students on the third year of a three year course will receive the final year rate of loan which is at a lower rate as it does not cover the summer vacation. This effect is not present in 1999/2000 and has been levelled out in the years subsequent to 2000/01. Additionally, this is likely to be the first year in which those students on sandwich courses have their placement year and are therefore in receipt of the reduced rate of loan.

  6 Latest year for which data are available.

  7 Government Office Region of domicile of student.

  671W
  Note

  Data on the average student loan taken out by students from Stroud are not available.

  Source:

  Student Loans Company

  Student Loans
  Mr. Willis:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills whether his Department will continue to repay student loans for teachers of shortage subjects under the Repayment of Teachers' Loans Scheme; and if he will make a statement. [142650]

  Alan Johnson:
  This Department will continue to repay the student loans of teachers who were accepted onto the scheme during the current three-year pilot. A thorough evaluation of the pilot will be undertaken and will inform the decisions on the scheme's future beyond 2004–05.

  Chris Grayling:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what estimate he has made of the total cost of funding the increased student loan book after the introduction of top-up fees in 2006. [143692]

  Alan Johnson:
  The increase in the amount of student loan after the introduction of variable fees will depend on the following factors: the numbers of students entering Higher Education Institutions (HEIs); the level of fees charged by each HEI; and the proportion of students who choose to take out loans to cover the cost of their fees, and the value of such loans. We will make further details available in the New Year in the Regulatory Impact Assessment, which will set out the financial implications of the policies announced in the Higher Education White Paper.

  Workforce Reform
  Mr. Willis:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will make a statement on the paper, "Workforce Reform—Blue Skies". [143417]

  Mr. Miliband
  [holding answer 11 December 2003]: This note by officials was produced without the authority or knowledge of Ministers. It is not policy and will not become policy.

TREASURY

  Cancer
  Mr. Clappison:
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the survival rates were for the most common forms of cancer in (a) the United Kingdom and (b) other members of the European Union in (i) 1997 and (ii) the most recent period for which figures are available. [143724]

  Ruth Kelly:
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician, who has been asked to reply.
  672W
  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. James Clappison, dated 15 December 2003:

  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your recent question concerning the survival rates for the most common forms of cancer in (a) the United Kingdom and (b) other members of the European Union in (i) 1997 and (ii) the most recent period for which figures are available. [143724]

  Comparable information on cancer survival in the European Union is provided by the EUROCARE study. This covers parts of the UK and Europe. The most recently published results from this study are in "Survival of Cancer Patients in Europe: the EUROCARE-2 Study" (IARC Scientific Publications No. 151); a copy is available in the House of Commons Library. These results relate to patients diagnosed with cancer during 1985–89 and followed up to the end of 1994.

  Findings from EUROCARE-3 are currently due to be published in the Annals of Oncology in early 2004. This will provide information on survival up to five years after diagnosis for patients diagnosed with cancer during 1990–94 and followed up to the end of 1999.

  Ethnic Minorities
  Mr. Oaten:
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the size of the ethnic minority population in England and Wales as a proportion of the general population in 2009. [143404]

  Ruth Kelly:
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician, who has been asked to reply.

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. Mark Oaten, dated 15 December 2003:

  As National Statistician I have been asked to reply to your Parliamentary Question on the estimated ethnic minority population in England and Wales as a proportion of the general population in 2009. (143404)

  There are currently no official projections of the ethnic minority population for England and Wales. However, the Office for National Statistics is currently carrying out a research project aiming to produce national and subnational population projections by ethnic group, fully consistent with the official national population projections, using existing data sources.

  Customs
  Mr. Gray:
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) when Customs records relating to regulatory controls on the importation of firearms at Farnborough airport in 1999 were destroyed; how many (a) prohibited firearms were controlled arising from a single flight arriving in March 1999 and (b) non-prohibited firearms were controlled at other times in 1999; and whether the date of March 1999 recorded as the month in which prohibited weapons were controlled at Farnborough has been ascertained from (i) a contemporaneous record and (ii) a secondary record; [143605]

  (2) how many prohibited firearms were surrendered to Customs by passengers who arrived at United Kingdom airports in 1999 on civilian flights in such a manner that the incidents were deemed by Customs not to be irregular. [143673]
  673W
  John Healey:
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave him on 20 November 2003, Official Report, column 1330W. The Customs records referred to in that answer were destroyed in February 2002. The date recorded in relation to the movement of prohibited weapons in March 1999 was obtained from a secondary record.

  All four of the firearms controlled by HM Customs and Excise in the single importation in March 1999 were prohibited within the meaning of the Firearms Act 1968.

  An accurate total of the number of non-prohibited firearms controlled by Customs at other times in 1999 is no longer available, as the only records still in existence are incomplete.

  Information on the numbers of prohibited firearms surrendered at UK airports in 1999 could be provided only at disproportionate cost, and are also likely to be incomplete.

  In accordance with international aviation agreements and Civil Aviation Authority regulations. Customs do not regard importations of prohibited firearms by air passengers as irregular where they are declared by:
  a sky marshal who holds a firearm for the purposes of protecting and aircraft and its passengers;
  a VIP bodyguard;
  a properly authorised UK police officer; or
  any other passenger who is resident in a foreign state and whose possession of that firearm is lawful in that state.

  Customs' normal policy is to require prior notification of the intended arrival of armed sky marshals or bodyguards. Properly authorised police officers may retain possession of their firearms. In other cases Customs detain the firearms and any ammunition, which are then returned to the person on departure from the UK.

  Mr. Gray:
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether Customs facilities at Farnborough airport included red and green physical channels in 1999. [143672]

  John Healey:
  Customs controls at Farnborough airport in 1999 operated on the basis of individual clearance of all the incoming international passengers, rather than use of the red and green Channels system.

  Departmental Procurement
  Mr. Gray:
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much Government Departments spent in procurement (a) from the private sector and (b) from International Business Machines Corporation and its subsidiaries in each year from 1997–98 to 2002–03. [143675]

  Mr. Boateng:
  This information about expenditure by Government departments with suppliers from the private sector, including International Business Machines and its subsidiaries, could only be obtained from individual departments and agencies. They would need to consider the ability to supply such information in consideration of guidance on disproportionate costs.
  674W

  Euro
  Mrs. Liddell:
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will provide an update on euro changeover planning (a) within Government, (b) across the public sector and (c) in other areas of the economy. [143225]

  Ruth Kelly:
  The Seventh Report on euro preparations was published on 18 November 2003. The report sets out progress in euro preparations across the UK economy since the Chancellor's statement to the House of Commons on UK membership of EMU on 9 June 2003.

  EU Trade
  Mrs. Liddell:
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what estimate he has made of the number of jobs in England reliant on trade with the EU in (a) 2003 and (b) each of the past 10 years; [143231]

  (2) what estimate he has made of the number of jobs in Wales reliant on trade with the EU in (a) 2003 and (b) each of the past 10 years; [143253]

  (3) what estimate he has made of the number of jobs in Northern Ireland reliant on trade with the EU in (a) 2003 and (b) each of the past 10 years; [143254]

  (4) what estimate he has made of the number of jobs in Scotland reliant on trade with the EU in (a) 2003 and (b) each of the past 10 years. [143255]

  Ruth Kelly:
  The Treasury estimates that 3 million jobs in the UK are linked, directly and indirectly, to the export of goods and services to the European Union. This figure is based on the assumption that the share of total UK employment associated with UK exports to the EU is equal to the share of total UK value added (GVA) generated by UK exports to the EU. The information necessary to apply the same method to derive comparable estimates for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland is not available.

  Mrs. Liddell:
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what estimate he has made of the value of (a) exports from Northern Ireland to the EU and (b) imports to Northern Ireland from the EU in (i) 2003 and (ii) each of the past 10 years; [143232]

  (2) what estimate he has made of the value of (a) exports from Wales to the EU and (b) imports to Wales from the EU in (i) 2003 and (ii) in each of the past 10 years; [143233]

  (3) what estimate he has made of the value of (a) exports from Scotland to the EU and (b) imports to Scotland from the EU in (i) 2003 and (ii) each of the past 10 years; [143245]

  (4) what estimate he has made of the value of (a) exports from England to the EU and (b) imports to England from the EU in (i) 2003 and (ii) each of the past 10 years; [143246]

  (5) what estimate he has made of the value of (a) exports from the UK to the EU and (b) imports to the UK from the EU in (i) 2003 and (ii) each of the past 10 years. [143252]
  675W
  Ruth Kelly:
  The information is given in the tables:

  Imports and exports by country or region

  Estimates of regional trade with the European Union

  £ million

  1996

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  20031

  Exports to EU

  England

  70,836

  67,937

  69,371

  71,962

  76,613

  77,237

  80,858

  38,460

  Wales

  4,335

  4,171

  4,284

  4,493

  4,884

  4,788

  4,691

  2,361

  Scotland

  9,327

  10,030

  11,363

  11,141

  11,869

  9,690

  9,291

  4,002

  Northern Ireland

  1,687

  1,703

  1,766

  2,155

  2,220

  2,294

  2,171

  1,046

  Imports from EU

  England

  82,070

  82,833

  85,819

  93,076

  95,681

  99,901

  101,763

  51,511

  Wales

  1,334

  1,299

  1,649

  2,005

  2,234

  1,999

  2,376

  1,188

  Scotland

  3,003

  3,288

  3,204

  3,221

  3,539

  3,008

  3,004

  1,341

  Northern Ireland

  1,421

  1,435

  1,463

  1,520

  1,712

  2,009

  2,084

  1,006

  1 January to June.

  Notes:

  1. Figures from the Regional Trade Statistics series are only available from 1996.

  2. The sum of the regions will differ from the UK figures published in the OTS, due to timing and coverage differences.

  Imports and exports to/from the UK

  UK trade with the European Union

  £ million

  Exports to EU— UK (OTS)1

  Imports from EU— UK (OTS) 1

  1993

  63,203

  66,879

  1994

  70,397

  74,793

  1995

  89,054

  93,003

  1996

  95,429

  99,390

  1997

  95,372

  100,105

  1998

  95,087

  102,337

  1999

  97,315

  105,164

  2000

  106,877

  111,128

  2001

  109,123

  115,359

  2002

  109,236

  120,362

  20032

  77,882

  92,600

  1 Overseas Trade Statistics. These figures may differ from those published in the Regional Trade Statistics series.

  2 January to September.

  European Budget Deficits
  Andrew Rosindell:
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the effects on the UK economy of (a) budget deficits in (i) Germany and (ii) France and (b) an average euro zone deficit of 3 per cent. [143551]

  Ruth Kelly:
  The Pre-Budget Report 2003 (Cm6042) forecast for the UK economy takes full account of economic developments in the euro area.

  Financial Services Markets
  Mr. Tyrie:
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the timing of the N2 + 2 review of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000.[143059]

  Ruth Kelly:
  The Government committed to assessing the impact of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (FSMA) on competition two years after it came into force in response to the Cruickshank Report on competition in UK banking.

  The review will have three main strands. First, a review of the impact of FSMA on competition. This assessment will be carried out by the Office of Fair Trading. Second, changes to aspects of the FSA's practices and consideration of changes to the Financial
  676W
  Ombudsman Service. The FSA's practices to be examined include the complexity of the FSA's Handbook of Rules and Guidance and its cost-benefit analyses. On the Financial Ombudsman Service, among the issues to be considered are whether Ombudsman decisions should be subject to some form of appeal. The third strand will consider changes to the boundary of regulation, including in respect of advice or information provided by employers to employees about workplace pensions and by Citizens Advice Bureaux and similar advice centres to their clients.

  I expect all the strands of the two-year review of FSMA to be completed within a year (with the possible exception of the scrutiny by the Office of Fair Trading).

  Further information about the two-year review is in the written statement to Parliament that I made on 4 November 2003, Official Report, column 28WS.

  Home Equity Release Products
  Mr. Gardiner:
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what discussions he has had with consumer groups on the prevention of mis-selling of home equity release products; and what impact the new regulatory structure will have on these efforts; [144334]

  (2) what steps he is taking to improve the collection of Treasury statistics on the number of equity release products taken out each year; [144335]

  (3) what steps are being taken to ensure that the new structure for the regulation of home equity release products allows for the easier collation of statistics on the number of products bought; [144336]

  (4) What plans he has to regulate the valuation of properties for people taking out a home reversion policy. [144339]

  Ruth Kelly:
  Mortgage-based equity release plans (lifetime mortgages) will be regulated by the Financial Services Authority (FSA) with effect from 31 October 2004. The FSA has published a consultation paper (CP 197) that sets out proposed reporting requirements for mortgage, insurance and investment firms. Regulated firms will have to provide product sales data

  677W
  regularly, and in particular, firms will be required to report on the type of product sold and the status of the borrower.

  The Government published their consultation document on home reversion plans on 11 November and responses are due to be received by 13 February 2004. The issue of property valuation is discussed in paragraphs 21–23. My officials have met representatives of consumer bodies to discuss these proposals on a number of occasions.

  Income Tax
  Mr. Stevenson:
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the additional revenue raised in Stoke-on-Trent by increasing the basic rate of income tax by one pence would be. [143876]

  Dawn Primarolo:
  The additional full-year yield of increasing the basic rate of income tax by one pence in Stoke-on-Trent is £7.7 million in 2000–01. This estimate is based upon the 2000–01 Survey of Personal Incomes. The effects of the illustrative changes can be scaled up or down over a reasonably wide range. This result excludes any behavioural response to the tax change.

  Mr. Stevenson:
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the additional revenue raised in Stoke-on-Trent would be if the top rate of income tax were raised to 50 pence in the pound for income over £100,000 per annum. [143877]

  Dawn Primarolo:
  Reliable information on this is not available.

  Inland Revenue Staff
  Mr. Gray:
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many of the Inland Revenue employees transferred from the International Division in 2000–01 had immediately prior to transfer worked as part of the Advisory/Casework Team within the International Division. [143603]

  Dawn Primarolo:
  It would be inappropriate to disclose the information requested as it would facilitate the identification of individual members of staff of the Inland Revenue. Exemption 8(a) of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information applies in this case.

  Iraq
  Mr. Rosindell:
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much the Government have spent on (a) the conflict in Iraq and (b) rebuilding the infrastructure in Iraq to date. [143544]

  Mr. Boateng:
  I refer the hon. Member to paragraph 2.57 of the Pre-Budget Report 2003 (Cm 6042).

  National Statistics
  Dr. Cable:
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the result was of the Treasury's review of pre-release access to National Statistics First Releases and associated briefing; and what changes to (a) procedures and (b) the list of people having access have resulted from the review. [143412]
  678W
  Ruth Kelly:
  The Treasury has not yet formally completed its review of pre-release access to National Statistics First Releases, but certain changes in procedure have already been put in place.

  Penrose Report
  Norman Baker:
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer on what date he received (a) a draft copy and (b)the final copy of the Penrose Report into Equitable Life; when he intends to publish the report; and whether the published version will be in its complete form. [143841]

  Ruth Kelly:
  Treasury Ministers have not received a draft or a final copy of Lord Penrose's report into Equitable Life. Ministers expect that when Lord Penrose does report, he will provide the final version.

  Ministers intend to publish the report as soon as is reasonably practicable following its receipt.

  Publication will be in full if at all possible.

  Pensions
  Kevin Brennan:
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the net cost to the Exchequer caused by short-falls in final salary occupational pension schemes arising from company insolvency since 1997; and if he will make a statement. [143753]

  Ruth Kelly:
  The Pensions Schemes Registry (PSR), administered by the Occupational Pension Schemes Regulatory Authority (OPRA), holds information on the number of final salary schemes which are currently in the winding-up process and the number of schemes which have entered and completed winding-up. The registry database is, however, limited in a number of ways. Consequently, it does not provide all the information requested, though it nevertheless remains the most comprehensive source of information available on the aggregate number of pension schemes in the UK.

  According to the PSR's most recent data, around 1,400 private sector final salary schemes were in the winding-up process at the beginning of September, and around 4,800 private sector final salary schemes have completed winding-up. The data do not permit any further analysis on whether these schemes have commenced/completed winding-up prior to 1997. It is not possible to split the above by whether they are connected to a solvent or insolvent employer. No alternative data source exists to provide this information.

  There will be a cost to the Exchequer from schemes winding up in deficit, from the loss in income tax receipts on pensions and an increase in income related benefits. As regards estimating the cost to the Exchequer, we have not estimated this due to the above data deficiencies.

  Public Expenditure
  Mr. Rosindell:
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much the Government have budgeted to spend on (a) the reconstruction of Iraq and (b) education in the United Kingdom in 2004. [143545]
  679W
  Mr. Boateng:
  The information is as follows:
  (a) At the International Donor's Conference in Madrid in October, the UK Government committed a total of £544 million to support the reconstruction of Iraq over the three years from April 2003. Of this, £296 million will be for the next two financial years, 2004–05 and 2005–06, including bilateral funds and the UK's share of the proposed EU contribution in Iraq.
  (b) Education expenditure in the UK over a very similar period is forecast to be £190 billion (consisting of £58.6 billion in 2003–04, £62.9 billion in 2004–05 and £68.5 billion in 2005–06).

  Public Sector Pensions
  Mr. Gray:
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the actuarial liability estimated for the future payment of public sector pensions was in each year from 1997–98 to 2002–03; and what the value was of the funds existing in each year to meet this liability. [143615]

  Number of deaths and rates1 from suicide and injury undetermined whether accidentally or purposely inflicted2, among adult males (aged 15 years and over) for England and Government Office Regions, 1997–20023

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  Number

  England

  3,477

  3,655

  3,601

  3,387

  3,286

  3,225

  North east

  212

  181

  209

  184

  157

  187

  North west

  551

  608

  552

  519

  498

  456

  Yorkshire and the Humber

  419

  390

  391

  322

  336

  310

  East Midlands

  276

  298

  318

  311

  294

  258

  West Midlands

  342

  376

  409

  367

  372

  370

  East of England

  317

  366

  329

  319

  335

  342

  London

  493

  520

  479

  453

  432

  450

  South east

  528

  573

  550

  547

  512

  521

  South west

  339

  343

  364

  365

  350

  331

  Rate

  England

  18.5

  19.4

  19.0

  17.8

  16.9

  16.5

  North east

  21.5

  18.4

  21.3

  18.8

  15.9

  19.0

  North west

  21.3

  23.5

  21.4

  20.1

  18.9

  17.5

  Yorkshire and the Humber

  22.0

  20.4

  20.5

  16.8

  17.4

  15.9

  East Midlands

  17.1

  18.4

  19.5

  19.0

  17.8

  15.4

  West Midlands

  16.8

  18.4

  20.0

  18.0

  18.0

  17.8

  East of England

  15.3

  17.6

  15.7

  15.1

  15.7

  16.0

  London

  18.8

  19.8

  17.9

  16.7

  14.9

  15.3

  South east

  17.2

  18.6

  17.7

  17.5

  16.2

  16.4

  South west

  17.9

  18.1

  19.0

  18.9

  17.9

  16.8

  1Death rate per 100,000 population

  2The cause of death was defined using the International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision (ICD–9) codes E950–E959 and E980–E989 excluding E988.8 for the years 1990 to 2000, and, for the year 2001 and 2002, the International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision (ICD–10) codes X60–X84 and Y10–Y34 excluding Y33.9 where the coroner's verdict was pending.

  3Figures are for deaths occurring per calendar year.

  Tourism
  Mr. Beggs:
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what definition of tourism he uses for tax purposes. [143193]

  Dawn Primarolo:
  There is no definition of "tourism" for tax purposes.
  680W
  Mr. Boateng:
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary to the Treasury gave to the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) on 7 January 2003 Official Report, column 172W.

  Suicides
  Mr. Burstow:
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the (a) total number and (b) number per 100,000 population of suicides amongst adult males in (i)England and (ii) each region in each year since 1997. [143705]

  Ruth Kelly:
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician, who has been asked to reply.

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. Paul Burstow, dated 15 December 2003:

  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your recent question concerning the (a) total number and (b) number per 100,000 population of suicides amongst adult males in (i)England and (ii) each region in each year since 1997. (143705)

  The most recent available mortality data are for the calendar year 2002. The attached table gives suicide figures for each year from 1997 to 2002.

  Travel Insurance
  Angela Watkinson:
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the impact of Financial Services Authority regulation of travel insurance on (a) business and (b) customers. [143415]

  Ruth Kelly
  [holding answer 11 December 2003]: The Government published a regulatory impact assessment

  681W
  (RIA) on 5 June that covered the costs and benefits of implementing FSA regulation of insurance mediation including travel insurance sold as a standalone product. The RIA is available from the Treasury website www.hm-treasurv.gov.uk.

  Traveller Communities
  Mr. Paice:
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what measures are in place to ensure that members of traveller communities are assessed for income tax and capital gains tax; and what estimate he has made of their level of tax avoidance. [143924]

  Dawn Primarolo:
  The Revenue adopts an approach to managing non-compliance whereby resources are deployed on the basis of risk assessment.

  Weapons Flown Abroad
  Mr. Gray:
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer in what circumstances Customs and Excise seek Civil Aviation Authority approval for flights carrying abroad weapons they have previously confiscated; and how often such approval was sought in respect of flights from Farnborough in 1999. [143886]

  John Healey:
  It is the responsibility of the carrier to determine whether or not the carriage of firearms requires approval from the Civil Aviation Authority under the Air Navigation Order 2000 and, if so, to seek such approval. This applies in cases where Customs have released from control any firearms previously detained on arrival into the United Kingdom. Customs do not collect information on such approvals. Their role is confined to releasing the firearms in such a way as to ensure they are retained on board an aircraft under suitably secure conditions until it departs.
  683W

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Child Poverty
  Linda Perham:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the rate of child poverty is in (a) England, (b) the UK and (c) inner London. [143027]

  Mr. Pond:
  Poverty and social exclusion are complex and multi-dimensional issues, affecting many aspects of peoples' lives-including their living standards, health, housing, the quality of their environment and not just low income. The fifth annual 'Opportunity for all' report (Cm 5956) sets out the Government's strategy for tackling poverty and social exclusion and presents information on the indicators used to measure progress against this strategy.

  Specific information regarding low income for Great Britain is available in "Households Below Average Income 1994/95–2001/02".

  All publications listed are available in the Library.

  Access to Work Scheme
  Malcolm Bruce:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many Access to Work applicants (a) have applied for sign language interpreting support and (b) have been successful since the introduction of the Access to Work scheme; what the average amount of hours of interpreter support awarded has been; and what the average award to people applying for human aids to communication through the Access to Work scheme has been. [140516]

  Maria Eagle:
  The information requested is not routinely collected and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Asbestos
  Mr. Carmichael:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many people have died from asbestos-related diseases in the United Kingdom in each year since 1990; and what estimates his Department has made of the number of likely deaths in future years. [140669]

  Mr. Browne:
  The number of deaths in Great Britain due to mesothelioma and asbestosis each year from 1990 is given in the following table. In addition, it is estimated that for each mesothelioma there are one to two lung cancer deaths due to asbestos.

  Death statistics for mesothelioma and asbestosis for Northern Ireland are not included.
  684W

  Deaths from mesothelioma and asbestosis 1990–2001

  Mesothelioma

  Asbestosis

  1990

  895

  100

  1991

  1,023

  113

  1992

  1,097

  91

  1993

  1,152

  112

  1994

  1,246

  116

  1995

  1,317

  109

  1996

  1,322

  137

  1997

  1,367

  129

  1998

  1,541

  123

  1999

  1,615

  121

  2000

  11,631

  140

  2001

  11,848

  158

  1Provisional.

  Source:

  HSE mesothelioma and asbestosis registers.

  Statistical modelling has been used to estimate the future peak number of mesothelioma deaths among both males and females. The annual total number of mesothelioma deaths in Great Britain is expected to peak at around 1,950 to 2,450 deaths some time between 2,011 and 2,015. It is estimated that the ratio of one to two of the number of asbestos-related lung cancers to the number of mesotheliomas will decrease slightly over time. No estimates have been made of the likely deaths in future years due to asbestosis.

  Assaults on Staff
  Mr. Hancock:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many (a) physical and (b) non-physical assaults there have been on staff in the (i) Employment Service, (ii) Benefits Agency and (iii) Jobcentre Plus in each year since 2001; how many prosecutions resulted; what penalties were handed down; and if he will make a statement. [141504]

  Mr. Browne:
  The administration of Jobcentre Plus is a matter for the Chief Executive of Jobcentre Plus, David Anderson. He will write to the hon. Member.

  Benefits/Pensions
  Mrs. Helen Clark:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will assess the (a) nature and (b) quality of the advice issued by his Department under the Payment Modernisation Project. [143206]

  Mr. Pond:
  The Department's information campaign, to support the move to Direct Payment, provides customers with factual information on the banking options available to them, including information on the Post Office card account.

  This information campaign has been produced in consultation with the Post Office and a range of other stakeholders.

  Customer information material is tested on groups of customers before it is issued. This helps to ensure that customers are supplied with all the information they need to choose the account option that is right for them and that they can understand that information.

  The Department will continue to monitor and evaluate the quality and effectiveness of its customer information material and will make further changes if necessary. Our own internal monitoring suggests that

  685W
  our information material is working well and customers are choosing from all of the account options available to them.

  Mrs. Helen Clark:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many customers have made (a) enquiries about the Post Office card account, (b) received invitations to open an account as a result and (c) opened such an account. [143207]

  Mr. Pond:
  Key figures on the progress of conversion to Direct Payment are available in the Library, updated every four weeks. Information regarding the number of Post Office card accounts opened is a matter that falls within the responsibilities of Post Office Ltd. (POL).

  Mr. Lilley:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how much benefit he estimates was

  Percentage

  Benefit

  North East

  North West

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  East Midlands

  West Midlands

  East of England

  Attendance Allowance (AA)

  37.97

  30.59

  32.31

  32.80

  36.62

  28.67

  Bereavement Benefit (BB)

  33.59

  31.18

  30.43

  23.40

  28.32

  18.35

  Disability Living Allowance (DLA)

  57.81

  53.28

  53.00

  50.01

  53.99

  44.45

  Incapacity Benefit (IB)

  63.01

  58.35

  55.90

  52.25

  53.86

  47.40

  Carer's Allowance (CA)

  79.77

  75.62

  75.45

  71.61

  74.65

  66.44

  Industrial Injuries (II)

  63.77

  62.08

  69.76

  64.19

  67.32

  65.72

  Income Support (IS)

  76.14

  71.60

  71.82

  68.47

  70.56

  64.70

  Jobseeker's Allowance (JSA)

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  Pension Credit (PC)

  79.06

  75.67

  76.37

  73.54

  77.27

  70.80

  State Pension (SP)

  56.60

  50.16

  50.87

  47.50

  48.38

  39.23

  Severe Disablement Allowance (SDA)

  67.33

  64.33

  64.37

  61.05

  62.59

  54.76

  Widows Benefit (WB)

  59.62

  54.15

  53.32

  48.09

  51.70

  41.06

  Total for All Benefits

  60.37

  55.33

  55.18

  51.56

  53.59

  44.63

  Percentage

  Benefit

  London

  South East

  South West

  Wales

  Scotland

  Attendance Allowance (AA)

  36.98

  27.68

  30.29

  37.28

  37.45

  Bereavement Benefit (BB)

  26.78

  17.44

  20.63

  33.39

  30.96

  Disability Living Allowance (DLA)

  48.13

  42.88

  45.57

  55.89

  54.50

  Incapacity Benefit (IB)

  53.87

  47.44

  48.15

  61.86

  62.36

  Carer's Allowance (CA)

  71.06

  65.65

  66.51

  76.11

  76.07

  Industrial Injuries (II)

  56.11

  50.71

  64.47

  77.82

  69.45

  Income Support (IS)

  68.52

  63.07

  64.16

  73.80

  71.40

  Jobseeker's Allowance (JSA)

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  Pension Credit (PC)

  70.75

  66.32

  79.27

  77.30

  State Pension (SP)

  38.23

  35.21

  41.41

  59.43

  48.97

  Severe Disablement Allowance (SDA)

  60.22

  53.43

  56.84

  68.51

  61.57

  Widows Benefit (WB)

  46.70

  37.75

  42.34

  59.34

  55.27

  Total for All Benefits

  46.96

  40.89

  46.14

  61.10

  55.27

  Notes:

  1. Figures relate to payload and not caseload therefore if a claimant is receiving more than one benefit e.g. Pension Credit (PC) and State Pension (SP) but only receives one combined payment through the PC system they will only be shown as having a Pension Credit account and not a State Pension account.

  2. Figures quoted are for GB only.

  Mrs. Helen Clark:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the evidential basis is for the claim in his Department's internal memorandum from the Project Manager for the Payment Modernisation Programme, that paying pensions through Post Office accounts costs 30 times as much as through bank accounts. [143202]

  Mr. Pond:
  The internal memorandum states costs are at least 30 times more for making payments into a Post Office card account than into a bank account. This
  686W
  fraudulently claimed by claimants using false identities in 2002–03. [140565]

  Mr. Pond:
  The Cabinet Office Study on Identity Fraud published in July 2002 estimated that between £20 and £50 million annually of benefit fraud was a result of benefit claims using false identities.

  This estimate remains valid.

  Mr. Cousins:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what percentage of payments in each category of benefit were paid by order book in each region of the UK for the most recent available period. [142421]

  Mr. Pond:
  The figures in the table have been compiled from data available on 1 November 2003 and show the percentage of accounts paid by Order book, broken down by benefit and Government Office Region.

  statement is on the basis that, whereas the financial institutions meet the operating costs of providing their bank accounts, the Government pay additional costs to the Post Office for the provision of the Post Office card account services.

  Mr. Cousins:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will disregard the proposed Child Trust Fund in Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit assessments for claimants over the age of 16. [144003]
  687W
  Mr. Pond:
  We are considering the precise impact on benefits; however, at present, the general principle is that no account is taken of capital held in trust funds until a young person has access to it.

  We are aware of concerns about what would happen when Child Trust Funds are realised when young people reach age 18. We said in the pre-Budget report that we will keep under review the treatment of capital in income related working age benefits so that it strikes a sensible balance between providing targeted state support and not unfairly penalising those who have acted responsibly by saving.

  Big Conversation
  Mr. Heald:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions 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. [143159]

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

  Carers Allowance
  Sir Archy Kirkwood:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many people (a) over and (b) under 65 were entitled to carers allowance but did not receive payment in each (i) Scottish constituency and (ii) local authority area in the last year for which figures are available. [143718]

  Maria Eagle:
  Information on the numbers of people in Scotland entitled to carers allowance, but not receiving payment due to the overlapping benefit regulations, is in the tables.

  People in Scottish local authorities who were entitled to carers allowance but were not receiving payment on 31 May 2003

  May 2003

  Local authorities

  All

  Under 65

  65 and over

  All

  15,155

  8,665

  6,490

  Aberdeen City

  350

  205

  150

  Aberdeenshire

  350

  210

  140

  Angus

  330

  150

  185

  Argyll and Bute

  155

  95

  60

  Scottish Borders, The

  250

  130

  120

  Clackmannanshire

  150

  90

  60

  West Dun bartonshire (previously Dumbarton and Clydeback)

  455

  215

  240

  Dumfries and Galloway

  505

  275

  225

  Dundee City

  720

  320

  400

  East Ayrshire

  430

  250

  185

  East Dunbartonshire

  205

  120

  85

  East Lothian

  250

  135

  115

  East Renfrewshire

  135

  80

  55

  Edinburgh, City Of

  790

  450

  340

  Falkirk

  380

  210

  170

  Fife

  730

  450

  280

  Glasgow City

  2,615

  1,575

  1,040

  Highland

  470

  285

  185

  688W

  People in Scottish local authorities who were entitled to carers allowance but were not receiving payment on 31 May 2003

  May 2003

  Local authorities

  All

  Under 65

  65 and over

  Inverclyde

  300

  195

  105

  Midlothian

  210

  125

  85

  Moray

  170

  95

  75

  North Ayrshire

  385

  250

  135

  North Lanarkshire

  1,215

  790

  425

  Orkney Islands

  25

  15

  10

  Perth and Kinross (previously Perthshire and Kinross)

  320

  155

  165

  Renfrewshire

  490

  285

  205

  Shetland Islands

  25

  20

  5

  South Ayrshire

  365

  195

  165

  South Lanarkshire

  1,255

  755

  500

  Stirling

  215

  135

  80

  West Lothian

  840

  365

  475

  Comhairle nan Eilean Siar (previously Western Isles)

  80

  45

  35

  People in Scottish parliamentary constituencies who were entitled to carers allowance but were not receiving a payment as at 31 May 2003

  May 2003

  Parliamentary constituencies

  All

  Under 65

  65 and over

  All

  15,155

  8,665

  6,490

  Aberdeen Central

  95

  50

  45

  Aberdeen North

  150

  90

  60

  Aberdeen South

  105

  60

  45

  Airdrie and Shorts

  335

  220

  115

  Angus

  220

  100

  120

  Argyll and Bute

  115

  70

  45

  Ayr

  210

  115

  95

  Banff and Buchan

  185

  115

  70

  Caithness Sunderland and Easter Ross

  145

  95

  50

  Carrick Cumnock and Doon Valley

  345

  200

  145

  Central Fife

  190

  120

  75

  Clydebank and Milngavie

  275

  135

  140

  Clydesdale

  370

  220

  145

  Coatbridge and Chryston

  290

  175

  110

  Cumbernauld and Kilsyth

  175

  120

  55

  Cunninghame North

  175

  115

  60

  Cunninghame South

  205

  135

  75

  Dumbarton

  250

  120

  130

  Dumfries

  280

  160

  115

  Dundee East

  335

  145

  190

  Dundee West

  385

  175

  210

  Dunfermline East

  140

  100

  40

  Dunfermline West

  120

  75

  45

  East Kilbride

  265

  135

  130

  East Lothian

  210

  115

  95

  Inverclyde

  300

  195

  105

  Midlothian

  210

  125

  85

  Moray

  170

  95

  75

  North Ayrshire

  385

  250

  135

  North Lanarkshire

  1,215

  790

  425

  Orkney Islands

  25

  15

  10

  Perth and Kinross (previously Perthshire and Kinross)

  320

  155

  165

  Renfrewshire

  490

  285

  205

  Shetland Islands

  25

  20

  5

  South Ayrshire

  365

  195

  165

  South Lanarkshire

  1,255

  755

  500

  Stirling

  215

  135

  80

  West Lothian

  840

  365

  475

  Comhairle nan Eilean Siar (previously Western Isles)

  80

  45

  35

  689W

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. Goodman:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions when he will write to the hon. Member for Wycombe about the Child Support Agency with reference to the debate in Westminster Hall on 12 November. [140902]

  Mr. Pond:
  A letter was sent to the hon. Member for Wycombe on 3 December 2003.

  Mr. Goodman:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on the implications of the appeal by Helena Smith against the Child Support Agency. [141261]

  Mr. Pond:
  The period for appeal against the decision has not yet expired. However, the Agency is issuing guidance to its staff to assist them in handling inquiries arising from the decision.

  Mr. Laurence Robertson:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what account the Child Support Agency takes of court orders when assessing the level of maintenance to be paid by non-resident parents; and if he will make a statement. [141937]

  Mr. Pond:
  Where an application to the Child Support Agency is made as a result of a parent with care claiming a relevant benefit, any court order for the child concerned is cancelled.

  Under the new child support scheme, in non-benefit cases either parent can choose to use the services of the Agency even though they may have a court order. In such cases the court order is cancelled. The new provisions only apply to court orders made on or after 3 March 2003 and provided that the order has been in place for at least a year.

  Court orders for other children may be taken into account when the Agency determines a non-resident parent's liability for child support maintenance.

  Child Support Payments (North-west)
  Mr. Woodward:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many and what proportion of families are entitled to child support payments in (a)St. Helens, (b)Merseyside and (c)the North West region in the last year for which figures are available. [141299]

  Mr. Pond:
  The information is in the table.

  Number and proportion of families entitled to Child Support payments at 30 November 2002

  Number of families (Thousand)

  Total number of Child Benefit families (Thousand)

  Proportion of families entitled to Child Support payments (%)

  St. Helens

  4.6

  22.1

  20.9

  Merseyside

  32.9

  173.6

  18.9

  North West

  148.3

  848.1

  17.5

  Notes:

  1. CSA figures include all full maintenance assessment cases only and include direct pay cases and zero assessments.

  2. CSA figures produced using IAD 5 per cent. scan of Child Support Computer System (CSCS) and therefore may be subject to sampling variation.

  3. Figures are in thousands and rounded to the nearest hundred.

  4. As a family can occasionally be part of more than one CSA case (when a parent with care has children by more than one non-resident parent) these figures represent a small over-estimate.
  690W
  5. The proportion of families entitled to Child Support payments is derived by comparing the number of CSA cases with the number of families in receipt of Child Benefit.

  Council Tax Benefit
  Mr. Gordon Marsden:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what estimate his Department has made of the number of pensioners eligible for council tax benefit in Blackpool. [141362]

  Mr. Pond:
  I regret that the information is not available in the format requested.

  Statistics for Great Britain are presented in the DWP series "Income Related Benefits Estimates of Take-Up". The latest estimates relate to financial year 2000–01 and are in the Library.

  Disability Living Allowance
  John Barrett:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many people in (a) City of Edinburgh local authority area, (b)the Edinburgh West parliamentary constituency, (c) Scotland and (d) the UK are in receipt of (i) the middle rate of disability living allowance care component, (ii) the higher rate of disability living allowance care component and (iii) the higher rate of the disability living allowance mobility component. [142831]

  Maria Eagle:
  The breakdown by area and component of disability living allowance received is outlined in the tables:

  DLA by local authority as at 31 May 2003

  Thousamd

  Edinburgh LA

  All

  18.5

  Highest rate care and higher rate mobility

  3.0

  Highest rate care and lower rate mobility

  0.9

  Highest rate care only

  *0.3

  Middle rate care and higher rate mobility

  3.0

  Middle rate care and lower rate mobility

  2.3

  Middle rate care only

  0.6

  Lowest rate care and higher rate mobility

  1.9

  Lowest rate care and lower rate mobility

  1.0

  Lowest rate care only

  1.3

  Higher rate mobility only

  3.3

  Lower rate mobility only

  0.9

  DLA by parliamentary constituency as at 31 May 2003

  Thousand

  Edinburgh West Parliamentary constituency

  All

  2.6

  Higher rate care and higher rate mobility

  *0.3

  Higher rate care and lower rate mobility

  *0.1

  Higher rate care only

  *0.1

  Middle rate care and higher rate mobility

  *0.4

  Middle rate care and lower rate mobility

  *0.4

  Middle rate care only

  *0.1

  Lower rate care and higher rate mobility

  *0.3

  Lower rate care and lower rate mobility

  *0.2

  Lower rate care only

  *0.2

  Higher rate mobility only

  *0.4

  Lower rate mobility only

  *0.1

  691W

  DLA by government office region as at 31 May 2003

  Thousand

  G.B.

  Scotland

  All

  2,497.6

  277.7

  Highest rate care and higher rate mobility

  378.1

  44.3

  Highest rate care and lower rate mobility

  110.3

  12.9

  Highest rate care only

  41.2

  3.6

  Middle rate care and higher rate mobility

  367.3

  45.2

  Middle rate care and lower rate mobility

  286.5

  33.0

  Middle rate care only

  102.6

  8.8

  Lowest rate care and higher rate mobility

  342.1

  34.5

  Lowest rate care and lower rate mobility

  107.5

  12.6

  Lowest rate care only

  187.9

  17.1

  Higher rate mobility only

  469.9

  54.3

  Lower rate mobility only

  104.1

  11.5

  Source:

  IAD Information Centre, 5 per cent.

  Sample

  Figures are in thousands and rounded to the nearest hundred.

  Figures marked* are less than 500 and subject to a high degree of sampling variation. From November 2002, the methodology for producing these figures was changed to allow statistics to be published much sooner. This has resulted in a small increase in the reported caseload. This is because some cases which have actually terminated but have not yet been updated on the computer system are now included.

  Mr. Donohoe:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many people were found to be fraudulently claiming the disability living allowance in (a) 2000, (b) 2001 and (c) 2002. [141928]

  Maria Eagle:
  Information on Disability Living Allowance fraud investigations is recorded by financial year rather than calendar year. The available information is in the table:

  Year

  DLA Fraud investigations which resulted in a change in the rate of benefit and/or an overpayment

  April 2000-March 2001

  1,546

  April 2000-March 2002

  1,381

  April 2000-March 2003

  1,275

  Source:

  DLA Fraud Database

  Fareham Jobcentre
  Mr. Hoban:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) how many staff are located at the former jobcentre premises at 187–199 West Street, Fareham; [143697]

  (2) what the (a) annual rental and (b) unexpired lease period is of the former jobcentre premises at 187–199 West Street, Fareham; [143698]

  (3) if he will make a statement on the future use by the Department of the former jobcentre premises at 187–199 West Street, Fareham. [143699]

  Mr. Browne
  [holding answer 11 December 2003.]: The administration of Jobcentre Plus is a matter for the Chief Executive of Jobcentre Plus, David Anderson. He will write to the hon. Member.

  Gifts of Cash
  Mr. Cousins:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what plans he has to issue guidance that
  692W
  small gifts of cash to relatives under the age of 18 will be exempted from the Pension Credit and Income Support deprivation of capital requirements. [144002]

  Malcolm Wicks:
  As with all the income related benefits, someone may be treated as having capital they do not actually have if they deliberately deprive themselves of the resource to secure or increase entitlement to Pension Credit, but it is not necessarily the case that they will be. The main purpose of this is to guard against people giving away capital with the intention of increasing benefit entitlement.

  In addition, in Pension Credit people will not be treated as depriving themselves of capital if they have used their resources to reduce or repay a debt (for example, a mortgage), or to buy something which was reasonable in their circumstances (for example, a car). This is part of normal financial planning which people age 60 and over may undertake, particularly on retirement.

  Guidance provides that decisions must be made in the light of the circumstances of each case and the considerable body of case-law which has developed on similarly worded provisions.

  Guaranteed Minimum Pension
  Mr. Woodward:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) what steps the Government have taken since May 1997 to ensure that members of final salary pension schemes were made aware of risks to their accrued pension rights upon employer insolvency and scheme wind-up; [142380]

  (2) what the Government's policy is on advising existing pension scheme members of risks to their pension rights as a consequence of employer insolvency. [142384]

  Malcolm Wicks:
  The Government encourage anyone considering joining or leaving a pension scheme to obtain as much information as possible about the options open to them and to seek independent financial advice. As well as highlighting further sources of information, leaflets published by the Pensions Service provide basic information on occupational pensions for people to use as they decide the best way in which to provide for their retirement. Similar information aimed at pension providers is published by the Inland Revenue.

  Occupational pension schemes are provided voluntarily by employers and the trustees are required as a minimum to make funding information available to members as part of the annual report. It is the responsibility of employers and scheme trustees to monitor how scheme assets compare with scheme liabilities and take whatever action is require to address any funding shortfall, working within the legislative framework provided by the Government. To reduce the risks to members' accrued pension rights as a consequence of employer insolvency, the Government is introducing the new Pension Protection Fund. The introduction of new scheme-specific funding requirements will raise member awareness and understanding by requiring that trustees send regularly updated information to scheme members each year, containing key information about the funding position of their scheme.
  693W

  Housing Benefit
  Lynne Jones:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the average cost was in 2002–03 of housing benefit payments made to (a) council tenants, (b) tenants of registered social landlords and (c)private tenants. [142605]

  Mr. Pond:
  The information is in the table.

  Average weekly HB by tenure in Great Britain 2002—03

  Tenure

  Average weekly housing benefit (£)

  Local authority

  47.00

  Registered social landlord

  63.90

  Private (excluding registered social landlord)

  71.40

  Notes:

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

  2.The average amounts have been rounded to the nearest 10 pence.

  3.Figures for any non-responding authorities have been estimated.

  4.Figures exclude any Extended Payment cases.

  5.The figures are averages taken from the four quarters May, August, November 2002 and February 2003.

  Source:

  Housing benefit and council tax benefit Management Information

  System Quarterly 100 per cent. caseload stock-count taken in May, August, November 2002 and February 2003.

  Income Support/Jobseeker's Allowance
  John Barrett:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how much money was claimed in (a)income support and (b) jobseeker's allowance between October 2001 and September 2002. [142832]

  Mr. Pond:
  The information is in the table.

  Amount of income support and jobseeker's allowance paid out between October 2001 and September 2002

  £ million

  Income support

  9,640

  Jobseeker's allowance

  2,260

  Notes:

  1. Figures are rounded to the nearest £10 million

  2. The income support figure is for income support paid to people under 60 years of age. Persons over 60 years of age were paid the minimum income guarantee

  Source:

  In-year Monitoring of Benefit Expenditure Reports

  Jobcentre Plus
  Mr. Viggers:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what plans he has for the development of a Jobcentre Plus office in Gosport. [141827]

  Mr. Browne
  [holding answer 10 December 2003]: The administration of Jobcentre Plus is a matter for the Chief Executive of Jobcentre Plus, David Anderson. He will write to the hon. Member.
  694W
  Letter from David Anderson to Mr. Peter Viggers, dated 15 December 2003:

  As Jobcentre Plus is an Executive Agency, the Secretary of State has asked me to reply direct to your question about the development of Jobcentre Plus in Gosport. This is something that falls within the responsibilities delegated to me as Chief Executive of the Agency.

  Jobcentre Plus has been established to deliver a radical change in the way that benefits and employment services are provided to people of working age. By 2006, we plan to introduce a network of around 1,000 fully integrated Jobcentre Plus offices.

  Through the development of these new modern offices, Jobcentre Plus will provide an integrated, work-focused service to all people of working age. The introduction of work-focused interviews is extending the opportunity to more people to take advantage of the help, guidance and support we can provide to assist them to move into sustainable employment. We are also introducing new services for employers, which will help them fill vacancies more quickly with well-prepared and motivated employees.

  The Jobcentre Plus Implementation Programme for Hampshire commenced in June 2002. Early on in the process, it became apparent that, for Gosport, the existing Jobcentre premises in South Street would not be suitable for the delivery of the new Jobcentre Plus services.

  Following a lengthy search and subsequent negotiations, suitable premises have now been secured. Work to convert and refurbish the site, situated next to the Iceland store in Walpole Road, commenced Monday 1 December, with the new office, which will offer the full range of Jobcentre Plus services, due to open in May 2004. While the work is in progress, the existing Jobcentre in South Street, together with the Social Security Office in the High Street will continue to operate as normal. In May 2004, following the opening of the new office, the existing Jobcentre in South Street will close. In addition to the new premises in Walpole Road, the Social Security Office will continue to offer access to the Social Fund and issue counter payments to customers.

  I hope this is helpful.

  Mr. Andrew Turner:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions when he will answer the letter from the hon. Member for Isle of Wight of 14 October 2003 about Jobcentre Plus jobs on the Isle of Wight. [142967]

  Mr. Brownev
  [holding answer 9 December 2003]: I regret we have no record of the hon. Member's letter. If he would send a copy to me I will arrange for it to be considered urgently.

  Jobseeker's Allowance
  Mr. Cousins:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many Jobseeker's Allowance claimants are signed up for further education courses for less than 16 hours; and what plans he has to extend the hours of coursework acceptable within his Department's guidelines. [142585]

  Mr. Browne
  [holding answer 9 December 2003]: Information about the number of jobseekers who are engaged in part-time courses for less than 16 hours a week is not routinely collected and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.
  695W
  People in receipt of Jobseeker's Allowance can undertake part-time learning provided they are available for and actively seeking work and have a valid Jobseeker's Agreement which takes their learning into consideration. We have no plans to extend the number of hours that are regarded as part-time learning.

  The Social Security system is not intended to finance education—this is a matter for the educational authorities and the Department for Education and Skills. Most students engaged in full-time education are not entitled to Jobseeker's Allowance.

  Jobcentre Plus has a wide range of programmes, such as the New Deals and Work Based Learning for Adults (in England), to help jobseekers gain the skills they need to help them find work. For people who wish to pursue full-time learning, there are various Adult Learning funding options available through the Department for Education and Skills.

  Late Payment of Debt
  Brian Cotter:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many claims for statutory interest payments have been submitted to his Department under the terms of the Late Payment of Debt Act 1998; how many claims were met; and what the total value was of such payments in each year since the Act has been in operation. [141599]

  Mr. Browne:
  I refer the hon. Member to the written answer given by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, South (Nigel Griffiths) on 3 December 2003, Official Report, column 102W.

  Legislation
  Mr. Redwood:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what percentage of (a) primary and (b) secondary legislation sponsored by his Department in 2002–03 was introduced to implement EU requirements. [141128]

  Mr. Pond:
  The Department did not sponsor any primary legislation during the 2002–03 Session (13 November 2002–20 November 2003).

  The Department was responsible for the making of 97 General Statutory Instruments during the 2002–03 Session (including 11 from the Health and Safety Executive), some of which consolidated and revoked previous instruments. 9.27 per cent. of the total (nine Statutory Instruments, including seven from the Health and Safety Executive) give effect to EU requirements.

  Local Authorities
  Mr. Clifton-Brown:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions when the Government will issue the new regulations for payment and associated operations for (a) council tax benefit and (b) housing benefit by local authorities; and whether local authorities will be fully reimbursed by his Department for payments made under these benefits. [144195]
  696W
  Mr. Pond:
  We have recently conducted a review of the Housing Benefit (HB) and Council Tax Benefit (CTB) subsidy rules and rates. Details of the new rules and rates, which are clearer and simpler to administer, were issued to all local authorities in HB/CTB Circular S9/2003, a copy of which is in the Library. Local authorities will be fully reimbursed for all correctly paid HB and CTB.

  The Income-related Benefits (Subsidy to Authorities) Order 1998 (S11998 No 562) and amendments provide the legislative basis of subsidy payments to authorities. The new rules and rates will be incorporated in an amendment to this Order which will be laid, in accordance with the normal practice, after the end of the 2004–05 year.

  Ministerial Correspondence
  David Winnick:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions when he will give a substantive reply to the letter of 23 October 2003 from the hon. Member for Walsall North, ref. PQ/03/400456. [143958]

  Maria Eagle:
  I replied to the hon. Member today.

  New Deal for Disabled People
  Mr. Goodman:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) how many people in the Wycombe constituency have (a) been registered and (b) found work under the New Deal for Disabled People this year; [143847]

  (2) what organisations have helped to (a) register and (b) find work for people in the Wycombe constituency under the terms of the New Deal for Disabled People; and how many people each organisation has helped in each category. [143848]

  Mr. Browne:
  Information about New Deal for Disabled People performance is not available by constituency.

  There are four Job Brokers delivering New Deal for Disabled People in the Wycombe constituency: Support Shop Ltd.; Yes2Work; Shaw Trust; and Scout Enterprises (Western).

  The latest national performance statistics are that, 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.

  Notes:

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

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

  Source:

  DWP statistics.

  Parents with Care
  Mr. Webb:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many and what percentage of Child Support Agency parents with care were in receipt of (a) income-based jobseeker's allowance and income support and (b) working families tax credit in each of the last six years. [141528]
  697W
  Mr. Pond:
  The information is in the table.

  Benefit status of Parent/Person with Care

  Income Support

  JSA(IB)

  Family Credit

  WFTC

  February

  Total

  Thousands

  %

  Thousands

  %

  Thousands

  %

  Thousands

  %

  1998

  662.0

  300.0

  45.3

  8.2

  1.2

  128.6

  19.4

  —

  —

  1999

  826.8

  356.8

  43.2

  9.6

  1.2

  171.2

  20.7

  —

  —

  2000

  946.3

  385.2

  40.7

  13.1

  1.4

  26.5

  2.8

  192.0

  20.3

  2001

  998.5

  393.3

  39.4

  10.8

  1.1

  —

  —

  244.6

  24.5

  2002

  1,031.8

  383.0

  37.1

  9.2

  0.9

  —

  —

  261.8

  25.4

  2003

  957.4

  355.6

  37.1

  6.9

  0.7

  —

  —

  278.4

  29.1

  Notes:

  All data taken from the published Quarterly Summary Statistics for the Child Support Agency.

  The figures are based on a 5 per cent. scan of CSCS and therefore may be subject to sampling variation.

  PWC benefit status derived using data on the IS, JSA and Family Credit/WFTC computer systems.

  The figures are for cases with a full maintenance assessment.

  5. The figures are for the February quarter because this is the latest point for consistent CSA data and data for WFTC.

  Pension Credit
  Mr. Cousins:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions whether pension credit applications can also indicate whether an entitlement to council tax benefit exists; and whether this information is passed to the (a) council tax benefit authority and (b) applicant for pension credit. [142657]

  Malcolm Wicks:
  The Pension Credit application process alerts customers to the possibility of entitlement to housing benefit and council tax benefit and enables them to ask for a claim form for completion and return to the appropriate local authority. Entitlement to the guarantee credit element of Pension Credit provides linked entitlement to full housing benefit and council tax benefit. Information about Pension Credit awards is provided automatically to local authorities to enable them to determine entitlement to housing benefit and council tax benefit. Notification to customers about entitlement to housing benefit and council tax benefit is the responsibility of the appropriate local authority.

  Income support for elderly/minimum income guarantee-expenditure and out-turn

  £ million cash

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  Departmental report cash or resource basis

  Cash

  Cash

  Cash

  Cash

  Resource

  Resource

  Provision

  3,878

  3,776

  3,827

  4,052

  4,540

  4,275

  Actual spending

  3,773

  3,619

  3,781

  3,984

  4,486

  4,481

  Under (-)/over (+) spend

  -105

  -157

  -47

  -68

  -55

  +206

  Notes:

  Numbers may not sum due to rounding.

  2000–01 plans were on a cash basis, published out-turn on a resource basis. To ensure consistency we have quoted the unpublished cash out-turn.

  2002–03 actual spending is an expected out-turn figure which was published at Budget 2003.The final out-turn figure will be published shortly in the Department for Work and Pensions Resource Accounts.

  Post Office Card Account
  Mr. Andrew Turner:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what monitoring takes place of the standard of response to telephone calls to his Department by claimants seeking to open Post Office Card Accounts. [142428]

  Mr. Pond
  [holding answer 8 December 2003]: The standard of responses to telephone calls received by the Customer Conversion Centre (CCC) is subject to
  698W
  Mr. Webb:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will estimate the additional cost of halving the assumed rate of income currently used to assess pension credit applications. [143088]

  Malcolm Wicks:
  The additional cost of halving the assumed rate of income currently used to assess pension credit applications is estimated to be £220 million.

  Notes:

  Figure is rounded to the nearest £10 million.

  Estimates relate to the year 2004–05.

  Pensioner Poverty
  Mr. Webb:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will update the table submitted by his Department to the Committee of Public Accounts and published in the 12th Report of Session 2002–03 on tackling pensioner poverty, Ev.20, setting out expenditure and out-turn for income support for the elderly and minimum income guarantee, to include figures for 2002–03. [143080]

  Malcolm Wicks:
  The information requested is given in the following table updated with 2002–03 figures.

  quality assurance monitoring, in keeping with industry practice, to ensure that agreed service standards are maintained.

  All calls to the CCC are recorded and a selection of the calls are evaluated on a weekly basis.

  Unemployment
  Mr. Gibb:
  To ask the Secretary of
  State for Work and Pensions how many economically inactive people of working age were seeking employment in each

  699W
  year between 1992 and 2002; how many workless households there were in each year; and if he will make a statement. [143132]

  Ruth Kelly:
  I have been asked to reply.

  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician, who has been asked to reply.

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. Nick Gibb, dated 15 December 2003:

  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your Parliamentary Question about economically inactive people of working age seeking employment and the number of workless households. (143132)

  The attached table gives the information requested for the three month periods ending May each year. These estimates are from the Labour Force Survey (LFS).

  Economically inactive people seeking employment are not classified as unemployed in the United Kingdom statistics unless, following the International Labour Organisation guidelines, they are also available to start work within the two weeks following their LFS interview. The figures shown in the table are for the group of people who stated they were not available to start work within that period.

  A workless household is a household that includes at least one person of working age where no-one present is in employment.

  The LFS is a sample survey and, as with any sample survey, the estimates are subject to sampling variability.

  United Kingdom

  Thousands

  March to May

  Economically inactive people of working age1 seeking employment(seasonally adjusted)

  Number of workless households (not seasonally adjusted)

  1992

  —

  3,043

  1993

  274

  3,283

  1994

  227

  3,391

  1995

  237

  3,446

  1996

  183

  3,444

  1997

  205

  3,271

  1998

  217

  3,237

  1999

  212

  3,158

  2000

  189

  3,070

  2001

  194

  3,063

  2002

  183

  3,133

  2003

  197

  3,043

  1 Men aged 16–64 and women aged 16–59.

  — Due to questionnaire routing error, figures for 1992 are incorrect and therefore are not shown.

  Those for workless households have not yet been subject to this adjustment.

  Source:

  Labour Force Survey (ONS)

  Winter Fuel Payment
  Mr. Webb:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will estimate how many single (a) women and (b) men in 2003 will reach the age of 60 years after the qualifying week for Winter Fuel Payment eligibility, but before 25 December. [143085]

  Malcolm Wicks:
  It is estimated that around 23,000 single women and 18,000 single men will reach the age of 60 after the qualifying week of 15 to 21 September 2003 but before 25 December 2003 in Great Britain.

  We estimate around 11.5 million people will be eligible for a Winter Fuel Payment this winter and 11,316,111 payments have been issued to date.
  700W
  Notes:

  1. The figures have been calculated using the latest GAD population projections and the 2001 Census data.

  2. Those recorded by the Census as being widowed or divorced have been included as being single.

  3. The figure for entitlement should not be used to calculate take-up: It is an estimate and therefore subject to margins of error, the number of recipients will rise as late claims are processed.

  Mr. Webb:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will estimate how many single (a) women and (b) men in 2003 will reach the age of 80 years after the qualifying week for the 80 + Winter Fuel Payment eligibility, but before 25 December. [143086]

  Malcolm Wicks:
  It is estimated that around 36,000 single women and 12,000 single men will reach the age of 80 after the qualifying week of 15 to 21 September 2003 but before 25 December 2003 in Great Britain.

  We estimate over two million people in Great Britain will be eligible for the 80 + Annual Payment this winter and almost all have received their extra entitlement with their Winter Fuel Payment.

  Notes:

  1. The figures have been calculated using the latest GAD population projections and the 2001 Census data.

  2. Those recorded by the Census as being widowed or divorced have been included as being single.

  3. Virtually all cases aged over 79 will be in receipt of State Retirement Pension, or another DWP benefit, and will therefore be paid automatically.

TRANSPORT

  End of Life Vehicles Directive
  Mrs. Spelman:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what measures are being implemented to prevent the Continuous Registration system of cars being circumvented, with regard to the End of Life Vehicles Directive. [143956]

  Mr. Jamieson:
  The End of Life Vehicles Directive requires member states among other thing, to put in place measures to ensure that end of life vehicles are disposed of cleanly. In most cases initially, this will be by vehicle keepers and after 2007, by producers.

  The purpose of continuous registration is to maintain an accurate vehicle register entry for every vehicle in use. In the event that it is disposed of by scrapping, the last keeper will be issued with a certificate of destruction by the DVLA. Under continuous registration the keeper is continuously responsible for licensing or declaring a Statutory Off Road Notice on their vehicle every year until transfer to another keeper or disposal.

  A449
  Mr. Luff:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the timetable for improving the safety of the A449 between Claines Roundabout and Ombersley. [143926]

  Mr. Jamieson:
  The Highways Agency will be conducting a safety study on this section of the A449 within the next three months to develop a package of measures to improve safety. Any recommendations from this study will be added to the programme of safety improvements.
  701W

  Aircraft (Pollution)
  Dr. Tonge:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of technological improvements in aircraft which will be available to reduce levels of nitrogen dioxide by 2010. [144193]

  Mr. McNulty:
  The Government keep abreast of emissions technology developments and future prospects through direct contact with the industry and through international regulatory discussions. Significant advances are forecast for reducing emissions of oxides of nitrogen (NOx) for engines due to enter service before 2010.

  In the context of air quality assessment work supporting decisions to be announced in the forthcoming White Paper, DfT has examined emissions technology developments out as far as 2020.

  Aircraft Noise
  Mrs. Gillan:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport which areas he expects would be affected by aircraft noise following the possible construction of a third runway at Heathrow Airport. [144084]

  Mr. McNulty:
  The areas that would be affected are set out in Chapter 7 of the consultation document "The Future Development of Air Transport in the United Kingdom: South East, Second Edition", published in February 2003, pages 56 and 57.

  Mrs. Gillan:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what estimate his Department has made of the level of increase in noise that residents living under and around the flight path would experience following the possible construction of a third runway at Heathrow Airport. [144085]

  Mr. McNulty:
  The level of increase in noise would depend on the distance of individual residents from the proposed runway and its flight paths and the level of other existing noise sources. Illustrative noise contours, and the areas and populations contained within them at 3dBA intervals from 54dBA Leq up to 72dBA Leq are set out in Chapter 7 of the consultation document, "The Future Development of Air Transport in the United Kingdom: South East, Second Edition", published in February 2003, pages 56 and 57.

  Mrs. Gillan:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what action he would take to mitigate the effects of aircraft noise on residents living under or around the flight path if a third runway at Heathrow Airport was constructed. [144087]

  Mr. McNulty:
  We asked for views on noise mitigation and compensation measures in Chapter 16 of the consultation document, "The Future Development of Air Transport in the United Kingdom: South East, Second Edition", published in February 2003, pages 144 to 149. Having considered the responses carefully, we will set out our conclusions in the White Paper to be published shortly.

  Mrs. Gillan:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether the expected noise impact of a third runway at Heathrow Airport would breach the
  702W
  limitations on noise set out in the package of measures imposed by the Inspector for the Terminal 5 Inquiry as a condition for construction of a fifth terminal. [144088]

  Mr. McNulty:
  The planning conditions for construction of Terminal 5, which were imposed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Tyneside, North (Mr. Byers) included a restriction, to apply from 2016, on the area enclosed by the 57dBA Leq 16-hour (0700–2300) noise contour to 145 square kilometres. Information illustrating the likely noise impact of a third runway was set out in Chapter 7 of the consultation document, "The Future Development of Air Transport in the United Kingdom: South East, Second Edition", published in February 2003, page 56.

  Mrs. Gillan:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether aircraft using the proposed third runway at Heathrow Airport would be permitted to take off and land during the night. [144089]

  Mr. McNulty:
  Restrictions on night movements at Heathrow will be decided in the light of periodic consultations on that issue.

  Dr. Tonge:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what action his Department is taking to reduce the level of noise pollution caused by (a) aircraft flying into and out of Heathrow airport (b) surface access routes into and out of Heathrow airport; and whether these measures would be affected by a further runway. [144115]

  Mr. McNulty:
  Noise from aircraft flying into and out of Heathrow airport is regulated by Notices made under section 78 of the Civil Aviation Act 1982. These include night restrictions, departure noise limits, noise preferential routes and approach procedures. Noise from surface access modes is treated essentially as for those sources on non-airport routes or journeys. The noise implications of a further runway at Heathrow were set out in the consultation on the "Future Development of Air Transport in the United Kingdom (South East)".

  Simon Hughes:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what the total (a) area and (b) population affected by aircraft noise was within (i) 57 Leq Contour, (ii) 63 Leq Contour and (iii) 69 Leq Contour and above at (A) Gatwick, (B) Stansted and (C) City airports in each of the last five years. [144170]

  Mr. McNulty:
  The information for Gatwick and Stansted airports is provided in the following tables. London City airport produces maps showing the 57dBA Leq contour and 60dBA Leq contour but the information is not available in the form requested.

  Gatwick airport

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  Area (sq. kms) within:

  57 Leq contour

  76.8

  71.4

  71.9

  55.9

  45.2

  63 Leq contour

  28.2

  26.4

  26.4

  19.6

  15.8

  69 Leq contour

  9.7

  8.9

  9.0

  6.0

  4.6

  Population (thousand) within:

  57 Leq contour

  9.0

  7.8

  8.7

  5.2

  3.5

  63 Leq contour

  1.4

  1.4

  1.4

  0.8

  0.5

  69 Leq contour

  0.3

  0.3

  0.2

  0.1

  0.1

  703W

  Stansted airport

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  Area (sq. kms) within:

  57 Leq contour

  64.5

  52.3

  52.4

  32.1

  31.7

  63 Leq contour

  22.3

  20.5

  20.4

  11.6

  11.3

  69 Leq contour

  8.7

  7.9

  7.6

  3.6

  3.4

  Population (thousand) within.

  57 Leq contour

  7.6

  4.4

  5.7

  2.3

  2.0

  63 Leq contour

  1.3

  1.4

  1.3

  0.4

  0.3

  69 Leq contour

  0.3

  0.2

  0.2

  0.1

  0.1

  Airports
  Mrs. Gillan:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what comparison he has made of the noise impact upon local residents of (a) the proposal to construct a third runway at Heathrow Airport and (b) other proposals for airport expansion in the South East. [144086]

  Mr. McNulty:
  The data to inform such comparison are set out in Chapters 7 and following of the consultation document, "The Future Development of Air Transport in the United Kingdom: South East, Second Edition", published in February 2003. We will announce the Government's conclusions in the White Paper to be published shortly.

  ATOL Scheme
  Miss McIntosh:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proportion of those booking overseas holidays from the United Kingdom were protected by the ATOL scheme in (a) 1995 and (b) the most recent year for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement. [143552]

  Mr. McNulty:
  In 1995 the proportion of people protected by ATOL compared with the number of people going on holiday overseas was 97 per cent. In 2002, the most recent year for which figures are available, that proportion was 92 per cent. If people going abroad to visit friends and relatives are included, the proportions become 82 per cent. and 75 per cent. respectively.

  Big Conversation
  Mr. Heald:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport 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. [143157]

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

  Correspondence
  Mr. Kaufman:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he will reply to the letter to him dated 4 November from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton with regard to Mr. T. P. Garvey. [142955]
  704W
  Mr McNulty:
  My right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State replied to my right hon. Friend's letter on 11 December 2003.

  Crash Barriers
  Sue Doughty:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many lorries have crashed through barriers on (a) dual carriageways and (b) motorways in each of the last five years. [143011]

  Mr. Jamieson:
  The following table shows numbers of Heavy Goods Vehicles that have either hit the central reservation or crossed it for both motorways and dual carriageways for the years 1999–2002. The information is not available for 1998.

  Vehicles

  1 Crossed central reservation

  Hit central reservation

  Hit near/off side crash barrier

  Dual Carriageways

  1999

  42

  171

  104

  2000

  57

  168

  112

  2001

  48

  152

  118

  2002

  46

  150

  120

  Motorways

  1999

  20

  98

  76

  2000

  31

  86

  89

  2001

  21

  81

  95

  2002

  26

  80

  95

  1 May include vehicles that either "hit the central reservation" or "near/offside crash barrier".

  Heathrow Airport
  Mr. Randall:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what discussions his Department has held with the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister on the implications for sustainable development in the areas of construction of a third runway at Heathrow. [143792]

  Mr. McNulty:
  The Department is liaising with the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister on all aspects of the forthcoming air transport White Paper.

  Mr. Randall:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will arrange for the British Airport Authority's air quality strategy and action plan for Heathrow to be assessed by independent consultants. [143814]

  Mr. McNulty:
  The three local authorities (Hillingdon, Spelthorne and Hounslow) adjacent to Heathrow have declared Air Quality Management Areas in the vicinity of the airport and are now developing action plans in order to reduce emissions.

  The BAA Air Quality Strategy and Action Plan has been developed in consultation with local authorities and will be considered by the authorities in their assessments of future achievement of emissions requirements.

  BAA's Air Quality Strategy and Action Plan was published in 2002 and has been in the public domain since then. It is also available on the Internet, http://www.baa.co.uk/main/corporate/publications frame.html.
  705W
  Many of the actions contained in the strategy are independently assessed (by independent consultants Casella Stanger) through BAA' Heathrow's reporting of performance in its annual sustainability report (see www.baa.coni).

  Mr. Randall:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what assessment his Department has made of the need to construct further terminals at Heathrow if a third runway were to be constructed; [143815]

  (2) what estimate his Department has made of the effect on capacity on the north runway at Heathrow of aircraft crossing to access the third runway; [143820]

  (3) what estimate his Department has made of how long it would take for aircraft to taxi from terminals to the proposed third runway at Heathrow. [143821]

  Mr. McNulty:
  We have carefully considered all consultation responses on these issues and carried out some further assessment. We will announce the Government's conclusions in the White Paper to be published shortly.

  Mr. Randall:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment his Department has made of the potential risks from aircraft crossing the northern runway to gain access a proposed third runway at Heathrow. [143822]

  Mr. McNulty:
  In our assessment of all of the options for new airport capacity, we have taken full account of the need to ensure that all aircraft operations comply with the UK's very high aviation safety standards.

  Dr. Tonge:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment his Department has made of the need for further terminals at Heathrow airport, if a third runway is approved. [144173]

  Mr. McNulty:
  We have carefully considered all consultation responses on these issues and carried out some further assessment.

  The Government's conclusions on UK airport capacity, including the consideration of development at Heathrow airport, will be set out shortly in the White Paper.

  Dr. Tonge:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment his Department has made of the number of new areas in London which will be affected by noise pollution if the decision to create a third runway at Heathrow Airport goes ahead. [144180]

  Mr. McNulty:
  The areas that would be affected are summarized in Chapter 7 of the consultation document "The Future Development of Air Transport in the United Kingdom: South East, Second Edition",

  Investment expenditure

  £ million (outturn prices)

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  Capital

  327

  225

  414

  320

  319

  210

  173

  133

  171

  134

  Renewals

  87

  70

  218

  159

  184

  275

  198

  191

  244

  208

  Total core business

  414

  295

  632

  479

  503

  485

  371

  324

  415

  342

  Jubilee line extension

  40

  63

  68

  261

  396

  587

  660

  476

  283

  655

  Cross Rail

  5

  12

  29

  45

  30

  16

  4

  —

  —

  —

  Total investment

  459

  370

  729

  785

  929

  1,088

  1,035

  800

  698

  997

  706W
  published in February 2003, pages 56 and 57, and supplementary documents which were published in July 2002.

  Lifeboats
  Mr. Carmichael:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport pursuant to his answer of 4 December 2003, Official Report, column 158W, on lifeboats, when the International Maritime Organisation's Design and Equipment Sub-Committee will conclude its review of the standards and guidelines which currently apply to the launching and operation of lifeboats; and what the main objectives of the UK delegation on this committee are. [143498]

  Mr. Jamieson:
  The Design and Equipment Sub-Committee will next meet from 1 to 5 March 2004. The short term objective, which will be reviewed at this meeting, is particularly concerned with reducing the number of accidents during lifeboat drills and ensuring reliability of the equipment. Additional guidance and regulations are being developed on crew training and the maintenance of equipment.

  In the longer term, the Sub-Committee seeks to simplify standards for the design of lifeboats in order to make them easier and more reliable to use. It is essential that safety standards in this area are established on an international basis. The UK delegation will therefore support the Sub-Committee by working with international partners to ensure guidelines to the shipping industry are sufficient and effective.

  London Underground
  Mr. Damian Green:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what the overall investment figures in the London Underground were for each year between 1990 and 2003, broken down by line. [140927]

  Mr. McNulty:
  London Underground, which transferred from central Government to Transport for London on 15 July, does not record investment by line. They have provided the following information. In April 2000, London Underground adopted new accounting treatment for its investment expenditure which removed the category 'investment renewals' the majority of this expenditure was reclassified as capital, although some (£90 million) became resource expenditure. Therefore the figures before and after April 2000 are not directly comparable and are presented in two separate tables with the years 1990–91 to 1999–2000 on one consistent basis and those for a restated 1999–2000 to 2002–03 are on another. It is normal accounting practice when a change in accounting treatment occurs to restate the previous year's figures on the same basis in the accounts, so that a true comparison can be made.

  707W

  Investment expenditure

  £ million (outturn prices)

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  Capital

  252

  293

  418

  402

  Total core business

  252

  293

  418

  402

  Jubilee line extension

  655

  —

  —

  —

  CrossRail

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Total investment

  907

  293

  418

  402

  The deteriorating performance of London Underground in recent years reflects a long period of unstable funding and insufficient investment. That is why this Government have put in place stable long-term arrangements which will see more than £1 billion invested each year for the next 15 years in maintaining

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  Signals

  Bakerloo

  264

  292

  249

  355

  248

  357

  187

  Central

  644

  880

  308

  335

  490

  582

  520

  District

  303

  269

  278

  394

  525

  632

  590

  East London1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  46

  68

  57

  Jubilee

  79

  110

  197

  338

  398

  415

  304

  Circle and Hammersmith

  129

  131

  125

  238

  407

  396

  274

  Metropolitan

  209

  266

  194

  290

  522

  613

  510

  Northern

  298

  323

  216

  317

  358

  388

  597

  Piccadilly

  261

  241

  213

  202

  326

  289

  327

  Victoria

  115

  166

  149

  131

  186

  314

  425

  Waterloo and City2

  —

  16

  27

  29

  —

  —

  —

  Total signals

  2,302

  2,302

  1,929

  2,600

  3,522

  4,081

  3,820

  Track

  Bakerloo

  193

  201

  176

  168

  171

  210

  111

  Central

  203

  92

  65

  50

  62

  133

  89

  District

  74

  51

  69

  83

  179

  190

  259

  East London1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  10

  26

  20

  Jubilee

  45

  38

  77

  146

  126

  103

  139

  Circle and Hammersmith

  75

  61

  57

  62

  98

  166

  157

  Metropolitan

  105

  73

  83

  82

  136

  136

  157

  Northern

  141

  165

  109

  105

  208

  143

  246

  Piccadilly

  92

  110

  109

  135

  165

  144

  245

  Victoria

  54

  80

  66

  66

  56

  56

  62

  Waterloo and City2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  5

  5

  9

  Total track

  982

  982

  811

  897

  1,216

  1,312

  1,494

  1 East London Line was included with Jubilee line until 1999–2000.

  2 Waterloo and City Line included with Central Line until 1999–2000

  The deteriorating performance of London Underground in recent years reflects a long period of unstable funding and insufficient investment. That is why this Government have put in place stable long-term arrangements which will see more than £1 billon invested each year for the next 15 years in maintaining and modernising London Underground's assets, with financial incentives on the infrastructure companies to reverse the decline in performance.

  Mr. Domian Green:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many delays of more than (a) five minutes, (b) 10 minutes and (c) 15 minutes there were on

  Number of train delays> 15 minutes

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  Bakerloo

  255

  232

  300

  329

  300

  318

  356

  Central

  512

  678

  541

  446

  495

  501

  284

  District

  385

  332

  360

  326

  418

  574

  573

  Jubilee

  138

  142

  173

  234

  208

  289

  246

  East London

  —

  4

  295

  136

  110

  108

  102

  708W
  and modernizing London Underground's assets, with financial incentives on the infrastructure companies to reverse the decline in performance.

  Mr. Damian Green:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many (a) track and (b) signal failures there were on the London Underground in each year between 1990 and 2003, broken down by line. [140930]

  Mr. McNulty:
  This is an operational matter for London Underground (LU), which transferred from central Government to Transport for London on 15 July. London Underground has provided the following information for those track and signal failures that caused more than two minutes delay to services. The information for the years before 1996 could be provided only at disproportionate time and cost.

  the London Underground in each year between 1990 and 2003, broken down by line. [140933]

  Mr. McNulty:
  This is an operational matter for London Underground (LU), which transferred from central Government to Transport for London on 15 July.

  London Underground does not hold the information in the format requested. It only holds data on delays irrespective of their cause where the delay is greater than 15 minutes. The information for the years before 1996 could be provided only at disproportionate time and cost. London Underground has provided the following figures:
  709W

  Number of train delays > 15 minutes

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  Northern

  343

  336

  332

  235

  216

  247

  250

  Piccadilly

  258

  246

  275

  246

  267

  333

  392

  Victoria

  131

  183

  142

  95

  97

  151

  148

  Metropolitan

  374

  375

  302

  319

  404

  495

  564

  Circle and Hammersmith

  181

  135

  134

  189

  291

  287

  287

  Waterloo and City

  79

  30

  44

  34

  38

  39

  76

  Total

  2,656

  2,693

  2,898

  2,589

  2,844

  3,342

  3,278

  The deteriorating performance of London Underground in recent years reflects a long period of unstable funding and insufficient investment. That is why this Government have put in place stable long-term arrangements which will see more than £1 billon invested each year for the next 15 years in maintaining and modernising London Underground's assets, with financial incentives on the infrastructure companies to reverse the decline in performance.

  M20
  Mr. Damian Green:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects Junction 10A of the M20 to be opened; and if he will make a statement. [140823]

  Mr. Jamieson:
  Part of this scheme is required to provide access to development sites at Ashford. The completion date therefore depends on reaching agreement with the developers on the funding of those elements of the scheme required as a result of development, as well as the satisfactory completion of all necessary statutory and consultation procedures. The scheme is, currently, programmed to be completed by the end of the decade.

  Maritime and Coastguard Agency
  Mr. Hancock:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what budget is available to the Maritime and Coastguard Agency for (a) ship inspections and (b) related activity, with particular reference to enforcement, in each of the last five years. [144496]

  Mr. Jamieson:
  The Maritime and Coastguard Agency's budget for ship inspections and related activity, including enforcement in each of the last five years, is listed in the table.

  Budget (£000)

  Resource Accounts

  2003–04

  25,769

  2002–03

  25,072

  2001–02

  28,750

  Cash Accounts

  2000–01

  18,955

  1999–2000

  15,473

  The Resource Accounts figures include depreciation and capital charge, which are not included within the Cash Accounts outturns.
  710W

  Offshore Wind Turbines
  Mr. Carmichael:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps the Government are taking to limit the possibility of ships colliding with offshore wind turbines. [141909]

  Mr. Jamieson:
  My Department will continue to strive to ensure that the risk of ships colliding with offshore wind turbines is kept as low as practicable. When granting consents under the Coast Protection Act 1949 my Department ensures that offshore wind turbines are not located in areas of high collision risk. When construction begins, the existence of offshore wind turbines in a specific location is made known to mariners by way of Notices to Mariners issued by the UK Hydrographic Office and, where necessary, by annotations on nautical charts. Offshore wind turbine developments are also required to be marked in accordance with guidance issued by the International Association of Lighthouse Authorities.

  In considering the second round of bids for site leases, my Department is working with the Department of Trade and Industry and the Crown Estate to help direct offshore renewable energy developments towards areas of the sea associated with low numbers of ship movements. My Department wishes to obtain a full understanding of the cumulative impact on shipping caused by the potential development of the site leases and will consult the shipping and ports industries on the outcome of the Crown Estate's tender assessment panel.

  There will also be further consultation by developers as the legislative consents process requires an environmental impact assessment to be made for each site. To assist developers assess the risks posed by shipping and the measures that they should take to mitigate those risks, detailed guidance has been made available by the Maritime and Coastguard Agency.

  The Government are introducing legislative proposals in the Energy Bill for safety zones to be established around offshore renewable energy developments. The Bill, which was introduced into the other place (House of Lords) on 30 November, also makes provision for the creation of a new offence in respect of unauthorised ships entering, or breaching the restrictions on operating within, a safety zone. My officials will work closely with the Maritime and Coastguard Agency and the Department for Trade and Industry in establishing safety zones, appropriate to individual offshore turbine developments, in order to further reduce the risk of collisions.

  Public Transport (Disabled Access)
  David Davis:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what provision rail franchises are required to

  711W
  make for passengers who (a) are disabled and (b) have mobility problems, when deciding what rail links to maintain or discontinue. [143243]

  Dr. Howells:
  The procedures for deciding whether to reduce or discontinue a rail service are designed, among other things, to ensure that the particular needs of passengers with disabilities or mobility problems are fully taken into account. The level of service which an operator must provide is governed by a Passenger Service Requirement (PSR) and any change requires Strategic Rail Authority (SRA) approval. Where station or line closures are proposed a statutory closure procedure, which includes consultation with passengers, must be followed. In deciding whether to approve a service reduction or closure, the SRA or statutory authorities are expected to take proper account of the implications for all affected groups, including disabled passengers.

  Rail Services
  Mr. Greg Knight:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport at how many railway stations in England and Wales platform extensions are (a) under way and (b) planned within the next two years; and where each such railway station is. [142618]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 8 December 2003]: It is understood that Network Rail has work under way at Hollingbourne, Harrietsham, Charing, and Nuneaton, and that work is planned at Sandal and Agbrigg, Wakefield Westgate, South Elmsall, Fitzwilliam, Braintree, Braintree Freeport, Cressing, White Notley, Harrow and Wealdstone, Bushey, Kings Langley, Apsley, Hemel Hempstead, Berkhamsted, Tring, Cheddington, Bletchley, Billingshurst, Portslade, West Norwood, Hampden Park, Lewes, Farnham, Virginia Water, Basingstoke, Ascot, Farncombe, Milford, Witley, Liphook, Liss, Petersfield, Bentley, Brockenhurst, Poole, Moreton, Lymington Town, Camberley, Abercynon North, Penrhiwceiber, Fernhill, Cwmbach, Aberdare, Lichfield Trent Valley, Hinckley, Narborough, South Wigston, Princes Risborough, Beaconsfield, Gerrards Cross, High Wycombe, West Ruislip, South Ruislip, Wembley Stadium, and Denham.

  Mr. Ruffley:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the provision of rail services in the east of England. [143527]

  Mr. McNulty:
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is currently considering proposals put to him by the Strategic Rail Authority for a new Greater Anglia franchise to commence on 1 April next year. The SRA will also begin consultation on an East Coast Main Line strategy early in the New Year. This is the third in a planned series of 10 strategies and will consider the best use of the existing line and its links to other areas.

  Hugh Robertson:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what plans the Strategic Rail Authority has to develop train services to and from Faversham; [143916]

  (2) what progress has been made with respect to phase 2 of the Channel Tunnel Rail Link as it affects Faversham. [143917]
  712W
  Mr. McNulty:
  The Strategic Rail Authority recently completed consultations on the proposed Integrated Kent Franchise. The consultation included options for domestic services on the Channel Tunnel Rail Link (CTRL) but the aim is to improve rail services throughout Kent, not only to destinations which might be served by the CTRL. Further consultations on a more detailed service pattern are planned for early in the new year and it is therefore too soon to say what the outcome might be for individual destinations.

  The CTRL domestic service options set out in the consultation are, regardless of the stations they might serve, dependent on completion of the line. Section 2 is on target to open early in 2007.

  Road Safety
  Mr. Ruffley:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what recent representations he has received about safety on the (a) A14, (b) A134 and (c) A140 in Suffolk; and if he will make a statement. [143528]

  Mr. Jamieson:
  I have received one recent representation on road safety on the A14, A134 and A140. The Highways Agency (responsible for the A14) and Suffolk County Council (responsible for the A134 and A140) are committed to achieving Government targets on reducing road casualties. The Highways Agency is making good progress with two Targeted Programme of Improvement schemes for resolving accident problems on the A14 in Suffolk, at Rookery Crossroads and the Haughley Bends, and Suffolk County Council have plans for further accident reduction measures on both the A134 and A140.

  Safety Camera Partnerships
  Mr. Damian Green:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what guidelines he has issued to the local camera safety partnerships. [142916]

  Mr. Jamieson:
  The rules and guidelines for the safety camera netting off scheme are contained in a Handbook that has been issued to every partnership.

  Shipping
  Mr. Carmichael:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport pursuant to his answer of 4 December 2003, Official Report, column 162W, on shipping, how the Government determine that ships which do not fly the red ensign but qualify for the tonnage tax regime are strategically and commercially managed in the U K. [143499]

  Mr. Jamieson:
  The strategic and commercial management test arises from the European Commission's guidelines on State Aid in the maritime sector. As no specific EC guidance is available on the meaning of "strategically and commercially managed" the Government adopt a common sense interpretation, taking into account the various different strands of management activity that can be carried out in respect of a ship. Elements of both legs of the test must be demonstrated. Among the indicators that might be considered are:
  713W
  Strategic management:

  Location of HQ, including senior management staff

  Where the board of directors makes its decisions

  Commercial management:

  Route planning

  Taking bookings for passengers and cargo

  Managing bunkers, provisioning and victualling requirements

  Personnel management

  Technical management

  None of the indicators for strategic or commercial management will be conclusive on their own. The Government will consider the number and weight of the various indicators exhibited for both legs of the test and will expect to see real economic activity from ship operations in the UK. Greater weight will be given to the higher levels of decision making and management as opposed to day to day management.

  Mr. Carmichael:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport pursuant to his answer of 4 December 2003, Official Report, column 162W, on shipping, how many people have been employed in the UK in each of the last 10 years as inspectors to carry out monitoring and compliance inspections of ships to ensure that security measures are properly implemented. [143500]

  Mr. Jamieson:
  The numbers of Security Inspectors employed by the Department for Transport with responsibility for compliance inspections of ships for each of the last ten years are as follows:

  1994–6

  1995–5

  1996–5

  1997–5

  1998–5

  1999–5

  2000–5

  2001–5

  2002–5

  2003–4.

  In accordance with security priorities identified by my Department the inspections are carried out on passenger vessels under the provisions only of the Aviation and Maritime Security Act 1990. The Inspectors are also responsible for ensuring security compliance by the ports from which these vessels operate thereby providing a fully integrated ship/port security regime.

  Small Businesses
  Brian Cotter:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether his Department uses a database of individual small businesses for consultation purposes. [142475]

  Mr. McNulty:
  The Department for Transport is committed to good communications with all its stakeholders. Individual policy divisions consult widely with relevant stakeholders, including small businesses, as appropriate when formulating policy. The Department also uses the Small Business Service database of small businesses to seek views on policy proposals.
  714W

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Big Conversation
  Mr. Heald:
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development 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. [143154]

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

  Burundi
  John Barrett:
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment he has made of UK aid levels in Burundi following the report of the UN Economic and Social delegation indicating that peace has been restored. [141367]

  Hilary Benn:
  There have been encouraging developments in the peace process in Burundi, but it would be premature to say that peace has been fully restored. At the regional summit on Burundi which took place in Dar es Salaam on 16 November, the Burundi transitional government and the CNDD/FDD rebel group agreed to cease hostilities and share power pending national elections at the end of the transitional period in 2004. Efforts are continuing to persuade the remaining rebel group, the FNL, to cease hostilities and enter negotiations.

  The UK is providing substantial aid support to Burundi. DFID assistance is likely to amount to some £7 million during the present financial year, comprising humanitarian assistance, and support to local peacebuilding programmes, government capacity building, and to the national HIV/AIDS programme. This does not include DFID's 5-year $25 million pledge to the Multi-Donor Demobilisation and Reintegration Programme for the Great Lakes Region, which will support Burundi's national Disarmament, Demobilisation and Reintegration (DDR) programme once it is under way. It also does not include the UK's contributions to the EC and other multilateral programmes in Burundi.

  The UK is also contributing substantially to the African Union's peacebuilding force, the African Mission in Burundi (AMIB). So far this year we have contributed £3.9 million to help meet the equipment costs of the Mozambican contingent to AMIB, and have recently agreed a further contribution of £2 million to help meet AMIB's in-country costs.

  Central Africa
  Ms Oona King:
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development when his Department will publish a joint strategy paper on the Great Lakes Region; what assessment he has made of the most recent report of the UN panel of experts on the exploitation of natural resources in the Democratic Republic of Congo; and if he will make a statement. [141833]
  715W
  Hilary Benn:
  DFID plans to publish a note shortly, agreed jointly with the FCO, which will outline its global and regional approach to conflict resolution and development in the Great Lakes.

  The FCO will shortly make a statement on the final report of the UN Panel, representing its position and that of the Department for Trade and Industry and DFID.

  Mr. Rosindell:
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what steps are being taken as part of the UK's initiative to improve primary education in (a) Rwanda and (b) Malawi. [142282]

  Hilary Benn:
  The Government of Rwanda have made remarkable progress in providing education for all since the 1994 genocide. Primary Net Enrolment reached 81.7 per cent. this year, more than twice the figure for 1995.

  DFID has committed more than £13 million to education in Rwanda since 2001, focusing on improving the access, equity and quality of primary education. This includes £3 million for the purchase of primary school textbooks, as well as support for the development of the curriculum, the decentralisation of basic education services, initiatives for out-of-school children and for girls, education on HIV/AIDS and capacity building for education officials.

  In addition, DFID provides some £25 million a year and the EC some €17 million a year in flexible budget support to the Government of Rwanda, which supports the implementation of Rwanda's Poverty Reduction Strategy.

  DFID is also supporting improvements to the quality and accessibility of primary education in Malawi. This includes support for a more relevant primary curriculum, improved in-service training of teachers and the involvement of communities in school management. We have also built 250 classrooms and plan to add another 1,250 more. The total value of our current financial commitment is £61 million. We spent £4.6 million in financial year 2002–03 on education in Malawi.

  Energy Policy
  Norman Baker:
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development (1) whether he has carried out an analysis of the extent to which his Department's support for fossil fuel investment is consistent with (a) the UK's obligations under the Kyoto Protocol and (b) the Government's goal to reduce its carbon dioxide emissions by 60 per cent. from 1990 levels by 2050; [142349]

  (2) what his policy is towards the provision of loans and loan guarantees by multilateral development banks to fossil fuel projects overseas; and whether he has reviewed that policy in relation to concerns about climate change. [142351]

  Hilary Benn:
  The UK Government are committed to taking a lead in meeting obligations under the Kyoto Protocol, including reductions of carbon dioxide
  716W
  emissions. At the same time, we recognise the rights of other sovereign states to fulfil their own legitimate development needs. In considering support for fossil fuel based investments, it is standard procedure for DFID to liaise with other relevant Government Departments to ensure balance and consistency between these objectives. In addition, our policy is to ensure that lending institutions take account of possible social and environmental impacts such as climate change as part of their policies and procedures in assessing fossil fuel projects, before providing loans or loan guarantees. We are particularly concerned that the management of revenues from such projects occurs transparently and with a positive developmental impact. We hope that initiatives such as the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative will help to achieve this.

  The UK Energy White Paper, Our energy future—creating a low carbon economy, sets out four core objectives of UK Energy Policy: Tackling Climate Change, Energy Security, Cutting Fuel Poverty and Competitiveness. DFID is working closely with other Government Departments, notably FCO, DTI and DEFRA, to ensure a co-ordinated Whitehall approach to international energy issues.

  Norman Baker:
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what the total value of support from his Department is to overseas projects for (a) the extraction and transport of fossil fuels and (b) the development of renewable energy. [142350]

  Hilary Benn:
  DFID does not fund any projects for the extraction and transport of fossil fuels. It supports six projects that develop and promote small scale renewable energy sources, especially for rural communities. Projects cover the range of energy options, including renewable/fossil fuel hybrid systems, decentralised power generation and comparison with conventional grid electrification. The total value is £1 million over three years1.
  1 Engineering Knowledge and Research Progress Report 2002, Infrastructure and Urban Development Department.

  Ethiopia
  Mr. Laurence Robertson:
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what discussions he is holding with the Ethiopian Government about the border dispute with Eritrea; and if he will make a statement. [141947]

  Hilary Benn:
  Her Majesty's Government keep in touch with the Governments of both Ethiopia and Eritrea at all levels. The Prime Minister recently wrote to both the Prime Minister of Ethiopia and the President of Eritrea indicating that the Boundary Commission's decisions are final and binding and that the two parties should engage in dialogue.

  I met the Eritrean Foreign Minister when he visited London recently, during which we discussed the peace process. He also met my hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Minister for Africa. In addition, the Foreign and Commonwealth Minister has recently met with both the Ethiopian and Eritrean Ambassadors.

  We also keep in close touch with development in the peace process through our Ambassadors in Addis Ababa and Asmara.
  717W

  Fair Trade Products
  Mr. Bercow:
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development 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. [142811]

  Hilary Benn:
  The Government are committed to supporting the Fairtrade Foundation's efforts in promoting the supply and marketing of Fairtrade products. The contract for DFID refreshment facilities requires that a range of fair trade products is available for sales on departmental premises and for meetings.

  Gender Advisers
  Mr. Gummer:
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what security considerations led his predecessors to refuse to reveal the salaries of the gender advisers he assigned to Iraq. [141826]

  Hilary Benn:
  Salary details are confidential to the employer and the individual under the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information. They were not withheld for security reasons.

  Mr. Gummer:
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what guidance his Department sought in the appointment of two gender experts in Iraq from (a) recognised Muslim experts and (b) those with detailed understanding of Iraq. [141829]

  Hilary Benn:
  DFID has extensive experience of working in Muslim countries in the Middle East and elsewhere.

  In developing our understanding of Iraq, DFID draws on a wide range of expertise, inside and outside government, including our own staff, consultants and others working in Iraq.

  Mr. Gummer:
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what salaries are paid to the two gender experts who have been assigned by his Department to Iraq. [141830]

  Hilary Benn:
  As the Lord President of the Council, Baroness Amos, answered on 17 November to a question in another place, salary details are confidential under the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Mr. Gummer:
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what experience of Muslim attitudes the two gender experts who have been assigned from his Department to Iraq have. [141831]

  Hilary Benn:
  Both DFID-funded gender advisers in Iraq are Muslim and have extensive experience of working in Islamic cultures.

  Mr. Gummer:
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what arrangements he has made to ensure the co-ordination of gender advice to the Government of Iraq between (a) secondees he has assigned and (b) those of other countries. [141832]

  Hilary Benn:
  Both DFID-funded gender advisers in Iraq have clear and specific terms of reference setting out their roles with respect to the Iraqi authorities and
  718W
  the Coalition Provisional Authority, They are expected to co-ordinate their own work with that of other professionals in the field, in particular through the development of women's networks in Iraq.

  Ghana
  Chris Grayling:
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if he will make a statement on International Monetary Fund opposition to the increase in rice and poultry tariffs in Ghana. [143635]

  Hilary Benn:
  In his February 2003 Budget the Minister of Finance of Ghana proposed increases in duties on rice and poultry respectively. These increases were the subject of discussions with the International Monetary Fund, which was about to grant Ghana an arrangement under the Poverty Reduction and Growth Facility. The discussions centred on the effects of the proposals on food prices and public revenues and not on the principles of trade liberalisation. The proposals were later withdrawn by the Government of Ghana.

  Global Fund
  Mr. David Stewart:
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what plans his Department has to help secure the long-term future of the Global Fund. [141499]

  Hilary Benn:
  The UK is intensifying its efforts to tackle the HIV/AIDS epidemic, as set out in the recently published Call for Action. The UK was a prime mover in setting up the Global Fund to fight AIDS, TB and Malaria (GFATM) and we very much want it to be successful as one of a number of instruments in the fight to tackle these three terrible diseases. The long-term future of the fund will be decided by its ability to achieve good results. We and other partners are therefore working closely with the fund to help to increase its effectiveness.

  The UK recognises that in order to be secure and to be able to plan well, the fund needs to have long-term stability of funding. We therefore extended our current commitment through to 2008 bringing our total contribution to the GFATM to US$280 million. Funding will be subject to the GFATM reflecting a clear poverty focus, achieving a better financing system, integrating the fund's activities more effectively with national programmes and meeting agreed benchmarks to monitor its effectiveness. We have been working closely with the fund on all of these issues and made some good progress at the recent Board meeting held in October—particularly on improving the financing system by moving to a more reliable system of replenishment based on commonly agreed performance measures. Good results will encourage increased contributions to the Global Fund—both from the UK and, importantly, from the wider international community and this will help to ensure its future.

  Mr. David Stewart:
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what plans he has to contribute to the reform of the Global Fund's administrative structure. [141500]

  Hilary Benn:
  The Global Fund was created as a new partnership between Governments, civil society, the private sector and affected communities in January 2002

  719W
  and the UK was a prime mover in its establishment. It was set up with an innovative organisational structure—with Country Coordinating Mechanisms (CCMs), Local Fund Agents (LFAs) and Principal Recipients (PRs) at country level. The Fund recognises that there is a need at this early stage to assess the relevance, efficiency and effectiveness of the new structures in order to suggest and introduce improvements. Evaluation priorities for 2004–05 have been set these will include the Fund's governance structure and an assessment of the performance based funding system.

  Members of the Board of the Global Fund have a collective responsibility to ensure its effectiveness. As a Board member and through our membership on committees of the Fund—such as the Monitoring and Effectiveness, Finance and Audit Committee, the UK will play its part in any reform resulting from these evaluations. We will be particularly keen to ensure that Global Fund processes do not add to the administrative burden of countries but align and harmonise with existing systems.

  Mr. David Stewart:
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what plans his Department has to adopt a system of annual contributions to the Global Fund based on the Equitable Contribution Framework. [141502]

  Hilary Benn:
  My Department has no plans to adopt a system of contributions based on an equitable contribution framework. At the sixth Board meeting of the Global Fund held in October, members of the Board of the Global Fund voted to move to a periodic replenishment model on a voluntary basis for all public donors, complemented by additional ad hoc donations. This is now the agreed system for contributions to the Global Fund and should put the Fund on a firmer financial footing.

  Indigenous Peoples' Demonstration Project
  Lynne Jones:
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how much money was originally allocated to the Indigenous Peoples' Demonstration Project for the conservation of Brazilian rain forest; what proportion of this sum will be reallocated for middle income countries; and when support for the IPDP will end. [142647]

  Hilary Benn:
  The Indigenous Peoples' Demonstration Project (IPDP) has a budget of £2.1 million for five years. It started in May 2002, with an estimated completion date of April 2007. As DFID is still in the process of reviewing its programme to Brazil, no decisions have been taken yet on the extent to which the project may be affected.

  Iraq
  Mr. Gummer:
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what expert advisers, other than on gender, he intends to send to Iraq for strategic advice; and on which subjects. [141824]

  Hilary Benn:
  Within the Coalition Provisional Authority in Baghdad, DFID currently provides strategic advisers in the following areas: Urban Development and Infrastructure, and Food Security. We
  720W
  are planning to deploy additional experts in the following areas: Water and Sanitation, Local Government and Institutional Development, and Economic Policy.

  DFID currently funds strategic advisers within the Coalitional Provisional Authority South (CPAS) in the following areas: Education, Economic Policy and Financial Management and Governance.

  DFID has also agreed to fund strategic advisory posts within the Department of Economic Planning and Development within CPAS. Recruitment is on-going and advisers will work in the following areas: Economic Policy and Financial Management, Agriculture and Irrigation, Justice, Housing and Construction, Transport, Health, Power, Fuel, Water and Sanitation, Telecommunications and Internally Displaced Persons/Refugees.

  Harry Cohen:
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what immunisation programme is in place for infants in Iraq; what percentage of babies born since the end of the conflict have been immunised; and if he will make a statement. [142614]

  Hilary Benn:
  A national immunisation campaign is under way in Iraq which aims to vaccinate Iraq's 4.2 million children under five against preventable diseases such as polio, measles, tuberculosis, diphtheria and tetanus. The Ministry of Health, supported by UNICEF, has run a series of national immunisation days since June encouraging routine immunisation. DFID has provided £13.8 million to UNICEF to help fund this and other work.

  Until the national immunisation days commenced in June, it is thought that no babies born since the end of conflict had been immunised. Since then, an estimated 3 million children under five (including babies) have been vaccinated. This implies that around 80 per cent. of under-fives have been vaccinated so far, though no comprehensive data are available.

  There is also a continuing immunisation campaign which takes place twice a week, and aims to reach those children who have missed out on the routine programme of immunisation. In October, the estimated number of children under five reached through this programme was nearly 250,000.

  John Barrett:
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if he will make a statement on the humanitarian requirements of Iraqi refugees along the Jordanian border. [142783]

  Hilary Benn:
  The office of the United Nations Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) report that there are 1,150 refugees, mostly Iranian Kurds from AI-Tash camp (inside Iraq) and a further 822 in AI-Ruwayshid camp (350 km east of Amman), most of whom are Palestinians. These camps have been prepared for the winter by renewing and strengthening some of the tents and by providing additional blankets and mattresses.

  An NGO partner, the Jordan Hashemite Charity Organisation (JHCO), say that they have changed summer tents for thicker winter ones which have a heater inside. Plastic covering is also provided for the outside of the tents and the ground. The number of blankets has doubled and each refugee will have four

  721W
  blankets. Provision has also been made for specific storm shelters and extra clothing. In the area where the camps are established, the temperatures can be warm in the daytime but drop below zero at night.

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  Norman Lamb:
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what working arrangements there have been between Mr. Andrew Smith and his Department in Sierra Leone in the last 12 months. [142189]

  Hilary Benn:
  There have been no such working arrangements.

  Non-effective Anti-malarials
  Tim Loughton:
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what research he has undertaken into the distribution of non-effective anti-malarials to African countries; and what plans he has to discuss this with the (a) Global Fund and (b) World Health Organisation. [142182]

  Hilary Benn:
  Death from malaria, due to poor management of the disease, is increasing in Africa. Evidence suggests that this is in part due to drug resistance. The World Health Organisation (WHO) provides recommendations for anti-malarial drug policy based on sound evidence. WHO and Roll Back Malaria provide technical support to governments and their decision on national policies for anti-malarial drug policy. DFID provides financial support to WHO and Roll Back Malaria.

  We support the process whereby existing treatment protocols are reviewed regularly in the light of evidence from the field and changing patterns of resistance. We support national governments to help strengthen health systems to deliver effective treatment for poor people. A team from DFID will be meeting with Roll Back Malaria partners in Geneva shortly and we will raise these issues with them.

  Reproductive Health
  Chris McCafferty:
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development (1) what financial support his Department has provided for reproductive health supplies in each of the last three years; [143296]

  (2) what proportion of his Department's support for sexual and reproductive health programmes since the International Conference on Population and Development has been utilised for the procurement of reproductive health supplies; [143297]

  (3) whether his Department provides technical assistance to its partner countries in building their own capacity to forecast and procure reproductive health supplies; [143298]

  (4) what proportion of his Department's financial support for reproductive health supplies in the past year has been channelled (a) bilaterally, (b) multilaterally and (c) to the private sector and NGOs; [143299]

  (5) what proportion of his Department's support for HIV/AIDS programmes is spent on ensuring the availability of male and female condoms; [143300]
  722W
  (6) whether his Department plans to make available to the United Nations Population Fund a grant for reproductive health commodities this year in addition to the core grant. [143301]

  Hilary Benn:
  With permission, I will reply to all six questions together. Reproductive health supplies are normally provided as an integral part of broader programmes to promote sexual and reproductive health and prevent HIV/AIDS. The Department for International Development (DFID)'s data capture systems do not, therefore, allow us to isolate expenditure specifically on provision of reproductive health supplies.

  DFID spent a total of over £270 million on reproductive health and HIV/AIDS programmes in the financial year 2002–03, up from around £40 million in 1997–98. DFID is one of the leading bilateral providers of condoms and other reproductive health commodities to developing countries. We are supporting a number of male and female condom social marketing programmes that combine condom procurement and distribution with encouraging behaviour change, communication and capacity building.

  The Government have also committed £16 million (over five years) to the Medical Research Council's microbicide development programme. This promises to be an important new technology that, like female condoms, will empower women to protect themselves from sexually transmitted infections.

  Condoms or drugs alone are not the answer to tackling HIV/AIDS. We regard provision of reproductive health supplies as an integral part of DFID's wide-ranging support for reproductive health. This includes HIV/AIDS programmes, prevention and treatment of sexually transmitted infections, family planning and maternal and adolescent health. The fight against HIV/ AIDS must include effective public programmes involving education, prevention, treatment, care and support and impact mitigation.

  Examples of reproductive health and HIV/AIDS programmes supported by DFID that include provision of reproductive health supplies are:

  £2 million for a regional HIV/AIDS prevention programme in Asia;

  £7.65 million for a regional AIDS programme in Southern Africa;

  £2.9 million for support for reproductive health in Zambia.

  DFID supports a £15 million HIV/AIDS Prevention and Care Project in China, which includes working with vulnerable groups, such as commercial sex workers, through civil society organisations. To date, this work has been focussed on reducing risk and vulnerability through increased condom use, access to education and health services. Government capacity to address the rights of children vulnerable to or affected by HIV and the need to address the gender dimensions of HIV and poverty are being given renewed attention.

  More widely, DFID provides technical assistance to strengthen local capacity for health sector planning in a number of countries, including Bangladesh, Cambodia, Ghana, Nepal and Tanzania.
  723W
  The Government are also a major donor to the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) and supports the Fund's work to provide the widest achievable range of safe and effective family planning and contraceptive methods, including condoms to prevent HIV/AIDS. This includes providing technical assistance to strengthen local planning capacity. DFID's core support has increased from £15 million a year up to 2001–02 to £ 18million a year from 2002–03 (planned) until 2005–06. We intend to enter into a funding arrangement with UNFPA for several years ahead, to coincide with their work programme, which will give them greater stability of funding. We have no plans to make an additional grant to UNFPA in the current financial year for provision of reproductive health commodities in addition to the core grant.

  The UK played a leading role in setting up the Global Fund to fight AIDS, TB and Malaria (GFATM), which is now an important source of funding for HIV/AIDS programmes. In July 2003 the UK pledged an additional US$80 million to GFATM (US$40 million per annum over two further years). This will extend our current commitment to 2008 and bring our total contribution to US$280 million.

  The Government also support reproductive health activities at a country level. DFID works through Sector Wide Approaches and Direct Budget Support as ways of supporting countries' own development frameworks, which are often in the form of Poverty Reduction Strategies. We work to ensure that sufficient attention is given to reproductive health issues, including the supply and availability of reproductive health commodities. In many circumstances, for example in Cambodia, DFID is also continuing to ring-fence support for reproductive health and HIV/AIDS work, including the supply of reproductive health commodities. The most recent data shows that, in the financial year 2002–03, out of a total of £96 million spent by DFID on Sector Wide Approaches, £31 million (32 per cent.) was spent on programmes that had reproductive health services as one of their target objectives. We work with partners to increase access by poor people to good quality reproductive and sexual health care and services.

  On 1 December—World AIDS Day—the UK Government launched their Call for Action on HIV/AIDS. Details on this can be obtained by contacting: AIDS@dfid.gov.uk. The Call for Action challenges the international community to intensify its efforts to tackle HIV/AIDS and to achieve real progress towards the international targets.

  Research Strategy
  Tony Baldry:
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what development problems his Department is seeking to resolve through research. [142643]
  724W
  Hilary Benn:
  The current research programme covers a very wide variety of development problems. DFID supports major research programmes, either alone or with other funders, on:

  HIV/AIDS—including vaccine and microbicide research

  Malaria

  Tuberculosis

  Reproductive and maternal health

  Child health

  Health systems and economics

  Crop production, protection and post-harvest

  Livestock and fish production and health

  Forestry

  Natural resources systems

  Chronic poverty—how to reach the very poorest

  The state, and how citizens can participate in decisions

  Migration

  Inequality and ethnicity

  Competition, regulation and investment

  How developing country governments respond to crises.

  Urbanisation

  Water and Sanitation

  Transport

  Energy

  Information and Communication Technology

  I will also write to the hon. Member with some recent examples of DFID-funded research having an impact on poverty.

  Tony Baldry:
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if he will make a statement on his Department's research strategy. [142644]

  Hilary Benn:
  Following a review of DFID research last year, entitled "Research for Poverty Reduction", the Department is preparing a new research strategy which I hope to publish early in the new year.

  Tony Baldry:
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if he will make a statement on the remit of the Policy Division within his Department. [142645]

  Hilary Benn:
  Policy Division's role is to develop evidence-based, innovative approaches to development, which make a real difference to the poor. Policy Division has been set up to react flexibly to changing needs and priorities. The main areas of work are Aid Effectiveness, Growth, Working in Difficult Environments, Service Delivery, Future Challenges, and Research.

  Policy Division has four equally weighted functions:

  New policy development

  Knowledge sharing and lesson learning across countries

  Core policy subjects eg civil service reform

  Advisory support to our country programmes worldwide.

  All Policy Division teams are focussed on producing work that can be put to practical use in the field of poverty reduction.
  725W
  Policy Division has four Public Service Agreement/Service Delivery Agreement (PSA/SDA) targets:

  Take up of innovative approaches and research findings developed by DFID;

  Progress on global issues with major impact on poor people;

  Increased coherence and quality in the international system for reporting progress against the MDGs;

  Analytical methods to integrate poverty-environment issues into PRSPs and other development plans.

  Rwanda
  Tom Brake:
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what measures the Government can deploy in the case of a breach of the Memorandum of Understanding with Rwanda. [142513]

  Hilary Benn:
  Our engagement with the Government of Rwanda is based upon the joint commitments set down in the UK/Rwanda Memorandum of Understanding. These commitments include:
  the promotion of peace and stability within the Great Lakes regional, including the promotion of transparency and legality of the exploitation of the region's natural resources;
  the promotion and protection of all human rights, including social and economic rights, for all Rwandans, including through the promotion and observance of relevant international agreements;
  the promotion of democratic institutions of governance;
  the pursuit of poverty reduction, by placing poverty reduction and social inclusion at the centre of policy-making and resource allocation;
  strengthening systems for budget execution, financial management and financial accountability, to ensure that funds are used for the intended purposes, are properly accounted for, and provide value for money.

  Progress against these commitments is reviewed each year by a team of independent consultants. That review forms the basis of the annual UK/Rwanda Partnership Talks. Any concerns arising from the independent review or from the UK's routine assessment of Government policy and practice are discussed with the Government of Rwanda.

  Should we believe that the Government of Rwanda are not honouring the commitments made in the Memorandum of Understanding, and where the consultation process provided for within the Memorandum of Understanding fails to satisfy our concern, then we reserve the right to amend or entirely suspend our engagement with the Government of Rwanda. Our aim in any reconfiguration of our engagement will be to continue to make the greatest possible impact on poverty in Rwanda.

  Tom Brake:
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment of the fairness of elections in Rwanda his Department has undertaken. [142511]

  Hilary Benn:
  The recent national elections—the first since 1994, when genocide claimed the lives of over 800,000 Rwandans—were an important step towards Rwandan democracy. They were well organised and peaceful, they helped establish an electoral process in a country with no democratic tradition, and they demonstrated a genuine public thirst for democracy. But we believe that they were also flawed. The European Union's Election Observation Mission highlighted a
  726W
  number of irregularities, although it stopped short of questioning the validity of the process or the result (Observation Missions from the Africa Union and South Africa reported far fewer irregularities). And we assess that in the run-up to the elections, Government moved to control the activities of opposition parties, civil society and the independent media.

  We have urged the Government to take confidence from its new popular mandate, to open up space for legitimate political debate and to continue its work to establish a democratic and inclusive state.

  Tom Brake:
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment his Department has undertaken of the time scale over which democracy will be introduced in Rwanda with free elections. [142512]

  Hilary Benn:
  DFID's 2003 Country Assistance Plan, a copy of which was recently placed in the House of Commons Library, presents our analysis of the process of democratisation in Rwanda.

  We conclude that the Government of Rwanda is committed to establishing a democratic and inclusive state, at the pace that Rwanda's continuing social fragility dictates. We see evidence of this in the recent national elections, the first since the 1994 genocide and civil war. Although flawed, these elections were also well organised and peaceful, and helped establish a democratic process in Rwanda. The Government aims to build democracy from the bottom, by empowering local communities to engage with local government structures around policy development and resource allocation. It believes that democracy built in this way, with its emphasis on social participation and inclusion, will act as a counter-balance to political extremism including genocidal ideology. Local government structures are being established at a rapid rate, and significant resources are now being channelled to them.

  We cannot determine a particular year by which "democracy" should be established. The pace of democratisation will be determined by the country's experience as it moves to establish local government, reintegrate ex-combatants returning from the Democratic Republic of Congo and individuals guilty of genocide and allows greater space for Parliament and the public to scrutinise the executive. But we have identified with Government a number of actions that should be taken over the next 12 months in certain key areas of political governance which are necessary to strengthen and demonstrate the move towards democratisation. These actions will be set out in the 2004 UK/Rwanda Memorandum of Understanding, which we will sign with the Government of Rwanda in January. The annual independent review of the Memorandum of Understanding provides the basis for our Partnership Talks with the Government of Rwanda.

  Swazi Maize Farmers
  John Barrett:
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment he has made of the impact which food aid to Swaziland is having on the ability of Swazi maize farmers to sell their produce; and if he will make a statement. [142782]
  727W
  Hilary Benn:
  Food aid always has the potential to disrupt incentives to local farmers. That is why DFID looks carefully at the specific food needs in each humanitarian operation and discusses food aid programmes with the major agencies, including the World Food Programme. We encourage WFP to source grains locally whenever this is possible and cost effective.

  The National Agricultural Marketing Board of Swaziland suspended import permits for maize at the beginning of November this year. In the view of the Marketing Board, food aid imports are depressing local market prices, and DFID has therefore been discussing the position with the World Food Programme. WFP has informed us that tenders for food aid in Swaziland have been open to Swazi suppliers.

  DFID's own support for WFP programmes in Swaziland has prioritised the use of corn soya blend for the most vulnerable of the food insecure, mostly vulnerable children and expectant mothers. Corn soya blend has no locally-produced substitute and will not disrupt incentives for local maize trade or maize planting.

  Timber
  Mr. Gardiner:
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development by what means the Department's policy for purchasing timber and timber products ensures that they are obtained from legal and sustainable sources. [141336]

  Hilary Benn:
  DFID ensures that its contractors and procurement agents purchasing goods on our behalf, are aware of Government policies and requires them to obtain proof from their suppliers that timber and timber products have been procured from legal and sustainable sources.

  Turkmenistan
  John Barrett:
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment he has made of the impact which new laws on NGO registration in Turkmenistan will have on the ability of organisations to carry out humanitarian work; and if he will make a statement. [141373]

  Mr. Rammell:
  I have been asked to reply.

  I am very concerned that the new legislation on NGOs will criminalise legitimate NGO activity and give the Ministry of Justice powers to curb the work of NGOs in Turkmenistan.

  Our Embassy in Ashgabat has raised these concerns with the Turkmen Ministry of Foreign Affairs, urging the Turkmen government not to use the legislation to penalise NGOs. Our concerns have also been raised with the Turkmen Ambassador to London.

  With OSCE and other partners we have sent two Note Verbales asking for a meeting with the Turkmen Foreign Minister to discuss our concerns. We await a response and will continue to monitor this issue carefully.
  728W

  UN Relief and Works Agency
  Mr. Jenkins:
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what aid was donated by the British Government to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency in each of the last 10 years; and how much is pledged for 2004. [143216]

  Hilary Benn:
  The UK's bilateral contributions to UNRWA for each financial year since 1994 are:

  £ million

  Amount

  1994–95

  6.0

  1995–96

  6.6

  1996–97

  8.1

  1997–98

  10.0

  1998–99

  3.4

  1999–2000

  13.0

  2000–01

  18.8

  2001–02

  25.4

  2002–03

  18.8

  2003–04

  118.1

  1 Spend to December 2003—the forecast for the financial year is

  Contributions since the start of the intifada in 2000 include extra funding allocated to UNRWA's emergency appeals for the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Our current bilateral framework for UNRWA for 2004–05 is £15 million.

  The UK also contributes to UNRWA through its share of EC funding. EC contributions totalled ¬77 million in 2001, ¬65 million in 2002 and ¬82 million this year. The UK provides approximately 19 per cent. of funds to the EC's budget.

CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS

  Asylum and Immigration
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas:
  To ask the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs what plans he has to ensure consistency in decision making at adjudicator level if the Immigration Appeals Tribunal is abolished. [143465]

  Mr Lammy:
  The majority of appeals within the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal (AIT) will be heard and decided by single immigration judges. In reaching decisions judges must follow case law set by a panel of senior immigration judges and practice directions from the President.

  In addition senior immigration judges will be responsible for ensuring consistent standards across the jurisdiction.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas:
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs (1) if he will set out the hierarchy within the proposed new asylum and immigration appeals system; [143466]

  (2) what the ratio of senior immigration judges to immigration judges will be in his proposed hierarchy for asylum and immigration appeals; [143468]
  729W
  what the criteria for selecting senior immigration judges will be; and in what respect their role will differ from that of immigration judges; [143469]

  if he will make a statement on the role of senior immigration judges. [143470]

  Mr. Lammy:
  The Asylum and Immigration Tribunal will be headed by a President supported by one or more Deputy Presidents. The precise hierarchical structure of the Tribunal, including the selection criteria for senior immigration judges, is the subject of continuing discussions with the judiciary. The intention is to make the best use of the existing judicial complement who will transfer automatically to the new Tribunal. In broad terms, there will be a core body of senior immigration judges to support the work of immigration judges either by way of establishing case law, dealing with applications for review of Tribunal decisions or acting in supervisory positions.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas:
  To ask the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs whether his proposals for a new asylum and immigration appeals system will provide for (a) a review of and (b) an appeal from decisions that can be shown to be incorrect because of an administrative error by the Immigration Appeals Tribunal; and whether his proposals will provide an opportunity to challenge decisions if the conduct of the Immigration and Appeals Tribunal judge is questioned [143467]

  Mr. Lammy:
  The Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claims, etc.) Bill will make provision for the tribunal to review its decision only if there has been a clear legal error which goes to the heart of the decision. A review will be conducted by reference to written submissions only.

  Mr. Malins:
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs how many (a) part-time and (b) full-time immigration adjudicators were in post on 1st October in each of the last four years. [143356]

  Mr. Lammy:
  The numbers for fee-paid part-time, and for salaried immigration adjudicators are as follows:

  Date

  Fee-paid

  Salaried

  1 October 2000

  143

  15

  1 October 2001

  264

  46

  1 October 2002

  394

  80

  1 October 2003

  399

  156

  These figures do not include the following posts: 1 Chief Adjudicator, 1 Deputy Chief Adjudicator, 9 Regional Adjudicators and 7 Deputy Regional Adjudicators. In addition, a salaried Adjudicator with responsibility for training matters is in the process of being appointed.

  Name Changes
  Ms Stuart:
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs how many cases of change of name by deed poll were recorded in each of the last five years. [143517]
  730W
  Mr. Leslie:
  Figures are only available for the number of change of name deeds registered in the Central Office of the Supreme Court.

  The figures are as follows:

  Change of name deeds enrolled

  1998

  227

  1999

  210

  2000

  254

  2001

  193

  2002

  184

  Total

  1,068

  Judicial Oversight
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas:
  To ask the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs whether the term judicial oversight in the context of the designated senior judge means (a) active oversight of substantive decisions and (b) purely administrative oversight [143471]

  Mr. Lammy:
  The designated senior judge will have a managerial and an advice and mentoring role. The substantive decision will continue to be the responsibility of the judge conducting the tribunal hearing.

  Art Acquisition
  Norman Baker:
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs how much his Department or its predecessors 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 has been; how much it cost; and what the total revenue raised by his Department through sales of works of art has been since 1997. [142356]

  Mr. Leslie:
  My Department has neither acquired nor sold any works of art in the period since 1997.

  Big Conversation
  Mr. Heald:
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs 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. Leslie:
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him by the Leader of the House of Commons on 9 December 2003, Official Report, column 355W.

  House Sales
  Mr. Sanders:
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs how many house sales there were at more than (a) £20,001, (b) £50,001,

  731W
  (c) £75,001, (d) £100,001, (e) £150,001, (f) £200,001, (g) £250,001 and (h) £500,001 in Torbay in each of the last six years for which figures are available. [143593]

  Mr. Lammy:
  The figures for each completed calendar year are as follows. Land Registry collects residential property price data by specified price bands and it is not possible to provide figures for sales specifically within the bands £75,001 and £250,001. Alternative ranges have therefore been provided.

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  More than £20,001

  1,559

  1,292

  1,219

  852

  563

  345

  More than £50,001

  1,388

  1,519

  1,759

  1,759

  1,541

  1,022

  More than £80,001

  346

  374

  554

  664

  897

  1,003

  More than £100,001

  261

  284

  485

  647

  934

  1,393

  More than £150,001

  82

  100

  158

  200

  337

  621

  More than £200,001

  39

  62

  77

  112

  149

  313

  More than £300,001

  6

  11

  10

  27

  52

  92

  More than £500,001

  12

  0

  5

  7

  6

  6

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Chechnya
  Tom Brake:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment his Department has made of the human rights situation in Chechnya. [143931]

  Mr. Rammell:
  We remain concerned over consistent reports of human rights abuses in Chechnya, especially reports of rising numbers of "disappearances". We regularly raise our concerns on human rights in Chechnya with the Russian authorities. We most recently did so following the Chechen Presidential elections, when I called for human rights to be upheld in Chechnya.

  Big Conversation
  Mr. Heald:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs 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. [143152]

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

  Democratic Republic of Congo
  Mr. Laxton:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the treatment of members of political parties in the Democratic Republic of Congo, with particular reference to the UDPS. [143662]

  Mr. Mullin:
  Political parties, including the Union for Democracy and Social Progress, in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) now enjoy a considerable degree of freedom of speech and of activity. New laws for registration and financing of political parties are on
  732W
  the agenda of the National Assembly of the DRC. Some political parties, newly formed from rebel movements in the east, do not want to register under the former Government's legislation until these laws are passed. With our support, the independent Electoral Commission and the High Media Authority (both civil society institutions) are monitoring closely.

  Mr. Laxton:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on human rights in the Democratic Republic of Congo. [143691]

  Mr. Mullin:
  The UN Special Rapporteuse on Human Rights in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) reported to the Security Council in October 2003 on the current situation. We remain concerned about the high level of human rights violations across the country which she reported, particularly in the east.

  Many violations committed during the war are also coming to light now that the fighting has reduced and the civilian population has more access to information, to the UN force (MONUC) and to NGOs. The new civil society institutions, particularly the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and the National Human Rights Observatoire, will need to work with the Transitional National Government to deal with past and current abuses. The international community, including the UK, is offering political, financial and technical support to these Commissions.

  European Constitution
  Mr. Cash:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs pursuant to his answer of 8 December 2003, Official Report, column 245W, on the draft European Constitution, how his statement that Article I-10 (1) should be interpreted accordingly applies to interpretation by the United Kingdom courts in respect of any future enactment of the United Kingdom Parliament which UK courts had determined was unambiguously inconsistent with European Union law. [143765]

  Mr. MacShane:
  The ultimate guarantee of parliamentary sovereignty lies in the power of Parliament to repeal all or any of the Acts which give effect to the EU treaties in this country. It is within Parliament's power to legislate contrary to the UK's treaty obligations. This of course includes legislation that might impact on the effective implementation of Article I-10 (1). The result of so doing, however, would be to place the UK in breach of its treaty obligations.

  Gibraltar
  Mr. Rosindell:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the Government's position on the proposal for British/Spanish joint sovereignty for Gibraltar. [143555]

  Mr. MacShane:
  I refer the hon. Member to the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary on 12 July 2002, Official Report, columns 1165–80.

  Hajj 2004
  Mr. Cousins:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what extra consular, medical and other support he proposes to offer to UK citizens attending the Hajj at Mecca in 2004. [144001]

  Mr. Mullin:
  The delegation will include eight doctors, two counsellors and two members of staff from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

  Identity Cards
  Mr. Webb:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the implications of the introduction of compulsory identity cards for his Department. [142943]

  Mr. Rammell:
  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) has been involved from an early stage in detailed consultations with the Home Office and other Government Departments about the implications of an identity cards scheme. The FCO's initial concerns were addressed in the Home Office's paper "Identity Cards: The Next Steps" of November 2003. Issues such as the scheme's compatibility with EU legislation are being addressed in the drafting of the Bill. The FCO is represented on the interdepartmental programme board for ID cards which is taking into account the implications for foreign nationals and British nationals overseas, as well as our visa and consular services.

  The Government have adopted an incremental approach to the introduction of ID cards which will ensure that successful roll-out in the first stage is a precondition for any move to compulsory cards.

  Iraq
  Norman Lamb:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what role the Government is playing in the process of awarding contracts for the provision of mobile telecommunications services in Iraq; how this process is being managed; and if he will make a statement. [142018]

  Mr. Rammell:
  The process of awarding licences for the provision of mobile telecommunications services in Iraq is the responsibility of the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA). The Iraqi Minister of Communications reviewed the outcome of the process and announced it.

  The CPA put into place measures and safeguards in order to ensure the telecommunications licences were awarded in a transparent, fair and impartial manner, based upon full and open competition.

  Norman Lamb:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the extent of the involvement of Mr. Nadhmi Auchi in the process for awarding contracts for the provision of mobile telecommunications services in Iraq. [142020]

  Mr. Rammell:
  The process for awarding licences for the provision of mobile telecommunications services in Iraq was the responsibility of the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA). The Iraqi Minister of Communications reviewed the outcome of the process and announced it. Mr. Nadhmi Auchi was not involved in the process of awarding licences.
  734W
  Norman Lamb:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with (a) the Pentagon Inspector General and (b) other US authorities on investigations into the awarding of contracts for the provision of mobile telecommunications services in Iraq, with particular reference to the activities of Mr. David Leech and Mr. Jim Davis. [142208]

  Mr. Rammell:
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has had no discussions with the Pentagon Inspector General or other US authorities on investigations into the awarding of the licences for the provision of mobile telecommunications services in Iraq. The British Government have no knowledge of any investigation into or formal allegation against Mr. David Leech or Mr. Jim Davies, and no reason to doubt their integrity in any way.

  The CPA put into place measures and safeguards in order to ensure the telecommunications licences were awarded in a transparent, fair and impartial manner, based upon full and open competition.

  Mr. Menzies Campbell:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what criteria will determine whether the results of investigations by (a) the Iraq Survey Group and (b) any other agency will be published; and if he will make a statement. [142637]

  Mr. Straw:
  The Iraq Survey Group is a coalition body, not a UK Government body. The reports that they produce will be shared with the Governments of the coalition parties.

  The criteria for the release of any information generated within the Government or received by the Government are laid down in the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Middle East
  Mr. Rosindell:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the action taken by his Department to address human rights violations in Middle Eastern states with particular reference to (a) Saudi Arabia, (b) Syria and (c) Iran. [143549]

  Mr. Rammell:
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and Foreign Office Ministers have discussed human rights concerns with their opposite numbers in these countries on many occasions. We also raise concerns through the EU.

  On Saudi Arabia, we continue to have concerns about the failure to implement basic human rights norms. We have raised the use of capital punishment with the Saudi authorities, doing so most recently in conjunction with EU partners on 20 April 2003.

  My hon. Friend the Minister of State at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Mike O'Brien) raised a range of civil society issues with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad during his visit to Damascus on 5 March 2003.

  The Foreign Secretary most recently raised concerns about human rights in Iran, including restrictions on freedom of expression, with his Iranian counterpart in

  735W
  September 2003. The UK co-sponsored a Canadian-tabled resolution on human rights in Iran at the United Nations General Assembly in November this year.

  Simon Chapman
  Mr. McNamara:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps have been taken to secure the release of Mr. Simon Chapman, arrested on 21 June 2003 in Thessaloniki, Greece; whether Her Majesty's representatives in Greece viewed the video evidence purporting to demonstrate Mr. Chapman's innocence of the charges made against him; how many days Mr. Chapman was on hunger strike; what the most recent assessment is of Mr. Chapman's medical condition; if he will make representations to the Greek authorities to lift the remaining barriers that prevent Mr. Chapman from returning to the UK; and what publicly-funded (a) legal advice and (b) financial support is available to Mr. Chapman to pursue a civil action against the Greek authorities. [143378]

  Mr. Mullin:
  Simon Chapman was released on bail on 27 November 2003. Consular staff were in regular touch with him throughout his detention; and staff in the UK were in frequent touch with his family.

  Neither the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) nor the British Embassy in Athens are in a position to comment on the video evidence put forward in Mr. Chapman's defence. It is for the courts to decide upon its relevance to his case.

  Mr. Chapman started refusing food and liquids from 4 October 2003, although he did take honey and vitamin supplements. He started taking water from 25 October 2003. Since his release, Mr. Chapman has not contacted our staff but we remain in contact with his family, who have told us that Mr. Chapman is now eating certain foods and steadily regaining weight.

  Mr. Chapman's lawyer has made an application to the Greek authorities to allow him to return to the UK pending his trial.

  The FCO does not fund the legal costs of distressed British nationals but we have offered the use of a pro-bono lawyer from the FCO panel to assist Mr. Chapman's lawyer.

  Sudan
  Mr. Drew:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) if he will press the Government of Sudan to accept international monitoring of the situation in Darfur, Sudan; [143650]

  (2) what discussions he has had with the Government of Chad with regard to the Sudanese peace talks. [143651]

  Mr. Mullin:
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development spoke with the President of Sudan on 10 December during his visit to Sudan on 10 and 11 December, about the situation in Darfur. He expressed the British Government's concern at the deteriorating humanitarian situation there, and made clear that the parties needed to stop fighting and renew the ceasefire as a matter of urgency. We will ask the Government of Sudan to consider inviting international observers to monitor a renewed ceasefire.
  736W
  Our Embassy in Khartoum has also had contact with the Chadian Embassy there with regard to the Abeche peace talks.

  Terrorism
  Mr. Rosindell:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of steps taken by Saudi Arabia to combat al-Qaeda operations. [143550]

  Mr. Rammell:
  The Government of Saudi Arabia have taken significant steps to combat al-Qaeda-related terrorism in the aftermath of the 11 September 2001 attacks and in response to increased terrorist activity in Saudi Arabia. It has ratified six of the 12 International Conventions on terrorism; and has signed, but not yet ratified, the Convention on the financing of terrorism. It publicly condemned the 11 September attacks and has made clear repeatedly its condemnation of all terrorism.

  Over the past year, the Saudi authorities have adopted wide-ranging measures against terrorism. They have publicly identified wanted terrorist suspects, made many arrests, seized significant caches of terrorist weapons and explosives, sought to counter the ideology underpinning the terrorists' activities, enhanced the security presence in public places, including around residential compounds, and taken measures to counter the flow of terrorist funding. We are co-operating closely with the Saudi authorities, as is the US and other international partners.

  Nevertheless, the terrorist attacks of 12 May and 9 November highlight the very real threat of terrorism in Saudi Arabia. We continue to believe terrorists are planning further attacks in Saudi Arabia. Foreign and Commonwealth Office travel advice makes this assessment clear.

  UK Visas
  David Winnick:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when the Visa and Correspondence section of UK Visas will reply to the letter of 18 November from the hon. Member for Walsall, North concerning a constituent case, ref. 659979. [143959]

  Mr. Mullin:
  A substantive reply was sent to my hon. Friend on 11 December.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Alternative Voting Methods
  Lady Hermon:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment he has made of the impact of alternative voting methods in Northern Ireland. [143816]

  Mr. Spellar:
  The Government are always ready to look at alternative voting methods if they lead to a more effective electoral system. However, before considering any alternative methods we would need to be sure that they would not compromise our anti-fraud measures.
  737W
  Lady Hermon:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, what plans he has to introduce pilot schemes for electronic counting of votes in future (a) local government, (17) Assembly, (c) Westminster and (d) European Parliament elections; and if he will make a statement. [144007]

  Mr. Spellar:
  Following the recent Assembly elections we will be talking to interested parties to ascertain their views on ensuring that election counts are efficient and effective as possible.

  Ballyvester Primary School
  Lady Hermon:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he will make the necessary funding available to Ballyvester Primary School in North Down to facilitate the replacement of mobile classrooms. [143584]

  Jane Kennedy:
  I understand from the Chief Executive of the South Eastern Education and Library Board that the long-term future of Ballyvester Primary School is being considered as part of the Board's five-year Capital Development Plan, which was published in October 2003 and is out for consultation until February 2004. The five-year plan indicates that a review of primary provision in the area will be carried out before the end of 2005.

  In the meantime, the Board has carried out improvements to the heating in the main school and external repair to the existing mobiles. As a short-term measure, the Board also offered to replace some of the older mobile classrooms with newer mobiles but the school has declined this solution.

  Closed Circuit Television
  Lady Hermon:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what funding he has made available for town centre CCTV schemes in Northern Ireland; and what assessment he has made of the contribution of CCTV to the reduction of crime in Northern Ireland's town centres. [142689]

  Mr. Spellar:
  During the period 1999–2001, the Government, through the Police Authority for Northern Ireland, invested £2.3 million in CCTV systems in seventeen town centres across Northern Ireland. We hope that it will be possible to build on this original investment and plan to make a further statement shortly.

  In terms of the impact of CCTV, we have received evaluations from nine of the systems installed during 1999–2001. My officials are currently considering these and will be seeking a further independent view of their overall impact on crime across Northern Ireland.

  We remain of the view that CCTV, when used as part of a wider crime reduction strategy, can be an effective tool in tackling crime.

  Diabetes Framework
  Lady Hermon:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress has been made in the implementation of the Diabetes Framework Strategy for Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement. [143973]
  738W
  Angela Smith:
  The Department will establish an Implementation Team, early in the new year, to produce an implementation plan for the Diabetes Service Framework. The Implementation Team will identify specific actions which can be taken forward within the additional resources which will be made available for diabetes services next year and produce a prioritised and costed list of further actions which can be taken forward as additional resources are secured.

  Disability Discrimination Act
  Lady Hermon:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has to extend Part 3 of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 to cover education and transport services in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement. [142693]

  Mr. Spellar:
  It is proposed to issue a Northern Ireland consultation document on the proposal to remove the exemption for transport services in Part III of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 early next year.

  In relation to the coverage of education, the Act will effectively be extended to cover Northern Ireland by way of Special Educational Needs and Disability legislation which is currently in course of preparation and is expected to be made next year.

  Farming (Subsidy Claims)
  Mr. McGrady:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many appeals have been heard against decisions by the Department to penalise farmers for errors in subsidy claims; and what percentage of these appeals have been successful. [143948]

  Mr. Pearson:
  A total of 48 cases have been heard by the Independent Appeals Panel. Of these, eight relate to errors in subsidy claims and one of these (12.5 per cent.) has been successful. In total, 23 per cent. of the cases heard by the Panel have been successful either in whole or in part.

  Harland and Wolff
  Mr. Hancock:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what grant assistance has been given to Harland and Wolff in Belfast since 1 January 2000 in respect of equipment purchased which has since been sold on to Swan Hunter. [143310]

  Mr. Pearson:
  No grant assistance has been provided since 1 January 2000 in respect of surplus equipment sold by Harland and Wolff, to Swan Hunter, as part of ongoing restructuring activity.

  Local Community Fund
  Mr. McNamara:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what electoral wards will receive grants from the Local Community Fund; and what projects will be supported in each. [143451]

  Mr. Spellar:
  For 2003–04 the Local Community Fund has been allocated to communities using the Noble measure of multiple deprivation overlaid by the results of a mapping exercise carried out by the Community Foundation of Northern Ireland. A full list of areas benefiting from the Fund is shown in the following

  739W
  table. Allocation of the Fund has been calculated on a proportionality basis, using estimated populations for the list of selected areas.

  It is intended that key activities, which the Fund will support, will involve capacity building and the strengthening of leadership at a neighbourhood level. Deployment of the Fund is based on a bottom up approach with local communities developing community ideas and identifying appropriate activities to be supported as a solution to tackling their problems against the allocated sums. Each area is currently working up initiatives/actions for support through the Fund. Some examples of the type of activity likely to be supported are refurbishment of community houses, youth intervention programmes and environmental improvement projects and it is hoped that activities will get on the ground early in the new year.

  Local Community Fund initial areas 2003–04—District council areas

  Ward

  Area

  Ards

  Loughries

  Bowtown Estate

  Belfast

  St. Anne's

  Lower Shankill

  St. Anne's

  Brown Square

  Ballymacarrett

  Pottinger (Inner East)

  Ballymacarrett

  Avoniel (Part of Inner East)

  Ballymacarrett

  The Mount (Part of Inner East)

  Ballymacarrett

  Willowfield (Part of Inner East)

  Ballymacarrett

  Ravenhill (Part of Inner East)

  Clonard

  Clonard

  Clonard

  Beechmount/Cavendish

  Blackstaff

  Village

  Glencairn

  Glencairn

  Highfield

  Highfield

  Finaghy

  Finaghy

  Carrickfergus

  Northland

  Sunnylands

  Gortalee

  Greenisland/Gortalee

  Castlereagh

  Castlereagh

  Tullycarnet

  Coleraine

  Ballysally

  Ballysally

  Churchland

  The Heights

  Cookstown

  Stewartstown

  Stewartstown

  Craigavon

  Drumgask

  Parkmore

  Derry

  St. Peter's

  Foylehill/Creggan

  Victoria

  Top of Hill/Gobnascale

  Shantallow East

  Shantallow

  Glen

  Glen Estate

  Corrody

  Curryneirin and Tullally

  Caw

  Clooney

  Clondermot

  Irish Street

  Faughan

  Lettershandoney

  Crevagh and Springtown

  Ballymagroaty /Hazel bank

  Down

  Flying Horse

  Model Farm Estate

  Cathedral

  Flying Horse Estate

  Shimna

  Newcastle

  740W

  Local Community Fund initial areas 2003–04—District council areas

  Ward

  Area

  Dungannon

  Ballysaggart

  Ballysaggart

  Larne

  Central

  Riverdale

  Limavady

  Limavady

  Glen Estate and Hospital Lane

  Moyle Council

  Glentaisie

  Ballycastle Town

  Newry and Mourne

  Daisy Hill

  Carnagat

  Newtownhamilton

  Newtownhamilton Village

  Ballybot

  Derry beg

  Newtownabbey

  Glengormley

  Glenvarna and Queenspark

  North Down

  Conlig

  Rathgill

  Harbour

  Harbour Ward

  Omagh

  Termon

  Carrickmore

  Fintona

  Fintona

  Strabane

  Glenderg

  Glenderg Ward

  Strabane West

  Lisnafin

  Strabane South

  Ballycolman

  Northern Ireland Assembly
  David Burnside:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the expected monthly running cost is of the Northern Ireland Assembly (a) while suspended and (b) when fully operational, broken down by (i) MLA salaries and office cost allowance costs, (ii) executive costs when the Assembly is operational and (iii) general administration costs. [142773]

  Mr. Paul Murphy:
  The expected monthly running costs of the Northern Ireland Assembly while suspension continues are £1.93 million, comprising £0.83 million for MLA salaries, office cost allowance, travel and subsistence expenses and party allowances and £1.1 million for general administration. The monthly costs when the Assembly was last fully operational were £2.64 million, comprising 0.97 million for MLA salaries, office cost allowance, travel and subsistence expenses and party allowances and £1.67 million for executive and general administration costs. It is not possible to separate the executive costs of running Assembly business from the general administration costs.

  Paramilitary Activity (Exiles)
  Mr. Barnes:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) how many people have been exiled from Northern Ireland by (a) Loyalist and (b) Republican paramilitary groups in each of the last five years; [142747]
  741W
  (2) what his latest estimate is of the total number of people who have been exiled from Northern Ireland by paramilitary groups since 1973. [142748]

  Angela Smith:
  There are no official figures on the number of people exiled from Northern Ireland as a result of paramilitary intimidation as not all incidents are reported. The needs of exiles are examined in detail in the Legacy Report, an independent needs analysis of victims of the Troubles living in Great Britain. One of the major contributors to this research was Maranatha, a Christian community which has considerable experience in this area. Maranatha estimates that around four people per month are exiled from Northern Ireland to Great Britain.

  Police Fund
  Lady Hermon:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what discussions he has had with the Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland in relation to the arrest of two members of staff of the Police Fund on 5 December 2003; and if he will make a statement. [143945]

  Jane Kennedy:
  As the Chairman of the Northern Ireland Police Fund stated on 5 December 2003, he was made aware on the previous day of serious allegations, including financial irregularities, in respect of the Fund. Two members of staff were questioned by the police, although they were subsequently released without charge. I welcome the commitment of the Fund's Directors to provide continuity of care and services to the Fund's clients, as far as possible.

  As there is an on-going police investigation, it would not be appropriate to comment further.

  Lady Hermon:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment he has made of possible breaches of confidentiality of the names and addresses of Royal Ulster Constabulary widows following the arrest of two members of staff of the Police Fund; and if he will make a statement. [143946]

  Jane Kennedy:
  I refer the hon. Lady to the statements issued by the Fund Chairman on 5 December 2003. Copies of the statements have been placed in the Library.

  Police Station (Belfast Airport)
  Mrs. Iris Robinson:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland on what basis the decision to close the police station at Belfast International Airport was made; and if he will make a statement. [141726]

  Jane Kennedy:
  While some functions are to transfer from the Police Station to the new Airport Control Centre, such as monitoring CCTV and managing operational communications, the Police Station itself remains a vital part of the security infrastructure at the airport and will not he closed.

  Post-primary Education
  David Burnside:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress has been made on
  742W
  reducing the number of disaffected pupils in post primary schools by 15 per cent. as set out in the Department of Education Business Plan 2003–04. [142210]

  Jane Kennedy:
  The target is to achieve the reduction by 2006. At the end of the 2003–04 school year the baseline for persistent non-attendance and multiple suspensions will be determined and it is against this that progress will be measured. It will be November 2005 before the first report on progress is available.

  School Enrolments
  David Burnside:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the latest enrolment numbers available at schools and in pre-funded education are for 2002–03 in Northern Ireland. [142774]

  Jane Kennedy:
  The information requested is as follows:

  Number

  Children in Funded Places in Voluntary and Private Pre-school Education Centres

  5,804

  Nursery Schools

  6,269

  Nursery Classes in Primary Schools

  7,823

  Reception Pupils in Primary Schools

  1,149

  Reception Pupils in Preparatory Departments

  31

  Primary Schools (Year 1-Year 7)

  165,179

  Preparatory Departments (Year 1-Year 7)

  2,620

  Secondary Schools (Non Grammar)

  92,645

  Grammar Schools (Year 8-Year 14)

  63,102

  Special Schools

  4,879

  Hospital Schools

  236

  Independent Schools

  948

  All Schools and funded pre-school centres

  350,685

  Victims (Representation)
  Mr. Barnes:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how the interests of victims and survivors of the Northern Ireland Troubles from Great Britain are represented in the talks between the British and Irish Governments and the Northern Ireland political parties. [142750]

  Angela Smith:
  The Joint Declaration of 6 May 2003 commits Government to work with the Irish Government, the political parties and victims and survivors to seek to establish what further practical steps can be taken to recognise and address the suffering of all victims, taking into account the state of readiness of the community as a whole to engage. The Government continues to work towards meeting these commitments and as part of this process I am currently engaged in a consultation process to develop the next generation of victims' policy. Included within this process are the findings of The Legacy Report, a recently completed needs analysis of victims of the Northern Ireland Troubles living in Great Britain. The report was commissioned by the Legacy Project, an initiative of the Tim Parry Jonathan Ball Trust which has been allocated Government funding of £250,000. The recommendations made in the report are now under consideration.
  743W

  Victims Liaison Unit
  Mr. Barnes:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will ask the Victims Liaison Unit to organise a conference to examine how best practice and experiences from Northern Ireland can be used in meeting the needs of victims and survivors of the Northern Ireland Troubles from Great Britain. [142751]

  Angela Smith:
  The Legacy Report, an independent needs analysis of victims of the Northern Ireland Troubles living in Great Britain, makes a number of recommendations for Government across a range of its Departments. One of the recommendations is that the Victims Liaison Unit in the Northern Ireland Office should organise a conference to share best practice and experiences from Northern Ireland. This and other recommendations are currently under consideration.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Building Regulations
  Llew Smith:
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what representations he has received from the Association for Environment Conscious Building in respect of changes to the building regulations. [143509]

  Mr. Raynsford:
  The Association is on the list of organisations consulted when changes are proposed to the Building Regulations in England and Wales, and most recently it has commented on the overall structure and aims of the current review of Part L of the Regulations, which deals with energy conservation.

  Barker Report
  Mr. Clifton-Brown:
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the Barker report. [R] [144197]

  Keith Hill:
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister welcomes the report. Kate Barker and her team have done a thorough job in getting to grips with the issues of housing undersupply.

  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister believes the review complements the Communities Plan, by highlighting the need for additional housebuilding, and for a more responsive industry in high demand areas. The Barker report deepens our understanding of the constraints that must be overcome.

  The report is right to emphasise that this is not just a matter of getting housing numbers up. We have to build sustainable communities, not just houses. For if we do not achieve this, we risk repeating the mistakes of the past, where residents are reluctant to see further development, and this reduces housebuilding further still.

  The report says we need to deliver the socially optimal numbers, type and location of housing. That means carefully balancing different objectives and considerations—economic, social and environmental, which fits in well with the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister's overarching objectives.
  744W
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister agrees that the planning system is not perfect. Reforms are currently before parliament in the Planning Bill. These, we believe will improve planning policy and process. We look forward to hearing what recommendations are produced in the final Barker report.

  Finally, we welcome the analysis of the housebuilding industry, and agree that the industry seems to be in a low output equilibrium. We reinforce Kate Barker's conclusion that the industry could and should make better use of modern methods of construction.

  Mr. Clifton-Brown:
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what measures he will introduce to increase house building as recommended in the Barker report. [R] [144198]

  Keith Hill:
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister welcomes the research undertaken by the Barker Review, especially the figures for the additional housing required to fulfil particular aims. The review makes clear that it is not recommending a rate of housebuilding, however, and that it is up to Government to determine what the appropriate level is. It also makes clear that the country needs a housebuilding industry that is more responsive to prices.

  The Planning Bill currently before Parliament already puts in place measures that the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister believes will deliver a more responsive industry and a higher level of housebuilding. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister also looks forward to seeing the recommendations in Kate Barker's final report in which she will present her policies. Only then will we be in a position to respond fully to any requirement for a higher level of housebuilding.

  Brighton and Hove Albion
  Norman Baker:
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister which directors of Brighton and Hove Albion football club (a) he has and (b) other Ministers in his Department have met since 1 January 2002; and if he will make a statement. [142431]

  Yvette Cooper:
  Pursuant to my answer of 8 December 2003, Official Report, column 342W, my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister met Derek Chapman, Managing Director of Adenstar Construction Group, when he opened Adenstar's new offices in Portslade, Hove on 13 May 2003. My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister, was not made aware until last week that Mr. Chapman was a Director of Brighton and Hove Albion Football Club.

  Civil Servants (Secondment)
  Matthew Taylor:
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister whether it is standard practice for civil servants from his Department who are seconded to other organisations to write a report to record their experiences and achievements during their secondment on their return from the secondment. [142389]

  Yvette Cooper:
  The Office recognises the importance of setting objectives for each secondment and for evaluating the experiences and achievements of each secondee.
  745W
  The standard terms and conditions covering outward secondments require the secondee to "provide a brief report on their work".

  Reports are either verbal or written. Before secondees are posted within the Office on their return discussions are held to identify the skills and knowledge they have acquired during the secondment to ensure that the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister benefits from these.

  Council Housing Lists
  Mr. Steen:
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will take steps to allow parity of access to council housing lists between council officials and elected councillors. [143850]

  Keith Hill:
  The Homelessness Act 2002 made changes to the legislation governing the allocation of accommodation by local authorities (Part 6 of the Housing Act 1996) which came into force on 31 January this year. As a result, local authorities can exclude persons the housing waiting list in only very limited circumstances: namely, if they are certain persons from abroad (who are ineligible for an allocation) or if the authority has determined that they have been guilty of unacceptable behaviour serious enough to make them unsuitable to be a tenant (who may be treated as ineligible).

  Elected councillors are bound by the Local Authorities Model Code of Conduct (SI 2001 No. 3575). This does not restrict members' access to housing waiting lists, but does require them to register any interest that they have in land within the authority's area (including tenancies of council property). The Code also requires members to ensure that they do not use their position as a member improperly, to confer on or secure for themselves an advantage or disadvantage, or do anything that compromises the impartiality of those who work for the authority.

  Council Tax
  Mr. Frank Field:
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what powers, in addition to existing age specific means-tested concessions on council tax, local or billing authorities have to offer discretionary council tax concessions to those over the age of 75. [143992]

  Mr. Raynsford:
  The Local Government Act 2003 provides a power for local billing authorities to offer a locally defined council tax discount if they wish on an individual basis, or for a class of council tax payer. This new power came into force on 18 November 2003. More generally local authorities may also be able to use their "well being" power under section 2 of the Local Government Act 2000. It is for local authorities to decide how they use such discretionary powers.

  Mr. Ben Chapman:
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make a statement on council tax bands for properties built after 1991. [143637]

  Mr. Raynsford:
  For property built after 1991, council tax valuations are based on an estimate of the price the property would have fetched if it had existed and been sold on 1 April 1991.
  746W
  Mr. Ben Chapman:
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what advice his Department gives to local councils on the banding for council tax purposes of homes built after 1991. [143638]

  Mr. Raynsford:
  The Valuation Office Agency is responsible for the banding of homes for council tax purposes. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister therefore gives no advice to local councils on this matter.

  Decent Homes Standard
  Mr. Crausby:
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister (1) what impact he estimates the Inland Revenue's ruling of 24 October will have on the standard of housing in (a) South Norfolk and (b) Newton Abbot; [143744]

  (2) how the Government will support the local authority in its bid to achieve the 2010 Decent Homes Standard if the Inland Revenue's ruling of 24 October is upheld and as a result South Norfolk's proposed transfer of houses to the South Norfolk Housing Partnership does not take place; [143745]

  (3) how the Government will support the local authority in its bid to achieve the 2010 Decent Homes Standard if the Inland Revenue's ruling of 24 October is upheld and as a result Newton Abbot's proposed transfer of houses to the Teignbridge Housing Association does not take place; [143746]

  (4) what impact he estimates the delay in the transfer of homes to the (a) South Norfolk Housing Partnership and (b) Teignbridge Housing Association will have on the local authority's short-to-medium term housing policy; [143747]

  (5) what he estimates will be the delay to the transfer of housing stock to the (a) South Norfolk Housing Partnership and (b) Teignbridge Housing Association while the Inland Revenue's ruling of 24 October is considered. [143748]

  Jim Dobbin:
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister (1) what assessment he has made of the impact of the Inland Revenue's ruling of 24 October on the standard of housing in (a) Bromsgrove, (b) Skipton, (c) Letchworth, (d) Maidstone and (e) Hereford, with particular reference to funds available to spend on housing stock; [144162]

  (2) how the Government will support (a) Skipton, (b) Hereford, (c) Letchworth and (d) Bury St. Edmunds in their bids to achieve the 2010 Decent Homes Standard, following the Inland Revenue's ruling of 24 October; [144163]

  (3) what assessment he has made of the impact of the delay in the transfer of homes to the (a) Bromsgrove District Housing Trust and (b) Maidstone Housing Trust on the local authority's short to medium term housing policy; [144164]

  (4) what assessment he has made of the effect of the Inland Revenue's ruling of 24 October on (a) Skipton's, (b) Letchworth's, (c) Bury St. Edmunds' and (d) Hereford's ability to achieve the 2010 Decent Homes Standard: [144168]
  747W
  (5) what he estimates will be the delay to the transfer of housing stock to the (a) Bromsgrove District Housing Trust and (b) Maidstone Housing Trust while the Inland Revenue's ruling of 24 October is considered. [144194]

  Keith Hill:
  It will be for each local authority and registered social landlord to consider the implications on their local circumstances and in particular on their decent home delivery plan of the Inland Revenue's preliminary opinion. While there might be slight delays in any particular transfer it is unlikely this will impact on either the standard of housing or an authority's short-to-medium term housing policy.

  Departmental Costs
  Mr. Stringer:
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the cost has been so far of the information campaign, Elected Regional Assembly: Your Say; what the total budget is; and what the cost for each of the three regions in which referendums are to be held has been so far. [143914]

  Mr. Raynsford:
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) on 11 November 2003, Official Report, column 259W.

  Departmental Spending
  Norman Baker:
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister 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 has been; how much it cost; and what the total revenue raised by his Department through sales of works of art has been since 1997. [142357]

  Yvette Cooper:
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister was created 29 May 2002. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has not spent any money purchasing works of art, and has sold none. As with previous Administrations, Government Departments are supplied Art work by the Government Art Collection (GAC) on a loan basis.

  Deprivation
  Malcolm Bruce:
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the level of deprivation was in each local authority in England in each year since 1997. [143001]

  Yvette Cooper:
  Since 1997, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and it's predecessor Department have published two Indices of Deprivation—the Index of Local Deprivation in 1998 and the Indices of Deprivation 2000. Tables containing the rankings for each local authority district in England for both years are available in the Libraries of the House.

  These two Indices are not directly comparable. The methodology for measuring deprivation was completely changed in 2000 and the range of indicators were extended in 2000 from 12 to 33.

  Devonport Regeneration Company
  Mr. Streeter:
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what complaints he has received against the Devonport
  748W
  Regeneration Company from Devonport community activists; what steps he intends to take to investigate matters; and if he will make a statement. [142701]

  Yvette Cooper:
  The Government Office for the South West (GOSW) has received a number of complaints about Devonport Regeneration Company and is working with the Company and Plymouth city council, the Company's accountable body, to address the issues raised.

  Mr. Streeter:
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what assessment he has made of (a) the performance of the Devonport Regeneration Company and (b) its compliance with Government guidelines in staff employment and the allocation of funds; and if he will make a statement. [142703]

  Yvette Cooper:
  All New Deal for Communities (NDC) programmes are subject to regular performance assessment by the relevant Government Office for the Region and the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, which includes compliance with guidelines. The accountable body for each NDC is also required to carry out regular audits. The Government Office for the South West is working with Devonport Regeneration Company NDC and Plymouth city council, as the accountable body, to ensure improvements in the NDC's performance in a number of areas.

  Ethnicity
  Ms Buck:
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what plans his Department has to include a measure of the effect of ethnicity in indices of deprivation; and what assessment he has made of relevant methodologies. [143575]

  Yvette Cooper:
  There is no direct measure of black and minority ethnic concentrations proposed for inclusion in the revised Indices of Deprivation 2000 because not all BMEs are deprived.

  However the indicators proposed for inclusion in the revised Index do recognise the problems encountered by black and minority ethnic communities. For example, proposed housing indicators on homelessness, overcrowding and social and private housing in poor condition are all important issues for deprived BME communities. In terms of the Education, Skills and Training domain, indicators on school performance at Key Stages 2, 3 and 4 will identify areas where there are large numbers of children suffering educational deprivation. Similarly the indicator adult educational deprivation will be picked up through the proposed indicator on adults with 'no' or 'low' qualifications.

  Ms Buck:
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what assessment he has made of the effect of a person's ethnicity on their access to public services within the responsibilities of his Department. [143578]

  Yvette Cooper:
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister published a Race Equality Scheme in May 2003. The scheme will monitor and assess policies and functions supporting public services, for which the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is responsible. The Race Equality Scheme is published on our website, and is in the process of being updated. The revised published document will be available in the Library of the House in due course.
  749W

  Fire Authorities
  Mr. Drew:
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how much each fire authority is expected to contribute towards Audit Commission costs for its evaluation of the recent pay agreement. [143658]

  Mr. Raynsford:
  The Audit Commission has estimated the cost of the first phase of its verification of the local delivery of the recent pay and modernisation agreement will be £1 million and the second phase £0.9 million. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and the Local Government Association (LGA) are discussing how best to meet this cost.

  Mr. Drew:
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what assessment he has made on the implications for Tri-Service Emergency operations of a move towards regional fire authorities. [143659]

  Mr. Raynsford:
  The Government keep emergency public safety cover arrangements under constant review and will continue to do so in the light of any future fire authority organisational changes.

  Green Belt
  Mr. Clifton-Brown:
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what plans there are to allow building on the green belt. [R] [144199]

  Keith Hill:
  The Government's planning policies on Green Belts are set out in Planning Policy Guidance note 2 (PPG2). These policies include a general presumption against inappropriate development in the Green Belt. Most new building is inappropriate development in the Green Belt and should not be approved, except in very special circumstances. In preparing development plans for their area and determining planning applications, local planning authorities must have regard to the policies in PPG2 wherever green belt land would be affected. In its action programme, "Sustainable Communities: building for the future", published by the Office of theDeputy Prime Minister in February 2003, the Government included a target for each region to maintain or increase the area of land currently designated as Green Belt in local plans.

  Homelessness
  Mr. Barnes:
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make it his policy that a housing applicant exiled from Northern Ireland because of intimidation should be accepted as homeless and entitled to an emergency payment. [142738]

  Yvette Cooper:
  People fleeing violence or threat of violence in Northern Ireland and seeking homelessness assistance from a local housing authority in England would be treated on the same basis as any other applicant fleeing violence or a threat of violence likely to be carried out.

  Under the homelessness legislation (Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996 as amended by the Homelessness Act 2002), local housing authorities must ensure that suitable accommodation is available for applicants who
  750W
  have become homeless through no fault of their own if they are eligible for assistance and fall within a priority need group (the main homelessness duty). Certain persons from abroad are ineligible for assistance. In deciding whether someone is homeless, authorities must consider whether it would be reasonable for someone to continue to occupy their current home. It would not be reasonable for someone to do so, if it was probable that continued occupation would lead to violence against the applicant, any member of his or her family or any other person who might reasonably be expected to live with the applicant.

  The priority need groups include families with dependant children, households that include a pregnant woman; young people aged 16 and 17 (except those owed certain duties by social services); care leavers aged 18 to 20; people who are vulnerable as a result of fleeing their home because of violence; people who are vulnerable as a result of time spent in care, in custody or in the armed services and people who are vulnerable as a result of some other special reason.

  Where an applicant is accepted as eligible for assistance, homeless through no fault of their own but not in priority need the housing authority must provide advice and assistance to help the applicant find accommodation for him or herself.

  People coming from Northern Ireland would be able to apply to Jobcentre Plus for a Crisis Loan from the Social Fund. These loans are intended for applicants who are unable to meet their immediate short-term needs either in an emergency or as a consequence of a disaster.

  The applicant does not have to be in receipt of any benefit, but the decision maker will generally take any income or capital that they have into account.

  The need for help will generally be for a specific item or service or immediate living expenses for a short period, not normally exceeding 14 days.

  Housing
  Ms Oona King:
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how much money central government allocated to (a) London and (b) the London borough of Tower Hamlets to invest in social housing in each of the years from 1992 to 2005. [143851]

  Mr. Raynsford:
  The following tables show the funds allocated to London and to the London borough of Tower Hamlets to invest in social housing in the years 1992–2005. In summary London has been allocated some £14.1 billion up until 2004–05 and London borough Tower Hamlets has received some £670 million up to 2004–05.

  London

  Total allocation

  1991–92

  661,268

  1992–93

  625,589

  1993–94

  669,081

  1994–95

  562.99

  1995–96

  1,059,565

  751W

  London

  Total allocation

  1996–97

  975,937

  1997–98

  782,239

  1998–99

  784,591

  1999–2000

  783,409

  2000–01

  1,094,458

  2001–02

  1,221.92

  2002–03

  1,288.101

  2003–04

  1,222,685

  2004–05

  1,039

  HAT 92–04

  515

  Grand total

  14,080,865

  Note:

  Please note that yearly breakdowns for HAT funding was not available from the relevant organisations within the specified time limit.

  Tower Hamlets

  Total allocation

  1991–92

  24.813

  1992–93

  20.674

  1993–94

  23.197

  1994–95

  17.946

  1995–96

  29.512

  1996–97

  36.656

  1997–98

  32.011

  1998–99

  27.811

  1999–2000

  36.507

  2000–01

  51.594

  2001–02

  50.781

  2002–03

  56.944

  2003–04

  79.19

  2004–05

  15.150

  EA 92–04

  44.4

  HAT 92–04

  123

  Grand total

  670.186

  Note:

  Please note that no figures were available for a full year-by-year breakdown for both EA and HAT within the specified time limits.

  Legislation
  Mr. Redwood:
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what percentage of (a) primary and (b) secondary legislation sponsored by the Department in 2002–03 was introduced to implement EU requirements. [141132]

  Yvette Cooper:
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister did not sponsor any primary or secondary legislation during the 2002–03 session that implemented EU requirements.

  Local Authority Management Organisations
  Mr. Coleman:
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will list the local authorities which have sought to set up Arms Length Management Organisations in 2003–04. [143944]

  Keith Hill:
  The local authorities that have or are due to set up Arms Length Management Organisations (ALMOs) in 2003–04 to improve the condition and management of their housing stock are those for which was announced conditional funding on 28 July. These are: Barnet, Camden, Easington, Gateshead, Harrow, High Peak, Islington, Newcastle, Poole, Sheffield, Solihull, South Lakeland and Warrington. Bids from local authorities seeking to set up ALMOs in 2004–05 are due by 31 December 2003.
  752W

  Local Government Funding
  Mr. Tyrie:
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister (1) if he will list the (a) Inner London boroughs, (b) Outer London boroughs and (c) Metropolitan districts who will have no increase in the level of grant for local authority service components, as defined in the Local Government Finance 2004–05 Revenue Support Grant Settlement, excluding the settlement for education; [143860]

  (2) if he will list the level of grant change for all local authority service components as defined in the Local Government Finance 2004–05 Revenue Support Grant Settlement, excluding education, for West Sussex county council. [143865]

  Mr. Raynsford:
  Formula grant distributed through the Local Government Finance settlement is not ring fenced for any purpose.

  Miss McIntosh:
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what his policy is on resolving shortfalls in income between the level of grant allocated to local authorities and the actual cost of the provision of services. [142038]

  Mr. Raynsford:
  Grant support to local authorities covers on average some 75 per cent. of their costs. The balance is funded through council tax. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister seeks to ensure that where new burdens are placed on councils by central government they are fully funded through the grant system.

  Helen Jackson:
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister (1) when he will finish his review of local government funding following the Audit Commission report; [143933]

  (2) what options he is examining to address the fundamental flaws mentioned in the Audit Commission review of local government funding. [143972]

  Mr. Raynsford:
  The Government's Balance of Funding Review, which I chair, is looking at how local government should be funded in future. It is taking evidence on a number of proposals for change identified in responses to the Review's public consultation. The Review is due to produce a final report of its work in summer 2004.

  Projects (St. Helens)
  Mr. Woodward:
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister which projects have been (a) wholly and (b) partly funded by his Department in St. Helens since 1997; when each project was announced; when it started or was expected to start; what funding was provided by (i) Government and (ii) a third party; what third party 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. [141270]

  Yvette Cooper:
  Project support information is tabled as follows.
  753W

  Project name

  Period

  Government funding

  Other funding

  Source of other funding

  Target group

  Projected outcomes

  Single Regeneration Budget (SRB)1 (round 1) St. Helen's Southern Corridor

  1995–06 to 1999–2000

  £4.5 million

  Details not available

  —

  St. Helen's Town Centre

  Comprehensive regeneration strategy building on: road links with M62, existing public private partnerships. Wide range of employment and other benefits to residents.

  SRB (round 2) Newton 21 St. Helens

  1996–07 to 2000–01

  £14.08 million

  Details not available

  —

  Newton-le-Willows

  Intended to create a self sustaining community through a programme of economic, environmental, housing, training and education initiatives preparing residents for employment opportunities created by commercial development.

  SRB (round 4) The Parr Partnership St. Helens

  1998–09 to 2003–04

  £5.25 million

  £12.82 million

  Other public funding and private sector leverage

  Parr area of St. Helens

  Addressing problems faced by Parr residents including health and living environments, the needs for skills and training, and improvements to social, transport and recreation facilities.

  SRB2 (round 5) St. Helens Count Me In

  1999–2000 to 2003–04

  £13.65 million

  £52.5 million

  Other public funding and private sector leverage

  Former Coalfield Community of St. Helens

  Major new centres of economic activity—stadium/leisure/conference centre: strategic site for employment: innovation centre to create new job opportunities. Environmental improvements. Capacity building, health initiatives and improved public transport links will address social inclusion.

  Community Empowerment Fund

  2001–02 to 2003–04

  £390,000

  n/a

  n/a

  St. Helens local authority area

  To assist in establishing a Community Network to allow the community and voluntary sector to play a full and effective role in their Local Strategic Partnerships.

  Community Chest

  2001–02 to 003/04

  £518,000

  n/a

  n/a

  St. Helens local authority area

  Provides grants to groups in Neighbourhood Renewal Fund areas for grass roots community activity.

  Community Learning Chest

  2002–03 to 2003–04

  £104,000

  n/a

  n/a

  St. Helens local authority area

  Aims to increase the capacity, skills and knowledge of local residents to engage in Neighbourhood Renewal.

  Neighbourhood Renewal Fund3

  2001–02 to 2003–04

  £8.71 million

  n/a

  n/a

  St. Helens local authority area

  Aims to enable the local authority in collaboration with the Local Strategic Partnership to improve services, narrowing the gap between deprived areas and the rest of England.

  1 SRB funded through the North West Development Agency from April 1998.

  2 Scheme ends 2005–06.

  3 Funding allocated to 2005–06.

  Small Businesses
  Brian Cotter:
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister whether his Department uses a database of individual small businesses for consultation purposes. [142478]

  Yvette Cooper:
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister regularly consults the Small Business Service.

  Travellers
  Mr. Paice:
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what measures are taken to ensure that members of the traveller community occupying unauthorised sites pay council tax. [143923]

  Mr. Raynsford:
  Council tax liability is based upon the identification of a "chargeable dwelling". Unauthorised sites are generally too transient to establish that a dwelling exists for the purposes of council tax. If, however, a caravan remains on private land for a period of at least six months, the listing officer may include an entry in the valuation list for council tax purposes. Council tax will then be collected by billing authority, based on the band in the list, by using their normal recovery procedures.
  754W

  West Sussex County Council
  Mr. Tyrie:
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will give the percentage change in spending share for highways for West Sussex county council in 2003–04; and by how much this differs from the level of inflation. [143862]

  Mr. Raynsford:
  In 2003–04, West Sussex County Council's Highway Maintenance Formula Spending Share (FSS) was £25,071,558. Formula Spending Shares were introduced in 2003–04 and are not directly comparable with Standard Spending Assessments. In order to provide a comparison, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister published Formula Spending Share Comparators. These are based on a control total that includes the additional resource equalisation amounts (comparable to 2003–04) but based on the 2002–03 formulae. The 2002–03 Highway Maintenance Formula Spending Share Comparator for West Sussex county council was £26,837,923. The percentage decrease in Highway Maintenance FSS for West Sussex county council was therefore 6.6 per cent. The October 2003 value of Retail Price Index Excluding Mortgages (RPIX)was 1.7 per cent.
  755W
  Formula Spending Shares are neither grant nor the Government's estimate of how much an authority should spend on a particular service. West Sussex county council received a formula grant increase of 4.0 per cent. in 2003–04. It is up to each individual authority to set their budgets taking into account their local circumstances.

  Mr. Tyrie:
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the percentage change in spending share for waste (EPCS) for West Sussex county council was in 2003–04; by how much this differs from the level of inflation; and if he will estimate what percentage of the change in spending share for waste (EPCS) would be spent on (a) implementing recycling targets and (b) increases in landfill taxes. [143863]

  Mr. Raynsford:
  Waste disposal and waste collection are covered by the general Environmental, Protective and Cultural Services (EPCS) Formula Spending Share (FSS).

  In 2003–04, West Sussex county council's EPCS FSS was £57,045,365. Formula Spending Shares were introduced in 2003–04 and are not directly comparable with Standard Spending Assessments. In order to provide a comparison, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister published Formula Spending Share Comparators. These are based on a control total that includes the additional resource equalisation amounts (comparable to 2003–04) but based on the 2002–03 formulae. The 2002–03 EPCS Formula Spending Share Comparator for West Sussex county council was £56,119,688. The percentage increase in EPCS FSS for West Sussex county council was therefore 1.6 per cent. The October 2003 value of RPIX was 1.7 per cent.

  Formula Spending Shares are neither grant nor the Government's estimate of how much an authority should spend on a particular service. West Sussex county council received a formula grant increase of 4.0 per cent. in 2003–04. It is up to each individual authority to set their budgets taking into account their local circumstances.

HEALTH

  "Valuing People"
  Mr. Blizzard:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects the targets for service improvements for adults with learning disabilities set out in the White Paper, Valuing People, to be achieved. [143502]

  Dr. Ladyman:
  The White Paper, "Valuing People: A New Strategy for Learning Disability for the 21st" Century" (Cm 5086), published in March 2001, sets out our proposals for improving services for people with learning disabilities, their families and carers. The White Paper said that it would take a minimum of five years to make the changes it described.
  756W
  We have made good progress since "Valuing People" was published, with the basic framework for achieving change now in place:

  The Learning Disability Task Force

  Learning Disability Partnership Boards at local council level

  The National Forum of People with Learning Disabilities

  The Valuing People Support Team, headed by the National Director for Valuing People

  A range of guidance, and plans developed by partnership boards to deliver change locally in areas such as person-centred planning, employment, and housing and support.

  The Learning Disability Task Force monitors the progress of "Valuing People" and reports to the Government on this.

  Our annual report on learning disability, "Making Change Happen" (HC 514), published in April 2003, described the progress made in implementing the "Valuing People" proposals; a copy was sent to all English hon. and right hon. Members. Our next annual report will describe developments since April.

  Ambulance Equipment
  David Davis:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the average life span of (a) ambulances and (b) defibrillator batteries is; and what measures ambulance trusts are required to put in place to ensure that there is an orderly process by which to replace obsolescent equipment. [143242]

  Ms Rosie Winterton:
  The average life span of an ambulance is seven years for patient transport services and five years for accident and emergency ambulances.

  Defibrillators are supplied with rechargeable batteries. Different battery technologies are used by different suppliers. The majority of suppliers suggest that the battery, if used and maintained correctly, will last between two to three years. This equates to an 'in use time' of in excess of 100 full power shocks (the full power rating differs between machines).

  Community defibrillators—automatic external defibrillators (AEDs) which are currently in use in public places during this phase of the National Defibrillator Programme contain lithium batteries. The average life expectancy for this type of battery is five years, depending on the type of AED, the site it serves and the number of deployments.

  It is for each national health service trust to maintain records and have systems in place that ensure this equipment is maintained and replaced at the appropriate times.

  Ambulance Staff
  Gregory Barker:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many assaults have been recorded on ambulance staff in each of the last five years for which figures are available. [142399]

  Mr. Hutton:
  Recording details of incidents of assaults on staff is the responsibility of each individual national health service employing body.
  757W
  The figures presently available refer to reported violent incidents in ambulance trusts as opposed to actual assaults on staff and include incidents of verbal abuse. These figures are shown in the table.

  Violent incidents

  1998–99

  1,641

  2000–2001

  3,882

  2001–02

  4,778

  2002–03

  5,412

  The Counter Fraud and Security Management Service (CFSMS) was launched in April 2003, with a remit encompassing policy and operational responsibility for the management of security in the NHS. The CFSMS has introduced a national reporting system for recording physical assaults on staff and professionals working in the NHS with the ability to track cases and give accurate information on the level of assaults.

  Gregory Barker:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people have been convicted of assaulting ambulance staff in each of the last five years for which figures are available; and what action is being taken to tackle violent crime against paramedics and other ambulance staff. [142400]

  Mr. Hutton:
  Information on the number of successful prosecutions of individuals who assault staff and professionals in the national health service, including ambulance staff, has not been routinely collected through any central mechanism.

  The Counter Fraud and Security Management Service (CFSMS) was launched in April 2003, with a remit encompassing policy and operational responsibility for the management of security in the NHS.

  The CFSMS has introduced a national reporting system for recording incidents of physical assault. The system uses a legally based definition of assault, with the ability to track cases from start to finish, thus allowing for intervention where appropriate and necessary, in order to ensure the best possible outcome for the person assaulted. This system will be able to produce hard and accurate data about physical assaults as well as number of prosecutions.

  The CFSMS has set up a Legal Protection Unit (LPU) to work with the police and Crown Prosecution Service to increase the number of prosecutions of persons who assault staff and professionals. The LPU will be providing health bodies with cost-effective advice on a wide range of sanctions, both civil and criminal, that can be taken against offenders.

  Gregory Barker:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what pay rises are planned for ambulance staff in the next 12 months. [142403]

  Mr. Hutton:
  The proposed new pay system for all non-medical national health service employees, including ambulance staff, "Agenda for Change", has been negotiated over the past four years by NHS staff and employer representatives working in partnership. This includes a three-year pay deal that will give a 10 per cent., pay increase to all staff for the period 2003–04 to 2005–06.
  758W
  From 1 April 2004, ambulance staff on national contracts will receive an uplift of 3.225 per cent., as part of this deal. From October 2004, when the new pay system is rolled out across the NHS, most ambulance staff are likely to receive further increases in pay on top of 3.225 per cent., but the impact on particular staff will vary depending on a range of factors, including the basic pay band to which their job matches and the amount of out-of-hours work they undertake.

  Badgers (TB)
  Mr. Paterson:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the health implications for (a) ramblers and (b) their children of frequenting country areas in which infective material has been deposited by TB-infected badgers. [141991]

  Mr. Bradshaw:
  I have been asked to reply.

  No specific assessments has been made for ramblers and their children.

  The threat to public health from bovine TB is low and the disease is treatable. Of the 40 or so cases now seen each year in Britain the majority are in people over 55 years of age. These are thought to have been infected before the introduction of widespread pasteurisation of milk. This figure has remained stable despite the increasing incidence of TB in cattle. The geographical distribution of human cases does not reflect the spread of bovine TB in the cattle population. Arrangements are in place with the Department of Health to investigate the potential links to human health, and monitor human cases of M. bovis.

  Big Conversation
  Mr. Heald:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health 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. [143153]

  Ms Rosie Winterton:
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, on 9 December 2003, Official Report, column 355W.

  Blood Transfusions
  Mr. Lansley:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether virally inactivated fresh frozen plasma is available to the NHS for transfusions in respect of babies and young children born since 1 January 1996. [143749]

  Miss Melanie Johnson:
  The decision taken to import fresh frozen plasma (FFP) from the United States for young babies and children born after 1 January 1996 will provide additional protection to the most vulnerable group who will not have been exposed to BSE through the food chain. The National Blood Authority (NBA) is currently involved in negotiating for supplies of FFP for this group of patients. This FFP will be virally inactivated, and its planned availability

  759W
  will be in the New Year. In addition, the NBA also implemented viral inactivation for UK FFP for this patient group in August 2002. Viral inactivation is designed to remove certain viruses that may be transmitted by transfusion.

  Body Mass Index
  Mr. Burstow:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of the adult population had a body mass index greater than 25 in (a) England and (b) each region in each year since 1990. [141582]

  Miss Melanie Johnson:
  Figures available from the Health Survey for England have been placed in the Library. For those adult respondents with a valid height and weight measurement from which the body mass index could be calculated, it gives, for England, the percentage with a body mass index (BMI) over 25 by sex for the period 1991 to 2001 and by Government Office Region and sex for the period 1998 to 2001. Figures are not available for 1990. Figures prior to 1998 are not available by Government Office Region.

  Breastfeeding
  Mrs. Brooke:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will publish guidelines for primary care trusts on collection of statistics on breastfeeding. [142298]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  [holding answer 8 December 2003]: Guidelines for primary care trusts on the collection of statistics on breastfeeding initiation were made available to national health service staff on 28 November 2003 via the Department of Health's data collection website.

  Cancer Survey
  Mr. Burstow:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish the statistical tables analysing the national patient cancer survey to inform future surveys, commissioned by his Department and made available to the Commission for Health Improvement. [141580]

  Miss Melanie Johnson:
  The analysis of the national cancer patient survey is expected to be complete by spring 2004. A copy of the analysis will be placed in the Library.

  Choice and Plurality Policies
  Mr. Blizzard:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether patients will be able to choose their general practitioner under the Choice and Plurality policies. [140624]

  Mr. Hutton:
  Patients are already able to choose their general practitioner. "Building on the Best" (Cm 6079), published on 9 December 2003, commits us to extending the opportunities for patients to exercise this choice alongside the new general medical services contract which is now being implemented.

  Mr. Blizzard:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the application of his Choice and Plurality policies to patients suffering from mental ill health. [140626]
  760W
  Mr. Hutton:
  On 9 December 2003, the Government published "Building on the Best: Choice, Responsiveness and Equity in the NHS". This strategy document sets out areas for priority action and those for further exploration including recommendations made by the mental health task group. A copy of the document in available in the Library.

  Civil Servants (Disablement)
  Tim Loughton:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many senior civil servants in his Department are disabled, expressed (a) in actual terms and (b) as a percentage of WTE staff. [143065]

  Ms Rosie Winterton:
  All staff are asked to volunteer information in our equal opportunities monitoring but they are under no compulsion to reply.
  Of those that have made a declaration in returned Equal Opportunities monitoring forms there are seven disabled staff in the senior civil service in the Department of Health—excluding its agencies and arms length bodies. This represents 2.33 per cent. of whole-time equivalent staff which currently stands at 300.5.

  Closed GP Lists
  Dr. Murrison:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of (a) general practitioners and (b) general practices in England have been operating closed lists each month since January 1990. [141060]

  Mr. Hutton:
  The Department does not collect this information. However we know that closed lists are restricting the exercise of patient choice in some areas. The new general medical services contract addresses this problem by including arrangements for primary care trusts to offer support to those practices which face the possibility of needing to close their patient lists.

  Commission for Healthcare Audit and Inspection
  Mr. Lansley:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether the appointment of Anna Walker as chief executive of the Commission for Healthcare Audit and Inspection was made by the NHS Appointments Commission. [141315]

  Ms Rosie Winterton:
  No. The National Health Service Appointments Commission is not responsible for the appointment of executives. The appointment was made by the shadow Commission for Healthcare Audit and Inspection, in anticipation of paragraph 5(1) of Schedule 6 of the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Act 2003. As well as the shadow Chair and Commissioners, the selection panel included an independent panel member.

  Community Hospitals
  Dr. Murrison:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many beds in community hospitals there were in each year since 1990. [141041]

  Mr. Hutton:
  The Department does not hold this information. However, the Community Hospitals Association carried out a survey, which was reported in the British Journal of General Practice (February 2001). This identified 471 community hospitals in the United

  761W
  Kingdom, containing 18,579 beds, and concluded there had not been a substantial reduction over the past 25 years.

  Computer Games
  Mr. Burstow:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much his Department has spent on developing computer games in each year since 1997, broken down by game. [142243]

  Ms Rosie Winterton:
  Computer games commissioned by the Department of Health's Communications Directorate since 1997 are shown in the table.

  Game

  NHS Careers School Competition

  Mindnseek

  1997–98

  —

  —

  1998–99

  —

  —

  1999–2000

  1—

  —

  2000–01

  1—

  —

  2001–02

  —

  —

  2002–03

  —

  1—

  2003–04

  —

  —

  1 Costs for these games cannot be identified as they were produced as a single element within a broader project.

  Consultant Neurologists
  Mr. Edwards:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many consultant neurologists are employed in the NHS. [142503]

  Mr. Hutton:
  The number of consultant neurologists employed by the National Health Service was 407 as at June 2003.

  Between September 1999 and June 2003, the number of consultant neurologists working in the NHS increased by 102, or 33 per cent.

  Consultation with Businesses
  Brian Cotter:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether his Department uses a database of individual small businesses for consultation purposes. [142481]

  Ms Rosie Winterton:
  The Department of Health does not use a central database of individual small businesses for consultation purposes. Individual client groups within the Department keep in touch with organisations operating within their policy responsibilities, as appropriate, but these bodies would rarely include small businesses. If a small business interest was identified, the Department would arrange for consultation through the small business service of the Department of Trade and Industry.

  Brian Cotter:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of regulations introduced by the Department have been subject to a consultation period of less than 12 weeks since the introduction of the Code of Practice on Consultations. [142489]

  Ms Rosie Winterton:
  There is not always a direct correlation between Government consultations and individual regulations. For example, there would not be a consultation prior to certain statutory instruments setting up a new primary care trust or transferring property between national health service trusts.
  762W
  The Cabinet Office Code of Practice on Written Consultation came into effect on 1 January 2001. In the period 1 January 2001 to 31 December 2002, the Department of Health has published 124 consultations covered by the Code, of which 18 were less than 12 weeks.

  Delayed Discharges
  Mrs. Roe:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish the Quarter 1 and Quarter 2 2003–04 delayed discharge statistics for England. [142066]

  Dr. Ladyman:
  The latest figures on delayed discharge for Quarter 2, 2003–04 (September 2003) have been placed in the Library. The figures for Quarter 1 are available in the Library.

  Mrs. Roe:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish statistics on the number of emergency readmissions to NHS hospitals of patients aged 75 and over in England, for each quarter since January, for which figures are available. [142067]

  Dr. Ladyman:
  Monitoring information on readmissions within 28 days of discharge is collected for all ages only. Information is available at primary care trust and strategic health authority level. Information for Quarter 4, 2002–03 (January 2003 to March 2003), Quarter 1, 2003–04 (April 2003 to June 2003) and Quarter 2, 2003–04 (July 2003 to September 2003) has been placed in the Library.

  Dentistry
  Mr. Burstow:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the average cost of dental treatment per (a) adult and (b) child registered patient was in the last year for which figures are available. [141754]

  Ms Rosie Winterton:
  The average costs of a course of dental treatment in the general dental service for adult and children in England for the financial year 2002–03 are shown in the table.

  These costs are for payment made to the dentist for dental treatment and include the patient charges where applicable. Dentists also receive additional payments, unrelated to treatment provided, in recognition of the continuing care responsibility for registered patients. These payments contribute approximately 23 per cent. of dentists' gross earnings. Other additional payments, unrelated to treatment, contribute a further 10 per cent. of dentists gross earnings.

  Dentists receive a capitation payment for each child registered. The average cost of dental treatment for children excludes treatments covered by capitation payments.

  General Dental Service: Average cost of dental treatment—2002–03

  England

  £

  Children

  36.6

  Adult

  37.3

  Source:

  Dental Practice Board
  763W

  Departmental Employees
  Tim Loughton:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many staff were employed in his Department in each of the last six years broken down by (a) headcount, (b) part-time and (c) whole-time equivalents; [143050]

  (2) how many staff have (a) joined and (b) left his Department in each of the last six years, broken down by (a) headcount, (b) part-time and (c) whole-time equivalents. [143051]

  Ms Rosie Winterton:
  The information requested is available in the annual publication Civil Service Statistics which is published by the Cabinet Office. Copies of Civil Service Statistics 2002, which was published on 24 July 2003, and copies of Civil Service Statistics for the previous five years are available in the Library and at www.civil-service.gov.uk/statistics

  Departmental Expenditure Limit
  Mr. Burstow:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the reasons were for the transfer from the capital Departmental Expenditure Limit to the resource DEL of £318 million, as mentioned in the Winter Supplementary Estimates; and if he will make a statement. [142240]

  Mr. Hutton:
  The transfer from capital is being used to support the Department's information management and technology programme, part of which will be accounted for as current expenditure and national health service spending by local primary care trusts and NHS trusts accounted for as current rather than capital expenditure.

  Diabetes
  Tim Loughton:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much public funding will be allocated to treatment of diabetes in fiscal year 2004–05. [141155]

  Ms Rosie Winterton:
  In his 2002 Budget announcement, my right hon. Friend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, announced the largest sustained increase in funding of any five-year period in the history of the national health service. Over the years 2003–04 to 2007–08, these plans mean that expenditure on the NHS will increase on average by 7.4 per cent., a year over and above inflation. However in keeping with the philosophy of "Shifting the Balance of Power", primary care trusts are free to decide the allocation of resources locally.

  Tim Loughton:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what investment is in place in diabetes management which will decrease the number of acute cases reaching hospital. [141156]

  Ms Rosie Winterton:
  The diabetes national service framework standards, published in 2001, noted that the risk and severity of diabetic ketoacidosis can be reduced by the provision of guidance and advice to people with diabetes on how to manage changes in blood glucose control that occur during other illnesses and pointed out that episodes of hypoglycaemia can be managed in the community, either by the person with diabetes, a relative or carer, their general practitioner or by ambulance personnel.
  764W
  "Improvement, Expansion and reform: the next three years", the planning and priorities framework for 2003–06, includes targets for diabetes services. One such target states the need for primary care trusts (PCTs) to update practice-based registers for people with diabetes by March 2006. This will help to ensure that they receive systematic treatment regimens and advice to help support them in managing their own condition, including acute episodes, more effectively.

  In his 2002 Budget announcement, my right hon. Friend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, announced the largest sustained increase in funding of any five-year period in the history of the national health service. Over the years 2003–04 to 2007–08, these plans mean that expenditure on the NHS will increase on average by 7.4 per cent., a year over and above inflation. However in keeping with the philosophy of "Shifting the Balance of Power", PCTs are free to decide the allocation of resources locally.

  Doctor Recruitment
  Mr. Baron:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what private agencies are used to recruit doctors from abroad; and what checks are put in place to ensure that these doctors meet the required standards. [140633]

  Mr. Hutton:
  National health service trusts are responsible for their own recruitment. Trusts are strongly advised when recruiting internationally to use only those agencies that are compliant to the code of practice for NHS employers involved in the international recruitment of healthcare professionals, published in 2001. The list of compliant agencies can be found on the Department's website at www.doh.gov.uk/international.recruitment/agencylist-nhs-ref.htm.

  In order to practise as a doctor in the United Kingdom, a doctor must be registered with the General Medical Council (GMC) and satisfy the GMC that they have the acquired necessary knowledge, skills and experience.

  Mr. Baron:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if it has been determined whether health professionals from (a) Hungary, (b) Slovakia and (c) Poland have the necessary qualifications to practise in this country after these countries join the European Union; and if he will make a statement. [140634]

  Mr. Hutton:
  All acceding states are committed to ensuring that the qualifications they award to doctors, dentists, pharmacists, midwives and nurses responsible for general care who begin their training on or after the date of accession meet specified minimum requirements. Only those who meet these requirements will then benefit from automatic recognition throughout the European Union.

  Practitioners from these states who are already qualified or who are currently in training must show that they either meet these requirements in full or have recent and substantial practice experience.

  Drug Prescribing
  Tim Loughton:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the increases in funding for

  765W
  National Institute for Clinical Excellence approved drug prescribing made to each mental health trust in the current year. [141070]

  Ms Rosie Winterton:
  Funding to meet recommendations of the National Institute for Clinical Excellence has been included in the allocations notified to primary care trusts for the period 2003–04 to 2005–06. This funding is not separately identified.

  Early Intervention Service
  Mr. Burstow:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the Department's definition of an Early Intervention Service is, as envisaged in the priorities and planning framework 2003–06. [141752]

  Ms Rosie Winterton:
  The definition of an early intervention service, as envisaged in the priorities and planning framework 2003–06 is as follows:

  Early intervention in psychosis services provide quick diagnosis of the first onset of a psychotic disorder and appropriate treatment including intensive support in the early years.

  The service is for:

  People aged between 14 and 35 with a first presentation of psychotic symptoms

  People aged 14 to 35 during the first three years of psychotic illness

  An early intervention service should be able to:

  reduce the stigma associated with psychosis and improve professional and lay awareness of the symptoms of psychosis and the need for early assessment

  reduce the length of time young people remain undiagnosed and untreated

  develop meaningful engagement, provide evidence-based interventions and promote recovery during the early phase of illness.

  East Sussex County Healthcare Trust
  Gregory Barker:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the financial situation of the East Sussex County Healthcare Trust. [142393]

  Ms Rosie Winterton:
  The Surrey and Sussex Strategic Health Authority is aware of the challenging financial position faced by the East Sussex County Healthcare National Health Service Trust. Financial recovery plans have been developed and are currently being implemented.

  I understand that the chief executive of the strategic health authority is currently arranging to meet local hon. Members to discuss the issues.

  Gregory Barker:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much was spent by (a)East Sussex County Healthcare and (b)primary care trusts in England on (i) locum doctors and (ii) agency nursing in each of the last five years; and what these sums were as a percentage of total NHS staff costs. [142396]

  Mr. Hutton:
  The figures shown in the table relate to all agency staff and other staff not directly employed by the national health service.
  766W

  Expenditure by East Sussex County Healthcare NHS Trust on non-NHS

  National PCT Expenditure on non-NHS

  Nurses

  Doctors

  Nurses

  Doctors

  2000–01 (£)

  1—

  1—

  2885,867

  2437,999

  2000–01 (%)

  —

  —

  30.004

  30.002

  2001–02 (£)

  1—

  1—

  224,422,282

  25,122,963

  2001–02 (%)

  —

  —

  30.105

  30.022

  2002–03 (£)

  21,306,311

  21,335,544

  273,685,708

  217,691,400

  2002–03 (%)

  33.63

  33.71

  30.284

  30.068

  2003–04 (£)

  2923,000

  21,653,750

  5—

  5—

  2003–04 (%)

  33.87

  3,46.93

  —

  —

  1 Trust not established

  2 Total Expenditure

  3 As a percentage of all staff expenditure

  4 For first seven months of year

  2 Figure not yet available

  Electronic Recruitment
  Mr. Austin Mitchell:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when his Department's electronic recruitment project will start to operate; what sums have been invested in the system; what savings are expected in the NHS recruitment advertising budget; what the reach of the system will be in numerical terms; and whether the NHS will continue to use the print media and other forms of advertising after the electronic system is introduced. [141205]

  Mr. Hutton:
  The NHS Careers jobs board pilot (www.nhs.uk/jobs) was launched on 1 December. The cost of the service will be £6 million over a five-year contract. Savings in advertising costs are estimated to be around £24 million a year once national rollout has been achieved. This estimate is based upon a 75 per cent. take-up over three years. The service will be voluntary and all savings will be directed to local patient care. The National Health Service will continue to use a wide range of media in order to attract the best candidates.

  EU-required Legislation
  Mr. Redwood:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of (a) primary and (b) secondary legislation sponsored by his Department in 2002–03 was introduced to implement EU requirements. [141133]

  Mr. Hutton:
  During 2002–03, the Department sponsored no primary legalisation to implement European Union measures and three per cent. of the 208 pieces of secondary legislation were of EU origin.

  Fair Trade Products
  Mr. Bercow:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health 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. [142805]

  Ms Rosie Winterton:
  This Department's catering is supplied under contract. The contracting company's policy is to buy fair trade goods from its suppliers and has a commitment to support fair trade.

  Foundation Hospitals/Trusts
  Annabelle Ewing:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what written representations he has received from the British Medical Association (Scotland) on the subject of foundation hospitals. [142731]
  767W
  Mr. Hutton:
  None.

  Lynne Jones:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what impact Government amendments on the governance of foundation trusts to the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Act 2003 will have on the validity of the consultation currently in progress. [142984]

  Mr. Hutton:
  None. Section 6(5) of the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Act 2003 sets out that the Independent Regulator may not authorise an applicant as a national health service foundation trust unless satisfied that the applicant has sought the views of specified persons. The Department of Health guidance, issued to first wave applicants in August, is consistent with the requirements in the Act. The Secretary of State will only support applications where there is evidence that consultation has taken place in line with this guidance.

  Health Boards Composition
  Tim Loughton:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of board members of (a) primary care trusts and (b) hospital trusts are from ethnic minorities. [141030]

  Ms Rosie Winterton:
  As at 1 December 2003, 10.4 per cent. of chairs and non-executives on the boards of primary care trusts and 10.2. per cent. of chairs and non-executives on national health service trust boards were black or from ethnic minorities.

  Health Funding
  John Mann:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance he gives to NHS trusts on the funding of treatments that will not be appraised by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence. [143680]

  Ms Rosie Winterton:
  In August 1999, the Department issued Health Service Circular 1999/176, which asks national health service bodies to continue with local arrangements for the managed introduction of new technologies where guidance from the National Institute for Clinical Excellence is not available at the time the technology first becomes available. These arrangements should involve an assessment of all the available evidence.

  Health Visiting
  Mr. Gardiner:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what his policy is on the role health visitor members will have on the Nursing and Midwifery Council if there is not (a) a statutory profession of health visiting and (b) a register of health visitors. [140629]

  Mr. Hutton:
  Health visitors will be included in the third part of the Nursing and Midwifery Council register, which covers specialist community and public health nurses. The Nursing and Midwifery Order 2002, requires that each part of the register must have an equal number of registrant members on the Council. Their role will be to play a full part in the regulation of nurses and midwives, including health visitors.
  768W
  Mr. Gardiner:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health who will be able to use the title health visitor after April 2004. [140466]

  Mr. Hutton:
  When the new register opens in April 2004, the designated titles of the parts of the new register will be the protected titles. The Nursing and Midwifery Council does not propose to have a part of the new register with the designated title of health visitor. However, public protection will be assured because anyone proposing to work in a health visiting role must be registered on the specialist community public health nurse part of the register.

  Mr. Gardiner:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what risk assessment was undertaken by the Nursing and Midwifery Council with respect to public risk before removing statutory protection from the title registered health visitor. [140632]

  Mr. Hutton:
  The Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC) has undertaken a series of public consultations on its proposals made under the Nursing and Midwifery Order 2001, including the structure and titles of the parts of the new register.

  The Order recognised the expanding role of specialists in community and public health nursing, which includes health visiting. The NMC is proposing protected titles and parts of the register which reflect that expanding role.

  Healthy Eating Schemes
  Mr. Chope:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the basis is for the Government's policy that a potato is not a vegetable for the purposes of healthy eating schemes. [143093]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  [holding answer 9 December 2003]: Foods are classified according to the main nutrients they contribute to the diet. Potatoes provide mainly carbohydrate in the form of starch whereas foods classified as fruit and vegetables provide much less carbohydrate.

  Heart Disease
  Mr. Burstow:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether his Department has met (a) milestones one to four for primary care management of heart failure and (b) milestones one to three for hospitals admitting patients for the management of heart failure in the national service framework for coronary heart disease. [142242]

  Miss Melanie Johnson:
  The national health service has made good progress on the milestones for management of heart failure. We have made the improvement of care for patients with heart failure a major priority in the next phase of implementation of the coronary heart disease (CHD) national service framework (NSF). The importance of tackling service improvement in this area is reflected in the 2003–06 Priorities and Planning Framework targets for CHD:
  "Improve the management of patients with heart failure in line with the NICE Clinical Guideline due in 2003, and set local targets for the consequent reduction in patients admitted to hospital with a diagnosis of heart failure."
  769W
  The National Institute for Clinical Excellence guideline was published in July this year and, combined with the new general medical services contract, will be a significant driver in improving services for heart failure patients and meeting the NSF standard.

  HFEA
  Jim Dobbin:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what selection process the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority follow when appointing new members to the Authority. [141560]

  Miss Melanie Johnson:
  All members of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority are appointed by the Secretary of State for Health, in consultation with the devolved administrations, in accordance with Schedule 1 (4) of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990, and in line with the Code of Practice of the Office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments.

  High Security Infectious Diseases Unit
  Mr. Burstow:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the (a) purpose and (b) cost is of the high security infectious diseases unit; and if he will make a statement. [142239]

  Miss Melanie Johnson:
  There are two high security infectious disease units in the United Kingdom, one in London at Coppett's Wood Hospital and one in Newcastle at the Newcastle General Hospital. They provide the UK's specialist facilities to care for patients suffering from rare, highly infectious and dangerous diseases such as Ebola and Lassa Fevers.

  The Department provides funding for the running costs of the high security infectious disease units. This is currently £454,000 plus £47,000 (Scottish Executive contribution) per annum.

  These units exist as a contingency arrangement. Sufficient medical, nursing and laboratory staff, who are routinely involved in the treatment, care and diagnosis of patients with infectious diseases, are on call for the medium and high security infectious disease units. This ensures that they maintain equipment and participate in regular training exercises so that the units remain in a state of readiness to admit and care for patients securely, in the event of need.

  Hospices
  Mr. McNamara:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how much money the NHS is spending in 2003–04 on hospice provision for (a) children and (b) adults; [141890]

  (2) how many places in hospices are specifically designated for children. [141892]

  Miss Melanie Johnson:
  Information on national health service expenditure on hospice provision is not held centrally.

  Children's hospices are funded from general NHS funding. As with adult hospices, this is a matter for local discussion and agreement. In addition, a central budget of £50 million per annum has been set up to meet the commitment in the NHS Cancer Plan to increase NHS
  770W
  funding for specialist palliative care, including hospices, by £50 million by 2004. The central budget is for all specialist palliative care services, including voluntary hospices. The level of funding for hospices, both from local allocation from the additional £50 million and from local resources, is a matter for local discussion and agreement.

  Children's hospices have also received support from within the New Opportunities Fund, which is funding over 130 projects in England, with £48 million over three years, in support of initiatives for children with life threatening illnesses.

  Information on the number of places in hospices designated for children is not collected centrally.

  Mr. McNamara:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the total current bed capacity is in hospices. [141891]

  Miss Melanie Johnson:
  There are approximately 2,043 specialist palliative care beds in the voluntary sector and 480 beds in the national health service in England (January 2003). This statistical information relating to the number of NHS/voluntary beds has been taken from Hospice Information, an independent organisation who are a resource for hospice and palliative care services.

  Hospital Amalgamation
  Mr. Frank Field:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent discussions he has had with senior executives of London health authorities concerning hospital amalgamation. [143315]

  Mr. Hutton:
  My right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Health, has had no recent discussions with senior executives of London strategic health authorities concerning hospital amalgamation.

  Identity Cards
  Mr. Webb:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the implications for his Department of the introduction of compulsory identity cards. [142652]

  Mr. Hutton:
  The introduction of such a scheme is a long-term undertaking and the Department will be involved in ongoing analysis of the benefits and costs. It is too early at present to assess fully the implications of the introduction of compulsory identity cards for the Department of Health.

  Insulin
  Tim Loughton:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health for how long he estimates insulin manufacturers will continue to supply animal insulin for those who rely upon it. [142149]

  Ms Rosie Winterton:
  There are two companies supplying animal insulin in the United Kingdom. The Department of Health is in regular contact with these companies and both have confirmed that they will continue to supply animal insulin for the foreseeable future.
  771W

  Junior Doctors
  Mr. Burstow:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the costing implications for the NHS of the Jaeger decision on working hours for junior doctors in the United Kingdom. [141577]

  Mr. Hutton:
  The costs of implementing the Working Time Directive (WTD) are an integral part of modernising and improving national health services and of NHS planning. The NHS has been aware of the implications of implementing the WTD for doctors in training since 2000 and planning for it forms part of overall NHS planning. Strategic health authorities are currently ensuring that plans will achieve compliance by 2004.

  Mr. Burstow:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the impact of the Jaeger decision on working hours for doctors on the ability of his Department to meet the deadline for implementation of the Working Time Directive by 2012; and what action his Department is taking to meet this deadline. [141578]

  Mr. Hutton:
  The Jaeger judgment introduced unexpected case-law on compensatory rest. We are seeking legal advice on this issue and will issue guidance to the service shortly.

  Implementation of the Working Time Directive (WTD) is an integral element of the national health service modernisation agenda. We have taken vigorous action to equip the NHS to meet the WTD deadline. NHS funding is expected to increase by an average of 7.4 per cent. in England over each of the next five years. This significant increase includes provision for the impact of the WTD. In addition, £46 million has been allocated over a three year period on top of baseline funding to cover costs associated with the set-up of new ways of working. The WTD pilot sites are testing solutions such as extended roles for non-medical staff, multi-disciplinary teams, networking between sites and consultants working differently. Lessons from the pilots are being disseminated through the WTD bulletin, "Calling Time". Priority is being given to hospitals facing WTD challenges when considering the allocation of 1,500 additional locally funded specialist registrar training opportunities available this year.

  Legislation
  Mr. Redwood:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many pages of (a) primary and (b) secondary legislation his Department put through Parliament in 2002–03. [141170]

  Mr. Hutton:
  The Department of Health sponsored two Bills during the 2002–03 session, which made a total of 214 pages once enacted.

  In the case of secondary legislation, the Department was responsible for the making of 208 General Statutory Instruments, which would have been considered by either the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments or the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments. These instruments made a total of 1,402 pages.

  Manager Suspensions
  Mr. Burstow:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the (a) number
  772W
  and (b) cost of suspensions of managers in the NHS in (i) England and (ii) each region in each of the last six years. [141107]

  Mr. Hutton:
  No such data collection exercise is undertaken by the Department.

  Maternity Services
  Mr. Baron:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he would make a statement on the role midwives play in public health. [143419]

  Dr. Ladyman
  [holding answer 11 December 2003]: Midwives play a key role in public health, as part of the multidisciplinary team providing pregnancy care. They are often the main pregnancy care provider and are in an ideal position to provide information and support in areas such as parenting, breastfeeding, smoking cessation and early detection and referral for women experiencing domestic violence or post natal depression.

  Mr. Baron:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to increase the number of midwife-led maternity units. [143420]

  Dr. Ladyman
  [holding answer 11 December 2003]: The national health service provides a variety of types of care for women during pregnancy and childbirth including care in midwife-led units for low risk births. The Government expects this variety to continue and does not support any one single model of maternity service provision in preference to all others. We advocate local decision making in designing appropriate, effective services within available resources. It is inevitable that the requirements of women will vary in different parts of the country and this is why it is so important that decisions about service provision are made at a local level and informed by the ethos of woman-centred care.

  Mr. Baron:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to expand the community-based role of midwives. [143421]

  Dr. Ladyman
  [holding answer 11 December 2003]: Midwives currently provide an integrated service across primary and acute care sectors. Next year we shall be publishing the children's national service framework (NSF) which includes maternity services. The NSF will outline our plans for maternity services for the next 10 years and will examine the healthcare professionals needed to ensure that women's individual needs are met.

  Sandra Gidley:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many midwives (a) took up and (b) resigned from posts in the NHS, in (i) England and (i) each region in each year since 1997, broken down by strategic and area health authority; [142049]

  (2) what proportion of midwife vacancies have remained vacant for more than three months in (a) England and (b) each region, in each year since 1997. [142051]

  Mr. Hutton:
  Information on the number of midwives resigning from or taking up posts in the national health service is not collected centrally. The Department collects information on the number of midwives employed in the NHS as at 30 September each year. As at September 2002, there were 860 more midwives employed in the NHS than in 1997.
  773W
  Information on the number of midwives employed in the NHS since 1997 and the rate of vacancies for midwives lasting three months or more since 1999, the first year the data were collected, by strategic health authority and Government Office for the Region has been placed in the Library.

  Mr. Baron:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list departmental targets relating to midwives and midwifery. [143799]

  Mr. Hutton:
  There are no specific departmental targets relating to midwives or midwifery. Midwives are included in the NHS Plan, manifesto and "Delivering the NHS Plan" targets for increasing the number of nurses, midwives and health visitors employed in the national health service and the number of nurses and midwives entering training each year. The targets are for 20,000 more nurses, midwives and health visitors by 2004 over 1999 levels, 20,000 more by 2005 over 2000 levels, and 35,000 more by 2008 over 2001 levels respectively, and for 5,500 more nurses and midwives entering training each year by 2004 over 1999 levels.

  My right hon. Friend the Member for Darlington, speaking at the Royal College of Midwives conference in May 2001, stated that we expect there to be an extra 2,000 midwives employed in the N HS by 2006 over 2000 levels. As at September 2002, there were 680 more midwives employed in the NHS than in 2000.

  Men's Health
  Tim Loughton:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to introduce a chlamydia screening programme for men. [142065]

  Miss Melanie Johnson:
  The chlamydia screening programme, which is being implemented nationally, actively promotes screening for both men and women. The programme is also targeting men that do not traditionally use health services by introducing screening at venues such as armed forces bases and male prisons. The Department of Health have also commissioned the Men's Health Forum to oversee the `Men and Chlamydia Project'. This project will increase men's awareness of chlamydia, promote the adoption of safer sex practices and encourage men to seek screening and treatment where appropriate.

  Mental Health
  Mr. Burstow:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the average waiting times were for child and adolescent mental health services in (a) England, (b) each region and (c) each strategic health authority in each of the last six years; and if he will make a statement. [141110]

  Dr. Ladyman:
  The table shows the average waiting time for the first consultant out-patient appointment following general practitioner written referral to child and adolescent psychiatry.

  The "Emerging Findings" of the children's national service framework (published April 2003) recognised the importance in a comprehensive child and adolescent mental health service of having agreed protocols in place to manage waiting lists and times according to need.
  774W

  Average waiting times for 1st consultant out-patient appointment following GP written referral to child & adolescent psychiatry

  England/Regional Office/Strategic Health Authority

  Median waiting time (weeks)

  Quarter 4 1997–98

  England

  6.3

  Northern & Yorkshire

  3.6

  Trent

  6.7

  West Midlands

  7.2

  North West

  8.7

  Eastern

  7.3

  London

  7.3

  South East

  6.4

  South West

  5.7

  Quarter 4 1998–99

  England

  5.7

  Northern & Yorkshire

  3.8

  Trent

  7.3

  West Midlands

  5.4

  North West

  5.6

  Eastern

  9.4

  London

  3.4

  South East

  5.2

  South West

  6.9

  Quarter 4 1999–2000

  England

  6.3

  Northern & Yorkshire

  5.3

  Trent

  8.5

  West Midlands

  5.7

  North West

  7.8

  Eastern

  8.3

  London

  9.5

  South East

  4.2

  South West

  3.9

  Quarter 4 2000–01

  England

  4.2

  Northern & Yorkshire

  6.9

  Trent

  5.1

  West Midlands

  3.7

  North West

  7.7

  Eastern

  7.6

  London

  9.8

  South East

  5.6

  South West

  2.9

  Quarter 4 2001–02

  England

  4.2

  Northern & Yorkshire

  6.9

  Trent

  5.1

  West Midlands

  3.7

  North West

  7.7

  Eastern

  7.6

  London

  9.8

  South East

  5.6

  South West

  2.9

  Quarter 4 2001–02

  England

  6.8

  Northern & Yorkshire

  6.7

  Trent

  5.9

  West Midlands

  8.7

  North West

  6.3

  Eastern

  8.3

  London

  9.8

  South East

  6.0

  South West

  6.9

  Quarter 4 2002–03

  England

  6.5

  Norfolk, Suffolk and Cambridgeshire HA

  9.6

  Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire HA

  8.5

  Essex HA

  1—

  North West London HA

  1—

  North Central London HA

  3.9

  North East London HA

  1—

  South East London HA

  10.0

  775W

  Average waiting times for 1st consultant out-patient appointment following GP written referral to child & adolescent psychiatry

  England/Regional Office/Strategic Health Authority

  Median waiting time (weeks)

  South West London HA

  3.1

  Northumberland, Tyne and Wear

  6.5

  County Durham & Tees Valley

  5.9

  North and East Yorkshire and Northern Lincolnshire HA

  6.3

  West Yorkshire HA

  26.0

  Cumbria & Lancashire HA

  6.1

  Greater Manchester HA

  5.4

  Cheshire & Merseyside HA

  8.5

  Thames Valley HA

  10.8

  Hampshire and Isle of Wight HA

  8.5

  Kent and Medway HA

  6.6

  Surrey and Sussex HA

  3.2

  Avon, Gloucestershire & Wiltshire HA

  7.1

  South West Peninsula HA

  3.4

  Somerset & Dorset HA

  3.7

  South Yorkshire HA

  4.5

  Trent HA

  8.8

  Leicestershire, Northamptonshire and Rutland HA

  8.2

  Shropshire and Staffordshire HA

  4.1

  Birmingham and The Black Country HA

  9.8

  Coventry, Warwickshire, Herefordshire and Worcestershire HA

  17.4

  Quarter 2 2003–04

  England

  5.3

  Norfolk, Suffolk and Cambridgeshire HA

  3.9

  Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire HA

  1—

  Essex HA

  19.5

  North West London

  1—

  North Central London

  8.5

  North East London

  16.9

  South East London

  26.0

  South West London HA

  2.3

  Northumberland. Tyne and Wear

  6.0

  County Durham & Tees Valley

  8.3

  North and East Yorkshire and Northern Lincolnshire HA

  7.9

  West Yorkshire HA

  3.5

  Cumbria & Lancashire HA

  6.6

  Greater Manchester HA

  5.6

  Cheshire & Merseyside HA

  6.3

  Thames Valley HA

  1—

  Hampshire and Isle of Wight HA

  2.4

  Kent and Medway HA

  5.1

  Surrey and Sussex HA

  2.6

  Avon, Gloucestershire & Wiltshire HA

  8.0

  South West Peninsula HA

  3.3

  Somerset & Dorset HA

  4.0

  South Yorkshire HA

  5.5

  Trent HA

  4.6

  Leicestershire, Northamptonshire and Rutland HA

  8.7

  Shropshire and Staffordshire HA

  7.2

  Birmingham and The Black Country HA

  11.7

  Coventry, Warwickshire, Herefordshire and Worcestershire HA

  6.6

  1 unable to calculate due to small numbers

  Source:

  Department of Health form QM08R

  Mrs. Roe:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many graduate primary care mental health workers were employed by the NHS on the latest date for which figures are available. [142068]

  Ms Rosie Winterton:
  The NHS Plan set out that 1,000 new graduate primary care mental health workers trained in brief therapy techniques of proven effectiveness will be employed by December 2004 to help general practitioners manage and treat common mental health problems in all age groups, including children. Revenue allocations to support the appointment of 1,000
  776W
  such staff were made this financial year (2003–04). Central information on the number appointed began to be captured in September by the Durham Mapping Database at www.dur.ac.uk/service.mapping. However, the information is not yet complete.

  Helen Southworth:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the incidence of people who are diagnosed as having a mental illness who also have a drug or alcohol dependency. [142769]

  Ms Rosie Winterton:
  There has been no national assessment of the incidence of people who are diagnosed as having a mental illness who also have a drug dependency.

  The Office for National Statistics (ONS) is responsible for compiling, analysing and disseminating information relating to the United Kingdom's economic, social and demographic statistics. Their report "Psychiatric morbidity among adults living in private households, 2000" is available on the website at www.statistics.gov.uk. Along with others due for publication, the report contains valuable information about the prevalence of mental disorders including those with problems relating to substance misuse amongst adults over the age of 16 in private households.

  The Government's latest assessment of the numbers of people who have a mental illness and who also suffer from alcohol dependence is contained in the Interim Analytical Report published by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's strategy unit on 19 September 2003.

  Helen Southworth:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to ensure that appropriate services are available locally for people who have been diagnosed as having a mental illness who also have a drug or alcohol dependency. [142771]

  Ms Rosie Winterton:
  The Government guidance on "Dual Diagnosis Good Practice Guide" sets out policy and good practice in the provision of mental health services for people with severe mental health problems who are also experiencing difficulties with drug and alcohol problems. It is aimed at all those who commission and provide mental health and substance misuse services and sets out a clear framework within which staff should continue to develop services in partnership with patients and their carers and families.

  Helen Southworth:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to ensure that adequate information and support is available for carers of people who have been diagnosed as having a mental illness who also have a drug or alcohol dependency. [142772]

  Ms Rosie Winterton:
  The Department of Health published guidance on "Developing services for carers and families of people with mental health illness" in November 2002. The guide is aimed at helping local mental health services develop support services for carers of people with mental health problems.

  The Department also published "Dual Diagnosis Good Practice Guide" in May 2002. The guide sets out policy and good practice in the provision of mental health services for people with severe mental health problems who are also experiencing difficulties with any drug, including alcohol. It is aimed at all those who

  777W
  commission and provide mental health and substance misuse services and sets out a clear framework within which staff should continue to develop services in partnership with patients and their carers and families.

  In addition, the Government's Alcohol Harm Reduction Strategy for England is due to be published in the new year and will be implemented from 2004 in accordance with the timetable set out in the NHS Plan. This strategy will set the future direction for the development of alcohol treatment, which will encompass and be of relevance to carers as well.

  Tim Loughton:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health to what he attributes the rise in the number of children aged 0–14, treated by mental health trusts in West Sussex between 1996–97 and 2001–02. [143064]

  Ms Rosie Winterton:
  This is a matter for Western Sussex Primary Care Trust.

  I understand that the rise in children aged 0–14 treated by mental health trusts can be attributed to the creation of an Assertive Outreach team in 2001 which is based in one of the West Sussex Health and Social Care National Health Service Trust's two in-patient units.

  The team works with children coming in to and leaving hospital. As a result, the number of children and young people the trust sees has increased.

  MRSA
  Mr. Lansley:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish the statistics for England for quarter 1 and quarter 2 of the 2003–04 on MRSA collated in the mandatory MRSA bacteraemia surveillance scheme; and if he will make a statement. [140860]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  [holding answer 3 December 2003]: Results for the first quarter of 2003–04 (April to June 2003) of the mandatory surveillance scheme are available in the Communicable Disease Report Weekly of 18 September 2003, available at www.hpa.org.uk/cdr/PDFfiles/2003/cdr3803.pdf. A total of 1,823 reports were received.

  Data for the second quarter (July to September 2003) will be published shortly.

  Nappies
  Mr. Swayne:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many NHS hospital trusts have contractual arrangements with promoters of baby products which prevent them from making information about re-usable nappies available; and if he will make a statement. [143227]

  Dr. Ladyman:
  I am not aware of any contractual arrangements preventing hospital trusts providing information about re-usable nappies. Parents are given two comprehensive manuals, "The Pregnancy Book" and "Birth to Five", also available at http://www.doh.gov.uk/birthtofive/. Both manuals give detailed information on disposable and reuseable nappies including information about nappy laundering services and contact details for voluntary groups which support the use of re-usable nappies. It is then up to parents or carers to choose which type of nappy to use.
  778W

  National Patient Safety Agency
  Mr. Lansley:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether the appointment of Lord Hunt of Kings Heath as chairman of the National Patient Safety Agency was made by the NHS Appointments Commission. [141314]

  Ms Rosie Winterton:
  Yes, the appointment was made by the National Health Service Appointments Commission. The noble Lord Hunt of Kings Heath was interviewed by a panel, including an independent member, in accordance with the Code of Practice issued by the Commissioner for Public Appointments.

  National Service Framework for Renal Services
  Mrs. Calton:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what measures the forthcoming National Service Framework for Renal Services module on the effective delivery of dialysis will put in place to increase (a) the availability of and (b) equality of access to dialysis services; [143941]

  (2) when he intends to publish the modules of the National Service Framework for Renal Services on the effective delivery of dialysis and transplantation; and what the timescale is for the development and publication of the modules on primary prevention and alternative models of care; [143942]

  (3) how the forthcoming National Service Framework for Renal Services module on transplantation will incorporate the Transplant Framework for England, Saving Lives, Valuing Donors; [143979]

  (4) what measures will be included in the the forthcoming National Service Framework for Renal Services specifically to increase care in the treatment and management of renal disease among ethnic minorities; [143980]

  (5) whether he intends to publish an implementation plan alongside the National Service Framework for Renal Services, with specific timelines for implementation. [143981]

  Ms Rosie Winterton:
  The national service framework (NSF) for renal services will be published shortly. It will set standards of care for people with renal failure to be achieved over the next 10 years. Details of how the standards can be implemented will be embraced in the document. The NSF will build upon other work, including the "National Service Framework for Diabetes and Saving Lives, Valuing Donors: a Transplant Framework for England". Work on the primary prevention and care towards the end of life modules is in development.

  NHS Contractors
  Mr. Oaten:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the revenue recovered by the NHS for charging contractors for receiving tender documents in each of the last three years. [R] [144192]

  Mr. Hutton:
  Neither the Department of Health nor national health service bodies charge contractors for receiving tender documents.

  NHS Costs
  Mr. Spring:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the cost of the national health service per head of population was in each year since 1996–97; and what the estimated cost is for each year from 2003–04 to 2005–06 in (a) each of the English regions and (b) Suffolk. [140701]

  Mr. Hutton:
  Available information on the average amount of national health service spending per weighted head for the former English Regions and the Suffolk Health Authority area for 1996–97 to 2001–02 has been placed in the Library. This information is not available in the same format for 2002–03. Information on the average spending per weighted head for the strategic health authorities in 2002–03 has also been placed in the Library, although the Suffolk area cannot be separately identified after 2001–02, along with revenue allocations per weighted head for 2003–04 to 2005–06.

  NHS Reservists
  Tony Wright:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many NHS staff are deployed as reservists in Iraq. [141419]

  Mr. Hutton:
  The Department does not collect details centrally of the number of national health service staff deployed as reservists in Iraq. The number of NHS staff in Iraq with reservist commitments is dependent on operational circumstances.

  NHS Secondees
  Tim Loughton:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many NHS employees in (a) medical and (b) non-medical posts are on secondment to developing countries. [141031]

  Mr. Hutton:
  The Department does not collect data on numbers of national health service employees in medical and non-medical posts currently on secondment to developing countries.

  NHS Staff
  Mr. Norman:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many NHS staff, employed within the central function, are employed in (a) personnel, (b) finance, (c) information technology, (d) legal services, (e) library services, in health education and (g) general management support services. [141917]

  Mr. Hutton:
  The information requested is not collected centrally. As at 30 September 2002, 85,706 people were employed in the National Health Service in central functions within the NHS infrastructure support staff group.

  Mr. Jenkins:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the timescale is for the introduction of a national incident reporting system for recording physical assaults on NHS staff. [141812]

  Mr. Hutton:
  The Counter Fraud and Security Management Service (CFSMS) was launched in April 2003 with a remit encompassing policy and operational responsibility for the management of security in the national health service. The CFSMS has developed a national reporting system for recording incidents of
  780W
  physical assault. The system uses a legally based definition with the ability to track cases from report to conclusion and is designed to give hard and accurate information on both the nature and scale of assaults.

  Secretary of State Directions were issued to health bodies in November 2003 to ensure that a consistent approach is taken with regards to the recording of physical and non-physical assaults. The national recording system for physical assaults came into operation on 8 December 2003.

  Organ Transplants
  Mr. Woodward:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many organ transplants took place in (a) St. Helens and (b) Merseyside in (i) 2001, (ii) 2002 and (iii) 2003. [142912]

  Miss Melanie Johnson:
  The information requested is shown in the table.

  Main operation; transplant operations—Liverpool, St. Helen's and Knowsley Health Authorities—treatment count of finished consultant episodes NHS hospitals, 2000–01 to 2002–03

  St. Helen's and Knowsley

  Liverpool

  2000–01

  0

  82

  2001–02

  0

  80

  2002–03

  0

  78

  Notes:

  Finished Consultant Episode (FCE):

  An FCE is defined as a period of admitted patient care under one consultant within one healthcare provider. Please note that the figures do not represent the number of patients, as a person may have more than one episode of care within the year.

  Grossing:

  Figures are grossed for both coverage and missing/invalid clinical data, except for 2001–02 and 2002–03 which are not yet adjusted for shortfalls.

  Main operation:

  The main operation is the first recorded operation in the HES data set, and is usually the most resource intensive procedure performed during the episode.

  Source:

  Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) Department of Health.

  Osteoporosis
  Mr. Key:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many primary care trusts have developed policies for osteoporosis in their health improvement programmes for older people; and if he will make a statement. [142993]

  Dr. Ladyman:
  The national service framework for older people sets clear milestones for the planning and development of integrated falls services and provides the basis for a service model that will deliver improvements in prevention, care, treatment and rehabilitation. The most recent reports we have from strategic health authorities indicate that all but a few of the primary care trust local delivery plans include actions to achieve the 2005 milestone. We have collected no systematic information on what local plans cover.

  Overnight Hospital Stays
  Mr. Burstow:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the cost was to the NHS in (a) England

  781W
  and (b) each strategic health authority of overnight stays for patient visitors in NHS beds in each year since 1997. [141579]

  Mr. Hutton:
  The Department does not collect information relating to patient visitors.

  Paediatricians
  Tim Loughton:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many consultant paediatricians are currently employed in the NHS on a (a) part-time and (b) full-time basis; [143046]

  Table 1: Hospital, Public Health Medicine and Community Health Services (HCHS) Staff Consultants in the paediatric group of specialities—England

  Number (headcount)

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  March 2003

  June 2003

  Paediatrics Group

  1,227

  1,299

  1,355

  1,443

  1,507

  1,695

  1,768

  1,801

  Of which:

  Paediatric cardiology

  16

  17

  18

  23

  29

  64

  58

  63

  Paediatrics

  1,211

  1,282

  1,337

  1,420

  1,478

  1,631

  1,710

  1,738

  Note:

  All data as at 30 September except 2003 which is at 31 March and 30 June.

  Source:

  Department of Health Medical and Dental Workforce Census.

  Between September 1997 and June 2003, there has been a 47 per cent. increase in the number of consultants in the paediatrics group.

  Table 2: Hospital, Public Health Medicine and Community Health Services (HCHS): Consultants within the paediatrics group of specialties by nature of contract

  Number (headcount)

  As at June 2003

  All contracts

  Full-time1

  Part-time

  Honorary

  Paediatric Group

  1,801

  1,360

  290

  151

  Of which:

  Paediatric cardiology

  63

  45

  7

  11

  Paediatrics

  1,738

  1,315

  283

  140

  1 Consists of staff on whole time and maximum part time contracts

  Note:

  In these figures, honorary doctors are staff who provide clinical services to an NHS organisation whilst not having a paid substantive or locum contract with that organisation.

  Source:

  Department of Health medical and dental workforce census.

  The age profiles of consultants in the paediatric group working in the NHS, as at June 2003, are shown in table 3.

  Table 3: Hospital, Public Health Medicine and Community Health Services (HCHS) Staff Consultants in the paediatric group of specialities

  Number (headcount)

  Of which:

  England at 30 June 2003

  All ages

  30–34

  35–39

  40–44

  45–49

  50–54

  55–59

  60–64

  65–69

  70 and over

  Paediatrics Group

  1,801

  18

  280

  430

  412

  322

  238

  80

  20

  1

  Of which:

  Paediatric cardiology

  63

  0

  10

  18

  14

  7

  7

  5

  2

  0

  Paediatrics

  1,738

  18

  270

  412

  398

  315

  231

  75

  18

  1

  Source:

  Department of Health Medical and Dental Workforce Census
  782W
  (2) how many new consultant paediatricians have been appointed in each of the last six years; [143047]

  (3) what the age profile is of consultant paediatricians currently working in the NHS. [143049]

  Mr. Hutton:
  The Department does not collect data on the number of newly appointed consultant paediatricians. Workforce data are collected through the annual Department of Health medical workforce census. The census is a snapshot of data as at 30 September in the appropriate year. The information in table 1 shows the net increases in the number of paediatric consultants since 1997.

  Table 2 shows how many consultant paediatricians were employed in the national health service on (a) part-time and (b) whole-time basis as at 30 June 2003.
  783W

  Pain Management Services
  Mr. Sheerman:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will take steps to ensure that regional variations in the provision of pain management services are tackled; [140676]

  (2) what guidance is issued by strategic health authorities on the management of chronic pain in primary and secondary care; [140677]

  (3) if he will ensure that the recommendations of the Clinical Standards Advisory Group report into pain services are fully implemented; [140679]

  (4) if he will commission a review into provision of pain services, based upon the reforms undergone by the national health service since the Clinical Standards Advisory Group report in 2000; [140680]

  (5) whether, in light of the Dr. Foster report, Adult Chronic Pain Management Services in the UK, he will reiterate the recommendations of the Clinical Services Advisory Group calling for closer links between local pain and primary care services; [140772]

  (6) what action will be taken by his Department in the light of the Dr. Foster and Pain Society report, "Adult Chronic Pain Management Services in the UK". [140773]

  Mr. Hutton:
  The Clinical Standards Advisory Group report showed that many national health service trusts had developed excellent services, but in some places more needed to be done to drive up standards. The report made recommendations to commissioners and trusts to review local provision of pain services, and how these might be improved. The Department welcomed the report, and expects commissioners and trusts to take these recommendations into account when they plan their service so that variations in provision is reduced and links with primary care trusts improved.

  The Department encourages openness in the use of NHS performance information and welcomes independent scrutiny of this information, such as the Dr. Foster and Pain Society report on "Adult Chronic Pain Management Services in the UK". We are committed to making NHS performance information widely available to patients, carers and the public in an accessible and readily understandable format.

  The Department has no plans to review the provision of pain services in the NHS or to reissue the Clinical Standards Advisory Group Report. The quality of the service should be monitored locally through the trust, primary care trust commissioners and strategic health authorities to ensure it is provided to meet the needs of the local population.

  Patient Organisations
  Lynne Jones:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the omission of (a) community health councils and (b) patient forums from the list of patient organisations who were sent the consultation document, "Choice, Responsiveness and Equity". [141936]

  Mr. Hutton:
  The consultation document referred to was a resource pack developed specifically for strategic health authorities (SHAs) and voluntary organisations to support them in leading local consultations. It was
  784W
  not sent directly to community health councils (CHCs) as SHAs were responsible for involving CHCs in the local health community's contribution to the consultation. Patient and public involvement forums were not established until after the consultation period closed and therefore could not be consulted.

  The resource document was openly available online or through the NHS Response Line.

  Patients' Forums
  Mr. Baron:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether there was a fully contracted local network provider in place for each patients' forum on 2 December. [142440]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  [holding answer 8 December 2003]: Yes. On 2 December there was a fully contracted local network provider, now known as a forum support organisation, in place for each patients' forum.

  Mr. Baron:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many (a) full-time and (b) part-time staff in local network providers were working exclusively on behalf of patients' forums on 2 December. [142442]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  [holding answer 8 December 2003]: It is not possible to give an absolute staffing figure as some staff are employed exclusively to support the patients' forums while others perform additional functions within their organisation. Since the contracts were awarded in September to the forum support organisations, which were formerly known as local network providers, the organisations have been working to recruit staff and build their capacity, ensuring sufficient support for patients' forums was in place from 1 December. Organisations which have been drawn from the not for profit and voluntary sector will continue to build their resources and to respond effectively to demands as they arise from the patients' forums.

  Mr. Baron:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of patients' forums were fully operational on 2 December; and if he will list those that were not. [142443]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  [holding answer 8 December 2003]: On 2 December, the Commission for Patient and Public Involvement in Health (CPPIH) had received over 5,000 applications from members of the public volunteering to become members of the 572 patients' forums. At that point 505 forums, over 88 per cent., had the required minimum number of members. However, the position is changing daily as CPPIH continues to process the huge numbers of applicants and make final appointments.

  Since 1 September, CPPIH has had in place regional centres and forum support organisations to provide information and guidance to members of the public who may wish to get involved or who have concerns that need addressing locally.

  Training of forum members is currently underway and forums will be fully operational shortly. In the meantime all forums are contactable through the forum support organisations.
  785W
  Mr. Baron:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether each patients' forum had the required minimum of members on 2 December; and if he will list those that did not. [142444]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  [holding answer 8 December 2003]: On 2 December, the Commission for Patient and Public Involvement in Health (CPPIH) had received over 5,000 applications from members of the public volunteering to become members of the 572 patients forums. At that point 505 forums had the required minimum number of members. However, the position is changing daily as CPPIH continues to process the huge numbers of applicants and make final appointments.

  At 2 December, 100 per cent. targets had been reached in the East Midlands, the North East, North West and West Midlands. In the East of England the Commission required 44 appointments to fill specific forums; in Humberside 10 people; in the South East 61; London 17; and the South West 29.

  Mr. Baron:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list (a) the location of each patients' forum's associated local network provider and (1) those patients' forums for which no contracted local network provider was in place on 2 December. [142445]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  [holding answer 8 December 2003]: By 1 September, 140 contracts had been placed with 68 different local network providers (now known as forum support organisations), providing full national coverage of support for all forums as they come on stream from 1 December. Patients' forums have been set up for primary care trusts and national health service trusts and a list of these by forum support organisation is available from the Commission for Patient and Public Involvement in Health.

  Radiation Workers
  Mr. Hancock:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to the answer from the Secretary of State for Defence on 1 December 2003, Official Report, column 39W, if he will make it his policy to (a) offer annual medical examinations to retired or ex-radiation workers and (b) to amend the guidelines to medical professionals to encourage them to note the profession of radiation workers in the medical notes of their families. [143034]

  Miss Melanie Johnson:
  The Ionising Radiation Regulations provides for an appointed doctor to undertake pre-employment health checks, reviews of health at least once a year while in work, and a review of health when the employment has ceased where this is necessary to protect the health of the individual.

  Authoritative scientific and medical opinion is that health checks for all persons with past employment in the radiation industry would, in most cases, be both clinically inappropriate and a diversion of valuable clinical time away from patients with known needs; unless the person indicates symptoms of disease, or the general practitioner has been informed by the appointed doctor of the special circumstances leading to a possible need for continuing surveillance.
  786W
  The content of patient records is essentially a matter for the clinical judgment of the practitioner, taking account of guidance from his or her professional body and all of the circumstances. However, in addition to a general obligation to render to patients all necessary and appropriate personal medical services—including offering to patients consultations and, where appropriate, physical examinations for the purposes of identifying, or reducing the risk of, disease or injury—general practitioners in the national health service are required to seek and record relevant information about patients' and patients' families medical history as well as social factors (including housing, employment, and family circumstances) that may affect patients' health.

  Research Projects
  Dr. Tonge:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research projects will be conducted in response to the findings of the national consultation on how best to improve choice, responsiveness and equity in the national health service and social care; and if he will make a statement. [141694]

  Mr. Hutton:
  On 9 December 2003 the Government published "Building on the Best: Choice, Responsiveness and Equity in the NHS". This strategy document sets out action on how we intend to expand choice for service users. A copy of the document in available in the Library. We are now considering with the national health service and partner organisations how further research might help inform future action.

  Dr. Tonge:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will publish the findings of the national consultation on how best to improve choice, responsiveness and equity in the national health service and social care; and if he will make a statement. [141696]

  Mr. Hutton:
  On 9 December 2003, the Government published a strategy paper "Building on the Best; Choice, Responsiveness and Equity in the NHS", which draws out and develops the main themes that emerged from the Choice, Responsiveness and Equity consultation. The document broadly sets out how we will make NHS services more responsive to patients, by offering more choice across the spectrum of healthcare. A copy is available in the Library.

  Sexual Health
  Mr. Burns:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the reasons are for the exclusion of sexually transmitted infections from the new general practitioner contract; whether all GPs will (a) examine and (b) treat patients suffering from a sexually transmitted infection; and if he will make a statement. [140696]

  Mr. Hutton:
  No disease is excluded under the new general medical services contract. All practices will provide essential services, which provide for the management and on-going treatment and care of patients who are ill, or believe themselves to be ill. Practices will continue to offer consultations and, where appropriate, physical examination for the purpose of identifying the need, if any, for treatment or further investigation.
  787W

  Sperm Donors
  Tim Loughton:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what plans he has to change arrangements for anonymity of sperm donors; [142152]

  (2) what plans he has to give a right to children produced as a result of donor insemination to know the identity of their parents. [142153]

  Miss Melanie Johnson:
  This is a highly sensitive issue for the children born, their parents and their donors. Section 31 (5) of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 does not permit donors to be identified retrospectively. We are considering whether

  SHA name

  Trust name

  Scheme name

  Outturn cost (£ million)

  Funding

  Start on site actual/target

  Finish on site actual/target

  Cheshire and Merseyside Strategic HA

  St. Helens and Knowsley Hospitals NHS Trust

  St. Helens and Knowsley Health Community Strategic Redevelopment

  284.0

  PFI

  February 2005

  December 2010

  Cheshire and Merseyside Strategic HA

  St. Helens and Knowsley Hospitals NHS Trust

  Re-provision of Knowsley House

  2.77

  Public

  June 2000

  August 2001

  Cheshire and Merseyside Strategic HA

  St. Helens and Knowsley Hospitals NHS Trust

  Rehabilitation Wards (60 Beds)

  5.2

  Public (PC21)

  January 2003

  December 2004

  Cheshire and Merseyside Strategic HA

  St. Helens PCT

  NHS LIFT—3rd Tranche

  22.0

  LIFT

  —

  March 2005

  Cheshire and Merseyside Strategic HA

  St. Helens PCT

  Millennium Centre Phase 3

  3.4

  Public (PC21)

  January 2003

  December 2003

  Source:

  NHS Estates

  Tamiflu
  Mr. Lansley:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what criteria he is applying to the availability on prescription of Tamiflu as a treatment for influenza. [141313]

  Miss Melanie Johnson:
  The National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) recommends that Tamiflu should not be used for the treatment of influenza in children or adults unless they are considered to be 'at-risk'. Full details of the NICE guidance issued in February 2003 is available on the website www.nice.org.uk.

  The Department is consulting on a proposal to enable other patients not considered to be 'at-risk' to receive Tamiflu from their doctor. The consultation is available at www.doh.gov.uk/tamifluconsultation.

  Third Register Review
  Mr. Gardiner:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what the timetable is for the review of the third register; who will conduct the review; and when the report of the review will be published; [140627]

  (2) if he will publish the terms of reference for the review of health visiting. [140628]

  Mr. Hutton:
  The Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC) has now completed its consultation on the third part of the NMC register, where it is proposed that health visitors will be separately registered.

  A separate review of the nursing, midwifery and health visiting contribution to children at risk is being undertaken by the Chief Nursing Officer (England) (CNO) in the light of the recent Green Paper, "Every Child Matters". The scope and process of the review are set out on the CNO web site at www.doh.gov.uk/cno/cnoreview.htm.
  788W
  to ask Parliament to approve regulations to make identifying information about future donors available on request to donor-conceived people age 18 or older. The Government expect to make a decision on this shortly.

  St. Helens Projects
  Mr. Woodward:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the capital projects (a) built and (b) being built in connection with health care provision in St. Helens in each year since 1997. [141476]

  Miss Melanie Johnson:
  The information is shown in the table.

  Mr. Gardiner:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many ministerial commitments to consult and respect the views of the profession were met during consideration on the review of the third register. [140630]

  Mr. Hutton:
  The Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC) is required by the Nursing and Midwifery Order 2001 to consult representatives of any group of persons it considered appropriate including, as it sees fit, representatives of registrants or class of registrant, employers of registrants, users of the services of registrants and persons providing assessing or funding education or training for registrants or prospective registrants.

  In exercising its function, the NMC must have proper regard to the interests of all registrants and prospective registrants and to any differing considerations applying to the professions and to groups within them.

  I am satisfied that the NMC has consulted both appropriately and sufficiently in regard to this review.

  Mr. Gardiner:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when and by whom the health visiting profession was consulted regarding the third register; and what the outcome was of the consultation. [140631]

  Mr. Hutton:
  The Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC) is an independent statutory body and is required to consult representatives of any group of persons it considers appropriate. Further specific information in respect of this is a matter for the NMC.

  Top-up Fees
  Mr. Burstow:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what his policy is on meeting charges for university variable top-up fees for student (a) nurses and (b) doctors; and if he will make a statement. [142063]
  789W
  Mr. Hutton:
  For the first four years of the standard undergraduate medical course, and for year one of the shorter (4 year) graduate entry course, the Department for Education and Skills' (DfES) means tested arrangements currently apply, whereby students are required to contribute up to £1,125 for fees, depending on parents' or spouses' income.

  For years five and six of the traditional medical undergraduate course, and years two to four of the graduate entry course, the Department of Health/ national health service-funded arrangements apply, in which students make no contribution to tuition fees; their liability being met from the Department of Health's multi-professional education and training levy and paid direct to higher education institutions by the NHS Student Grants Unit.

  While the proposals contained in the DIES' White Paper, "The Future of Higher Education", include allowing universities to increase tuition fees, there is as yet no clear indication from the higher education sector of the scope or scale of any increased charges.

  I have already made it clear that we will if necessary take measures to ensure that any increase in the level of tuition fees will not have an adverse impact on the supply, retention, diversity or quality of students undertaking medical training.

  I also refer the hon. Member to the response I gave him on 11 December 2003, Official Report, column 600W.

  University of Birmingham Hospital Trust
  Lynne Jones:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health under what powers funds have been allocated to the University of Birmingham Hospital Trust to consult over its proposal to become an NHS Foundation Trust. [141559]

  Mr. Hutton:
  Section 2 of the National Health Service Act 1977 gives the Secretary of State powers to do anything which is calculated to facilitate the discharge of his duty to continue the promotion of a comprehensive health service. Schedule 3, Paragraph 5 A of the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990 gives the Secretary of State the power to make a payment to a national health service trust. The payments were made under these powers.

  Unwanted Pregnancies
  Mrs. Calton:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many unwanted pregnancies were terminated in each year since 1986 per 100,000 population. [141998]

  Miss Melanie Johnson:
  This information is contained in Table 1 of "Abortion Statistics, England and Wales, 2002" (ISBN 1 84182 782 7). Copies are available in the Library, or on the Department's website at www.doh.gov.uk/public/sb0323.htm.

  Waiting Times
  Mr. Wiggin:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people have waited over 18 months for their operation. [141168]
  790W
  Mr. Hutton:
  As at 30 September 2003, there were nine patients waiting over 18 months for elective inpatient admission in England.

  Mr. Woodward:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what the average waiting time for patients admitted to accident and emergency departments in hospitals in the St. Helens area to be admitted to a ward was in each year since 1992; [141479]

  (2) what the average waiting time for patients admitted to accident and emergency departments in hospitals in the St. Helens area to see a doctor was in each year since 1992. [141480]

  Miss Melanie Johnson:
  The information requested is not collected.

  Information on the total time patients spend in accident and emergency departments from arrival to admission, transfer or discharge is collected each quarter from national health service trusts and is routinely published on the Department's website at http://www.doh.gov.uk/hospitalactivity/. Printed copies of the information are also available in the Library.

  Working Time Directive
  Mr. Evans:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment has been made of the cost to each NHS trust of the Working Time Directive. [141403]

  Mr. Hutton:
  The Working Time Directive (WTD) is an integral part of modernising and improving services. The national health service has been aware of the implications of implementing the WTD for doctors in training since 2000, and planning for it forms part of overall NHS planning. Strategic health authorities are currently ensuring that plans will achieve compliance by 2004.

  Mr. Evans:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment has been made of the change in the number of (a) doctors and (b) nurses needed in each NHS trust as a result of the implementation of the Working Time Directive. [141405]

  Mr. Hutton:
  The Department's guidance to the national health service, HSC 2003/001 'Protecting Staff, Delivering Services—Implementing the European Working Time Directive for Doctors in Training', states that while the number of doctors on an individual rota will generally have to increase, trusts should find ways to reduce the number of resident rotas. A number of methods of doing so are being explored in the 20 Working Time Directive (WTD) pilots and several "Hospital at Night" pilots. Thus, the total staffing requirement does not increase substantially as a result of the WTD.

  The NHS is currently developing action plans to achieve compliance with the WTD. As part of this, additional training opportunities will be made available for trusts where the need for a post is agreed by their strategic health authority. This agreement is subject to funding and educational approval being obtained.

  It is for local organisations to determine the level of staff needed to implement the WTD and to deliver a quality service. However, the Department is supporting a programme of work to develop new ways of working for nurses and other professional staff.
  791W
  Mrs. Gillan:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what assessment has been made of the cost to NHS trusts in (a) Chesham and Amersham and (b) Buckinghamshire of the Working Time Directive; [142523]

  (2) what assessment has been made of the overtime needed in NHS trusts in (a) Chesham and Amersham and (b) Buckinghamshire arising from the implementation of the Working Time Directive. [142524]

  Ms Rosie Winterton:
  The Working Time Directive is an integral part of modernising and improving services. The national health service has been aware of the implications of implementing the Working Time Directive for doctors in training since 2000, and planning for it forms part of overall NHS planning.

  Strategic health authorities are currently ensuring that plans will achieve compliance by 2004.

  Mrs. Gillan:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment has been made of the change in the number of (a) doctors and (b) nurses needed in (i)Chesham and Amersham and (ii) Buckinghamshire as a result of the implementation of the Working Time Directive. [142525]
  792W
  Ms Rosie Winterton:
  The Department's guidance to the national health service—Health Service Circular 2003/001 'Protecting Staff, Delivering Services—Implementing the European Working Time Directive for Doctors in Training' states that while the number of doctors on an individual rota will generally have to increase, trusts should find ways to reduce the number of resident rotas. A number of methods of doing so are being explored in the 20 Working Time Directive (WTD) pilots and several hospital at night pilots. Thus the total staffing requirement does not increase substantially as a result of the WTD.

  Strategic health authorities are ensuring that trust plans will deliver compliance. Priority will be given to trusts facing WTD challenges in the allocation of an additional 1,500 locally funded specialist registrars training opportunities, subject to educational approval being obtained.

  It is for local organisations to determine the level of staff needed to implement the WTD and to deliver a quality service. However, the Department is supporting a programme of work to develop new ways of working for nurses and other professional staff.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill
  The Minister for Housing and Planning (Keith Hill)
  Someone wishing to see whether development is acceptable in principle may apply for outline planning permission. This has the advantage that detailed drawings are not needed. A local planning authority can grant permission subject to approval of the details (known as reserved matters) within a set timescale. Development may not commence until reserved matters have been approved.

  We believe that outline planning permission has significant faults. At its worst it allows redlining on a map of an area or site for development for a particular use or uses of land with no detail shown. This is not an acceptable state of affairs. Local communities should have early opportunities to engage in discussion of proposed developments.

  The Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill therefore seeks to introduce an alternative method whereby a developer can gain an indication as to whether a proposed development would be acceptable. A statement of development principles is a statement of whether or not a local planning authority agrees with the principle of all or part of a proposed development. It does not grant permission, but must be taken into account by an authority determining a subsequent application for planning permission.

  The Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill also contains a clause to remove outline planning permission. We have been clear that we will not abolish outline planning permission until statements of development principles have been shown to be an effective alternative. Until then the two systems will work in parallel. We have said that we would review the take up and success of statements of development principles two years after they come into effect and at that time we would also consider what the consequences would be of removing outline planning permission.

  I have received significant representations from organisations representing housebuilders and other major developers indicating their concerns about the potential removal of outline planning permission and its effect on proposed developments.

  On the basis of these representations I am content to indicate that I will consider further the removal of the provision from the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill that abolishes outline planning permission.

  However, if outline planning permission were to be retained this could only be on the basis that it provided the opportunity for greater community involvement and a level of information which will enable local authorities to assess all the significant environmental impacts. To achieve that, developers would need to provide more
  118WS
  information than is often the case at present. I am prepared to consider proposals on the scope and extent of that further information and the form that it should take. I shall need to be satisfied that such proposals go far enough to meet our objectives and that they are likely to command a wide consensus among interested parties. At the very least this would need to cover the key design principles, density, the mix and distribution of uses, accessibility and the timescale for the development. I shall therefore be seeking the views of the development industry and local government before deciding whether to retain outline planning permission.

  If we were to pursue this approach the new system of development control could include both statements of development principles and outline planning permission. Statements of development principles would provide developers and local planning authorities with an additional tool for building up an agreed development "prospectus" for a site. Outline planning permission could be used either after or instead of a statement of development principles. This would be for the applicant to decide. Full planning permission, requiring the submission of all details of the proposed development, would not change. It would therefore remain the case that development could not commence until reserved matters had been approved.

  National Domestic Violence Help-line
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Yvette Cooper)
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has today announced a new service providing a single freephone help-line for people seeking help with domestic violence. The help-line service was part of a package of funding announced in December 2002 providing a total of £2 million over three years to support the development of the help-line and 'ukrefugesonline' to provide more effective help in finding domestic violence services. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is working in partnership with Comic Relief, with each contributing £1 million to the initiative, and with Refuge and Women's Aid who will be running the helpline.

  PPS6—Planning for Town Centres
  The Minister for Housing and Planning (Keith Hill)
  I am today announcing the start of the 13-week public consultation period for Planning Policy Statement 6, which sets out the Government's planning policy for town centres.

  Vital and viable town centres have a key role in the delivery of sustainable communities—a vision set out in the Communities Plan. This new draft planning policy statement carries forward the "town centres first" approach established in PPG6 (1996), and clearly sets out positive planning policies, which will encourage investment and growth in city, town and other centres.

  This statement makes clear that development should be focused in existing centres in order to strengthen and, where appropriate, regenerate them, and that local planning authorities should:
  select appropriate, existing centres to accommodate the need for development;
  identify sites within and adjoining these centres for development or redevelopment; and

  119WS
  provide for the growth of the town centre, expanding the town centre boundary where necessary.

  Due to the need for clearer and more concise statements of Government Policy this PPS does not include technical advice or good practice guidance. The intention is to publish separately a number of companion guides addressing the implementation of the policy. These will include advice on:
  assessing need and impact in respect of new retail and leisure development;
  applying the sequential approach; and
  strategies for smaller centres.

  The companion guides will be published alongside the final version of PPS6.

TRANSPORT

  London Underground PPP Consultancy Costs
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Tony McNulty)
  London Transport's (LT) expenditure on external consultancy in relation to the Public Private Partnership (PPP) for the modernisation of London Underground (LU) has been regularly reported to the House since January 1999. The final cost is £103.5 million since the Government announced the PPP on 20 March 1998. As LT's liabilities transferred to Transport for London (TfL) on 15 July 2003, some of the residual final costs were met by London Underground (LU) under TfL's ownership.

  Review of the Commission for Integrated Transport
  The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Alistair Darling)
  On 11 April this year I announced a review of the Commission for Integrated Transport (CfIT) and the Motorists Forum to be undertaken by Charles Rice. Mr Rice has now reported and I have considered his recommendations.

  The Government are grateful to Charles Rice for carrying out an objective, thorough and fair review. I have accepted his recommendations in full, which will be implemented immediately.

  CfIT will retain its responsibility for advising the Government on future transport policy options, the potential for new technology, the identification of best practice in transport and on transport issues which cross departmental boundaries. The Commission will also retain responsibility for refreshing and informing the transport debate through its published reports and other work.

  Charles Rice also recommended that CfIT should no longer have the role of monitoring and reviewing of the achievement of the 10 Year Plan for Transport, a recommendation I accept.

  Both my Department and CfIT are looking forward to developing a close and fruitful working relationship under the refreshed remit now agreed.

  I am pleased to be able to announce that the Motorists Forum will continue with its current remit and structure.

  A copy of the report of the review and CflT's revised terms of reference have been placed in the House Library.

  London Tube Emergency Exercise
  The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Alistair Darling)
  I have today published the key lessons from the emergency exercise held at Bank Underground Station on 7 September 2003. The exercise confirmed that a great deal of work has been done to improve London's capability to respond to major emergencies but identified further areas for action.

  The exercise was designed to enable London's frontline services, fire, police and ambulance, to practise their response to a chemical attack on the Tube.

  This was an extremely valuable exercise, which allowed us to test the capability and constraints of our emergency services under difficult circumstances. Exercises such as this are also an opportunity to learn and we have identified areas that need further development.

  While some of the conclusions need to remain confidential for reasons of security we are today fulfilling our commitment to make public the key findings that the emergency services and others have identified.

  The exercise found that:
  a great deal of work has already been done by Government, Emergency Services and the Mayor of London to improve London's capability to respond to emergencies through improved equipment and planning;
  there needs to be contingency planning, preparation and funding for responding to large scale emergencies and that this work continues to be given high priority;
  work needs to continue to look at and prepare for alternative rescue plans for difficult environments like the London Underground;
  work needs to continue to improve the ability of those wearing protective suits to be able to communicate under difficult conditions;
  ambulance crews need to be able to provide earlier assessment, care and delivery of specific antidotes to contaminated casualties; and,
  we must not underestimate the number of people and specialist equipment required to respond to such emergencies.

  The Government, the Mayor of London and London's emergency services will continue to work together, through the London Resilience Forum, to ensure these lessons are learnt to improve the capital's preparedness, now and for years to come.

  The exercise held at Bank Underground station on 7 September was designed to test specific elements of the emergency services' response to a chemical attack on the Tube.

  The exercise was organised by the London Resilience Forum, the pan-London emergency planning body chaired by London Resilience Minister, Nick Raynsford, with Ken Livingstone, Mayor of London, as deputy chair.

  It was one of an extensive programme of exercises that continues to be held to test and help improve our resilience to a major terrorist attack. Further exercises are planned over the next two years, including a joint UK-US exercise planned for 2005.

  Rail Regulator's Interim Review
  The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Alistair Darling)
  The rail regulator published on 12 December
  121WS
  the final conclusions of his interim review of track access charges (TACs), setting out his determination of what Network Rail needs to spend over the next five years, and how this expenditure should be financed.

  I welcome the regulator's conclusions. In total, these represent a significant increase in Network Rail's income requirement over the next five years compared with the conclusions he reached in his October 2000 access charges review, but with a requirement for substantial efficiencies and improvements in performance. It is essential that the industry now works together to ensure that these are delivered.

  The regulator is providing flexibility for Network Rail to reprofile its grant payments over time, including increased borrowing by the company in the short term. He has said that he expects Network Rail to use this flexibility. In respect of the years. 2004–05 and 2005–06, as long as he is satisfied that the balance of Network Rail's total income requirements will be met in full by borrowing, the regulator may confirm by the end of February 2004 a lower level of income from track access charges and grants for Network Rail than he has set out. From April 2006 Network Rail will receive the full revenues that the regulator has established.

  It is common practice for companies to borrow to fund a peak in investment. I believe that on the basis of the sound financial footing that the regulator has established for Network Rail and the strength of its financial structure, including its proposed securitisation and proposed modifications to its existing support facilities, it should be able to increase its borrowing above the levels presently assumed by the regulator. For 2004–05 and 2005–06, taking account of the flexibility offered by the regulator for Network Rail to increase its borrowing, I expect the results of this review to be accommodated within the Government's existing expenditure total. Final decisions on how to fund the increases beyond that will be taken in the spending review next year.

  In line with the Government's fiscal rules which prohibit Government borrowing for current expenditure over the economic cycle, it is appropriate that Government support for capital expenditure by Network Rail is funded through capital grants paid by the SRA, rather than through track access charges paid by train operators. The regulator is providing a mechanism under which the balance between grants and TACs will be also be determined by the end of February 2004.

  The total income requirement determined by the regulator is unaffected by the relative proportions which are provided by network grant and TACs. The fact that a high proportion of Network Rail's income may be provided as grant from the SRA does not mean that they acquire any control or influence over the company. Network Rail must continue to operate at arm's length from the SRA. It must focus on meeting the needs of its real customers—the freight and passenger operators. I am sure this point is understood by all concerned.

  In February 2003 I laid before the House a letter of comfort to the Strategic Rail Authority (SRA) setting out the Government's commitment to fund the SRA so that it could meet its financial obligations. I am aware that the SRA has a contractual obligation to fund in full increases in TACs resulting from access charges reviews.
  122WS
  In addition, the SRA will enter a contractual commitment to pay the network grants determined by the regulator in his access charges review. Letters of comfort cannot and must not fetter the Secretary of State's discretion, but the letter to the SRA is a correct representation of my current intention in these matters.

  In a statement to Parliament in June 2002, I set out the key overarching principles for the regulatory framework for railways. Independent economic regulation was one such overarching principle for which there was an "essential continuing requirement". This remains the Government's position.

  In July 2004 the powers of the individual Regulator will transfer to a regulatory board, in line with reforms to regulatory authorities in other sectors. The checks and balances in decision making by a suitably structured Board should reinforce the independence of regulation. The functions and duties of the ORR are not being changed by the transfer to a regulatory board.

HEALTH

  Contingency Planning
  The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Hutton)
  Last December, I announced the steps that the Department were taking to strengthen our plans against any deliberate release of biological agents, including smallpox. That announcement included three main components: improved vaccine stocks; a plan of action; and a cohort of immunised staff.

  We have no evidence of a specific threat of smallpox attack on the UK. However, it is sensible and prudent to ensure that the National Health Service can deal effectively with any potential threat.

  Over this last year, we have taken action to increase substantially our stocks of smallpox vaccine, and have announced a contract for a second procurement. This will enable us to provide new vaccine for the whole population, if required.

  Our plan of action has been updated and revised following discussion and comment. The plan revisions incorporate valuable input from a wide range of medical experts and groups within the NHS as well as other Government departments. Implementation of the plan is being co-ordinated by the Health Protection Agency's (HPA) regional leads. I am today publishing the revised Plan, copies of which are available in the Vote Office and can be accessed on the Department of Health website at:http://www.doh.gov.uk/smallpox/smallpox.htm

  Regional smallpox response groups have been established in England, and core team members vaccinated in advance. We now plan to vaccinate a small number of ambulance workers to assist these groups, and to support the initial response to a smallpox emergency. Corresponding arrangements are being made for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

  The Department's primary strategy is still to contain and "ring vaccinate" around any outbreak.

  This work continues to be taken forward under the cross-Government civil contingencies machinery for which my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has overall responsibility.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  UK Online Annual Report 2003
  The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Ms Patricia Hewitt)
  The fourth UK Online annual report has been published today and copies have been placed in the House Libraries. The report is also available on the Office of the e-Envoy website.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Council Tax Benefit
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr. Chris Pond)
  Currently, people living in properties in council tax bands F, G or H have their council tax benefit restricted to the maximum amount payable for a band E property.

  We have listened to representations from local government and others and we accept that this restriction is increasingly biting unfairly on people in larger properties. These will include pensioner owner occupiers who have worked hard all their lives to buy their houses, or large families in rented accommodation, who are not asset rich and unable to move to a property in a lower council tax band. Its removal will make council tax benefit fairer and easier to access. We have therefore decided to abolish the council tax benefit restriction from April 2004.

  Local authorities also have the extra burden of having to collect small amounts of council tax from those who are required to meet the shortfall from their own resources. Abolishing the restriction will remove this burden too.

  The introduction of pension credit has been designed in such a way as to ensure that some 1.9 million pensioners should qualify for more help, or help for the first time, with their council tax bills. We estimate some 310,000 pensioners will qualify for the first time.

  Council tax benefit provides financial help to council tax payers on low income. However not all those who are currently entitled to help with their council tax bills are claiming this benefit. For example, although some 2.4 million pensioners already receive council tax benefit we estimate that up to 1.4 million pensioners may be missing out on the help to which they are entitled.

  Local authorities have a statutory responsibility for promoting awareness of council tax benefit with their council tax payers. Many authorities have well developed take-up strategies while others rely solely on information issued with the council tax bill. However we want to do more to support them in this task and ensure more pensioners and those on low income are receiving the help to which they are entitled.

  In the New Year the Government will he launching a campaign to raise the awareness of council tax benefit among those who are likely to be entitled and also their family, friends and carers. Working with local authorities, we will provide promotional material, and will develop guidance and advice to help ensure that procedures are in place to handle enquiries about entitlement and provide support for those, particularly pensioners, making claims.
  124WS
  We are already working in partnership with local authorities to improve performance in housing and council tax benefit administration. We now need also to focus on take-up, where take-up of council tax benefit lags behind that of other benefits.

  There is much that the Department is already doing. The pension service is already inviting claims for council tax benefit when an application for pension credit is made, and we recently introduced a shortened claim form for pensioners applying for housing or council tax benefit to make claiming easier. The local pension service is working with local partners, including local authorities, to help reach the more vulnerable pensioners.

  We also recognise and appreciate the pivotal role that the voluntary sector can play in promoting take-up of benefits. We know some older people prefer to deal with organisations such as Age Concern and Help the Aged. As part of developing a "third age" network we are building closer and more effective partnerships with the voluntary sector. The campaign will reinforce the valuable work they already do.

  The measures I am announcing today will provide local authorities with more support from central Government in undertaking their statutory responsibilities, and build on the work already taking place at local level.

  More generally, the Government are committed to ensuring that local authorities can provide decent local services without making excessive demands on local taxpayers.

  My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister has announced that the Government will next year be providing total support to local authorities of £54.5 billion—up from £50.8 billion for 2003–04 on a like for like basis.

  Given the scale of the Government's 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. The Government are prepared to use its targeted capping powers next year if necessary to protect local taxpayers.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Democratic Republic of Congo
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Chris Mullin)
  Following consultations with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Ministry of Defence, the Department of Trade and Industry issued a licence for the export to the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) of body armour and military helmets. This equipment will be used by the UN Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs, who are part of the United Nations operation in the DRC.

  UN Security Council Resolution (SCR) 1493 (2003), adopted on 28 July 2003, implemented an embargo on the provision of arms and any related materiel to all armed groups operating in the east of the country. Operative Paragraph 21 of the SCR provides an

  125WS
  exemption to the embargo for
  "supplies of non-lethal equipment intended solely for humanitarian or protective use …".

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Security Vetting Arrangements
  The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Jane Kennedy)
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, in a written ministerial statement on 12 December 2002,Official Report, col. 32WS, announced a thorough and comprehensive review of security vetting arrangements in Northern Ireland.

  I am glad to report that an initial programme of reform is underway to improve the effectiveness of current protective security arrangements across the Northern Ireland Office, the Northern Ireland Departments, PSNI, and associated bodies. These changes will take some months to implement in full.

  This programme is identifying vulnerabilities and establishing appropriate protective security arrangements to prevent disruption or compromise. These arrangements include where necessary the security clearance of staff. These arrangements are in accordance with recognised best practice and normal government requirements.

  In particular, in future applicants for posts in the Northern Ireland Civil Service will undergo a basic check procedure, designed to ensure that they are adequately identified; and will be asked to declare any unspent criminal records. This will bring to an end the existing practice of security vetting all administrative applicants. All those staff occupying, or who are to occupy, posts in specific areas identified in the programme of reform as requiring security clearance on grounds of national security, will be required to undergo national security vetting, to the appropriate level, in accordance with stated Government policy.

  These protective security arrangements will be kept under regular review. Future security vetting policy changes will be screened for their impact on equality, and where necessary subject to formal equality impact assessment.

  I am confident that these steps will help to safeguard the essential functions of government in Northern Ireland; protect the public from risk, and meet human rights and equality obligations.

  The work of the review will carry on into next year; I will make further statements as and when I reach decisions on recommendations made to me.

TREASURY

  Review of National Insurance Contributions—2004–05
  The Paymaster General (Dawn Primarolo)
  I have completed the annual review under section 141 of the Social Security Administration Act 1992. I propose the following changes to take effect from 6 April 2004. These rates and limits will also apply to Northern Ireland National Insurance Contributions.
  126WS
  EMPLOYERS AND EMPLOYEES

  In line with the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992, the Lower Earnings Limit for primary Class 1 contributions is to be raised to £79 a week. It is set at the level of the basic Retirement Pension for a single person from April 2004 and rounded down to the nearest pound.

  The Primary and Secondary Thresholds for Class 1 contributions will continue to be aligned with the weekly amount of the income tax personal allowance, which will be increased to £4,745 from April 2004. The Primary and Secondary Thresholds will therefore be increased to £91 a week. This means that no tax or Class 1 contributions will actually be paid on earnings below this level.

  The Upper Earnings Limit for primary Class 1 contributions will be raised to £610.

  THE SELF-EMPLOYED

  The rate of Class 2 contributions will be raised to £2.05 a week.

  Self-employed people with earnings below the annual Small Earnings Exception can apply to be exempted from paying Class 2 contributions. This limit will be raised by £120 to £4,215 in line with inflation.

  The annual lower profits limit for liability to Class 4 contributions will increase to £4,745 a year (in line with the income tax personal allowance). The Upper Profits Limit will increase by £780 to £31,720, to maintain the link with employees' earnings liable to Class 1 contributions.

  CLASS 3

  The rate of Class 3 voluntary contributions will be increased by 20 pence to £7.15 a week.

  SHARE FISHERMEN

  The special rate of Class 2 contributions for share fishermen, which allows them to build entitlement to contributory Jobseekers' Allowance in addition to the other contributory benefits available to the self-employed, will be increased to £2.70 a week.

  VOLUNTEER DEVELOPMENT WORKERS

  The special rate of Class 2 contributions for volunteer development workers, which entitles them to the full range of contributory benefits, will be increased by 10 pence to £3.95 in line with the statutory formula of 5 per cent of the primary Class 1 Lower Earnings Limit.

  TREASURY GRANT

  I need to ensure that the Fund can maintain a prudent working balance throughout the coming year. In accordance with section 2 (2) of the Social Security Act 1993, I propose to do so by prescribing that the maximum Treasury Grant which may be made available to the Fund in 2004–05 shall not exceed 2 per cent of the estimated benefit expenditure for that year. Similar provision will be made in respect of the Northern Ireland National Insurance Fund.

  I shall be laying a draft re-rating order before Parliament in due course. This will accompany a report by the Government Actuary to myself and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions which we shall jointly present to Parliament.
  127WS
  The following table sets out the rates, earnings limits and thresholds for National Insurance Contributions proposed for 2004–05.

  National Insurance Contributions, Proposed re-rating, April 2004

  Item

  2004–05

  Lower Earnings Limit, primary

  £79

  Class 1

  Upper Earnings Limit, primary

  £610

  Class 1

  Primary Threshold

  £91

  Secondary Threshold

  £91

  Employees' primary Class 1

  11% from £91.01 to £610 plus

  rate

  1% above £610

  Employees' contracted-out

  1.6%

  rebate

  Married women's reduced rate

  4.85% from £91 01 to £610 plus

  1% above £610

  Employers' secondary Class 1

  12.8% on earnings above £91

  rate

  Employers' contracted-out

  3.5%

  rebate, salary-related schemes

  Employers' contracted-out

  1.0%

  rebate, money-purchase

  schemes

  Class 2 rate

  £2.05

  Class 2 Small Earnings

  £4,215

  Exception

  Special Class 2 rate for share

  £2.70

  fishermen

  Special Class 2 rate for

  £3.95

  volunteer development

  workers

  Class 3 rate

  £7.15

  Class 4 rate

  8% from £4,745 to £31,720 plus 1% above £31,720

  Class 4 Lower Profits Limit

  £4,745

  Class 4 Upper Profits Limit

  £31,720

DEFENCE

  Service Pensions Taxation Error
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Ivor Caplin)
  The report of the internal 128WS
  inquiry into the incorrect deduction of tax from Service attributable pensions recommended that, in addition to the Inland Revenue refund and repayment supplement, consideration should be given to further compensation for those affected by the error. The Inland Revenue allowed a significant concession in waiving the time limits that normally apply in refunds of tax. However, representations have been made that the Ministry of Defence should pay further compensation to those pensioners for whom the effect of the error persisted over a considerable number of years. The Government accept that, where individuals suffer a financial loss as a result of its administrative errors, then the onus is on that Department to restore those individuals to the position they would have enjoyed had the errors not occurred. The Ministry of Defence has already accepted responsibility for the errors which led to tax being wrongly deducted and has apologised unreservedly. We further accept that, in certain cases, payments made so far have not provided full compensation for the cost of the errors to individuals.

  I have therefore decided that further ex-gratia compensation will be paid to those who were in receipt of pensions outside the normal six-year Inland Revenue repayment period. Compensation will be calculated by applying compound interest, using the Retail Prices Index plus 2 per cent. to the tax wrongly deducted, net of the estimated repayment by the Inland Revenue. We will also pay ex-gratia compensation, calculated in the same way, to those who suffered from the related error of delays in payment of benefits under the Armed Forces Pension Scheme, including using the Inland Revenue Repayment formula for compensation for errors within the normal six-year period. Payment will be made as quickly as possible.

  It will, however, take some months to complete all payments because the necessary data on each individual are held mainly on manual records. We deeply regret the errors made but I hope that this offer of compensation will draw matters to a satisfactory conclusion.

  Finally, I would like to express my considerable gratitude to those pensioners, in particular Major John Perry and Captain John Lewis, who have worked tirelessly to bring this matter to our attention and to help with its resolution.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of St Albans.

Zimbabwe: Aid Distribution
The Lord Bishop of Rochesterasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are able to use non-governmental organisations in the delivery of aid to the needy in Zimbabwe.
The Lord President of the Council (Baroness Amos): My Lords, non-governmental organisations are a vital channel for the UK and all other major donors in the delivery of humanitarian aid in Zimbabwe. The Department for International Development's funding to NGOs is provided either directly or as part of our contribution to UN agencies in Zimbabwe, notably the World Food Programme. Such organisations have been extremely effective at reaching the most vulnerable communities and delivering aid without bowing to political pressure.
The Lord Bishop of Rochester: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her reply. Can she tell us the balance of international, British and Zimbabwean NGOs being funded? Will Zimbabwe's withdrawal from the Commonwealth affect that balance? Does she see any role for faith communities and their NGOs in delivering aid to the needy in Zimbabwe?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, the right reverend Prelate asked about the NGOs being funded. I can speak only about those that we fund. For example, we have funded CAFOD and Save the Children UK. I am aware that organisations such as the Zimbabwe Red Cross, HELP Germany and the Zimbabwe Women's Bureau also provide food for vulnerable schoolchildren and under-fives in some areas of Zimbabwe. John Snow International is also involved in work. There is a role for faith communities, and that will undoubtedly continue to be the case.
The position relating to the provision of humanitarian aid remains the same, despite Zimbabwe's withdrawal from the Commonwealth. What will cease is Zimbabwe's access to technical and other such co-operation from the Commonwealth.
Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, given the authorities' manipulation of aid distribution, has not the time come to go to the UN with a resolution asking for independent monitors? Despite the continual resistance of the noble
940
Baroness the Lord President of the Council, there is growing support for such a move among NGOs distributing aid.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, the noble Lord will be aware that a memorandum of understanding was recently signed by the World Food Programme and the Government of Zimbabwe. It was hard fought over, precisely because of the dispute about attempts by the Government of Zimbabwe to politicise food aid. As I have said before, I cannot answer for the food that is distributed through the Grain Marketing Board, which is managed by the Government of Zimbabwe. Last Friday, we had a meeting with 12 NGOs operating in Zimbabwe. There were no complaints about politicisation, although they all said that the operating environment could be difficult.
The noble Lord asked about independent monitors. He will know that we have given additional money to the World Food Programme for its monitoring programme. We ourselves have local monitors, watching what is done with our money.
Lord St John of Bletso: My Lords, we acknowledge the important role that NGOs can play and have played in the distribution of food aid to the needy in Zimbabwe, but is it not the case that, all too often, food cannot reach the needy because of ZANU-PF roadblocks? In that regard, is it not the case that the call of the needy in Zimbabwe will be truly met only when President Robert Mugabe hands over executive power to a government of national unity? What are Her Majesty's Government doing to ensure that the commitments and promises given earlier this year by President Thabo Mbeki to our Prime Minister, as well as to President Bush, that there would be a resolution of the crisis in Zimbabwe by mid-2004 are met?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, the noble Lord asked about how food aid reached the needy. What has happened this year in particular is that, increasingly, we have had to target food aid at areas that are usually food-secure, such as Manicaland and the Mashonaland provinces, not just Matabeleland, because they have some of the highest rates of malnutrition, due mainly to the impact of HIV/AIDS.
With regard to the dialogue that is being overseen, if you like, by the Government of South Africa, my understanding is that they continue to push for talks behind the scenes. I have not seen any date for the resolution of those talks. We all know how difficult such situations can be.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, has the Minister seen the report that was issued at the end of last week by 10 South African Church leaders on interference with the distribution of aid, including interference with World Food Programme aid? Has she also seen the report by C-Safe, a consortium of three large international donors, that it is conducting a reverification programme to ensure that aid reaches the most needy?

941
Does not the Minister think that it is difficult for NGOs and for organisations such as the World Food Programme to complain, given that they must all register under a scheme promulgated by the ZANU-PF regime in July 2003? If such bodies make too much noise, their registration can be withdrawn.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I have not read the report, but I saw the first page when it was shown to me by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. I am aware that in the report there are allegations about the World Food Programme distribution. However, I am not aware whether they are old or new allegations. In this House, we have discussed the fact that when the World Food Programme has become aware of any issues with respect to diversion, it has dealt with them promptly and immediately. I shall repeat what I have said in this House in the past: if any noble Lords have any information, we will investigate it.

English Grammar and Punctuation
2.43 p.m.
Lord Faulkner of Worcesterasked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps they are taking to improve the usage of English grammar and punctuation.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education and Skills (Baroness Ashton of Upholland): My Lords, the development of language is key to children's learning. The study of grammar and punctuation feature in the national curriculum from the foundation stage onwards. We have invested considerable resources in the National Primary Strategy and the Key Stage 3 Strategy in order to raise standards in schools and to improve teaching and learning in English.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that positive Answer. Her belief in the correct use of English language and punctuation is clearly shared by a large number of people. Lynn Truss's excellent little book, Eats, Shoots and Leaves, is top of the best seller lists this Christmas with a print run that has been extended from 15,000 to 400,000 copies. The title is a joke about pandas, which I do not have time to explain.
Does the Minister not agree that regrettably few people know how to use commas, apostrophes and figures of speech properly and that the Government and Parliament should set an example? For example, there is a notice not far from your Lordships' Chamber which gives "Fridays" a possessive apostrophe. Will she also impress on her colleagues how important it is that the comma is used correctly so that the sentence "A woman, without her man, is nothing" is corrected to "A woman: without her, man is nothing"?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, in anticipation of my noble friend's Question, I obtained Lynn Truss's book and read it over the weekend. I recommend it to any noble Lord who is interested in pursuing grammar. Perhaps I shall receive a free copy now! Of course, the panda went into a bar and "eats, shoots and leaves". As noble Lords will know, it depends on where the comma is placed; indeed, as it does in the phrase about women and their requirement for men, which is in the same vein.
My noble friend raised a serious point. It is important that we ensure that children and adults—we have a huge basic literacy problem in this country— learn to speak, to read and to use English correctly. It is very important that people can converse and write in the tongue of this country, but it is also a useful tool in terms of learning other languages.
Lord Quirk: My Lords, as a grammarian by trade, I obviously declare an interest since anything that sells my books must be good. But would the Minister not agree that classroom emphasis ought principally to be on addressing the poverty of children's vocabulary; on helping them to enjoy and use the unparalleled riches of our lexicon; and on savouring the nuance of the mot juste, as we say in English?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, the mot juste is a very important phase. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Quirk. I do not think that these ideas are in contradiction. We know that children who do not have access to a good, high quality teaching of vocabulary, and who do not have parental input that gives them the quality of vocabulary, tend to become poor readers and can end up in a downward spiral that leads to severe problems in the future. I could not agree more. It is part of the work being carried out in the Sure Start programme; that is, working with parents to help them to become the best educators that they can be for their young children.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, can the noble Baroness tell the House what proportion of marks are awarded for GCSE English and History, respectively, for grammar, punctuation and spelling?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, it will come as no surprise to the noble Baroness that off the top of my head I cannot give that information. I shall write to her and put a copy in the Library.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, given that most of us learnt our English grammar from Latin or from foreign languages, is the Minister not concerned at the demise of foreign languages teaching in secondary schools, particularly at key stage 4?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I rejoice in the fact that under the National Language Strategy— which I am pleased that I had a hand in—we are introducing languages more fully into the primary stage of children's learning. I have said often in your Lordships' House that it is wrong to rely on recalcitrant

943
14 to 16 year-olds as being the deliverers of our foreign language strategy. It is important that children, young people and adults have real opportunities to speak languages; that is, to converse, to enjoy the culture and to use languages for the betterment of their employment possibilities.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that many foreigners speak and use better English than we do in Britain?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I sense an Eliza Doolittle moment arising. There is, no doubt that there are examples where people have very good spoken and written English. It is true for people who are educated here; it is true for people who are educated abroad. Our ambition should be that everyone should have the highest possible quality of written and spoken English.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, does the Minister agree that inverted commas can sometimes be misleading? For example, last week, I had a letter addressed to me with my name in inverted commas. But not only that, the second line, "House of Lords", was also in inverted commas.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, indeed, one could be misled by such inverted commas.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House whether poor English is corrected in all subjects taught in schools or only in English lessons and English homework?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, the noble Lord has raised an interesting point. One aspect revealed by the National Literacy Strategy is that teachers have noticed how the use of English has improved dramatically across different subjects. It has long been my view, and I think the noble Lord will agree, that English should not be taught or corrected purely in English lessons, but that children's use of language is appropriate or corrected appropriately in all lessons.
Lord Harrison: My Lords, would my noble friend be more up-front about the use of the Queen's English in the Queen's Speech?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I make no comment whatsoever.
Lord McNally: My Lords, what will be the impact on grammar, punctuation and spelling of the generation that sends more text messages than uses speech?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, when I note the speed with which text messages are sent to me by my children, I think that they will develop incredible thumb dexterity. It is important to recognise
944
that children are perfectly capable of developing skills in more than one language. Clearly, text messaging is going to become another language.
Lord Monson: My Lords, first, does the noble Baroness agree that it would be a good idea for Government Ministers to set an example by always using correct grammar and punctuation, which has not invariably been the case? Secondly, is she aware that when the Post Office in the Palace of Westminster forwards correspondence to noble Lords during the Recess, it does so using large, floppy, printed envelopes that are not only difficult to open, but which feature a glaring grammatical error?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, fortunately I am not responsible for the envelopes used in your Lordships' House, but I am sure that the noble Lord's comment will be picked up. People will scour those envelopes to see what is the grammatical error.
I agree that we are all beholden to ensure that our English is grammatically correct. I hesitate to say that mine always is, but I do strive.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, is the Minister convinced that enough is being done about this problem within our teacher training courses? If teachers themselves cannot use proper grammar and punctuation, they have no hope of imparting them to their pupils.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, it is an important aspect both within teacher training courses and as a part of continuing professional development. The latest Ofsted report highlighted the fact that more needs to be done in some areas with our schools and teachers. We shall continue with that work.

BBC Charter Review
2.52 p.m.
Lord McNallyasked Her Majesty's Government:
How they intend to encourage the widest participation by the public in their consultation exercise relating to the review of the BBC charter.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Lord Mclntosh of Haringey): My Lords, my right honourable friend Tessa Jowell launched the first phase of charter review on 11th December with the publication of the public consultation document, The Review of the BBC's Charter—that is, BBC apostrophe "s". This is supported by a leaflet that will be widely distributed, along with a comprehensive programme of survey research, public meetings and a dedicated website. Charter review will 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.
Lord McNally: My Lords, did the Minister catch the late-night Sky News programme the other evening, during which a journalist from a well known media group and a Sky journalist discussed the weaknesses and shortcomings of the BBC stewardship without ever acknowledging that both of their employers have massive vested interests in a weakened and emasculated BBC? Will he guarantee that Ministers will give full support to the BBC being free to defend its record and to promote the high standards of public service broadcasting for which it is the iron pole?
Lord Mclntosh of Haringey: My Lords, no, I did not hear that late-night programme, but I can certainly confirm that the BBC will be free to express its views and to defend its record as a part of the consultation process. Indeed, Gavyn Davies immediately welcomed the review document and the process upon which we are engaging.
Lord Sheldon: My Lords, I also welcome the review document, but is my noble friend aware that there are those who are disappointed that greater acknowledgement has not been made of the valued public sector broadcasting role of the BBC? A single assumed weakness of the BBC prompts bigger headlines than serious distortions and untruths coming from the commercial media. Does my noble friend agree that the BBC is one of our great achievements and that we need not only to defend it, but to assert its achievements, which have helped to set standards for both the television and radio industries throughout the country?
Lord Mclntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I certainly agree that, in terms of media coverage, errors made by the BBC are given greater prominence than its virtues. To that extent, I agree with my noble friend. However, I have to say that the short consultation document, of which 600,000 have been printed so far, and in which I had some editorial say, started by asking, "What qualities do you most value in the BBC" followed by a question mark and no alternative. As a survey researcher, I had to say—although I cannot remember the exact words—"Is there anything you have to criticise about the quality of BBC programmes?". It is important that the consultation exercise should cover both aspects.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, as a supporter of the BBC, can we be absolutely sure that it will take notice of the consultation procedure and what it brings forward? Further, can we be sure that, among the things that need to be considered, will be the recruitment base, which seems to be very narrow? A second matter is how intolerant and arrogant interviewers often treat visitors to their programmes. They seem to be more concerned with protecting themselves and their own viewpoint rather than the view of the person being interviewed.
Lord Mclntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the last point is a matter for the governors of the BBC, although of course the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, is
946
welcome to express his opinion in his response to the consultation. I hear what he says about the BBC's recruitment policies. Indeed, when he took office some four years ago, Greg Dyke described the BBC as "hideously white". I do not know whether that is what the noble Lord meant, but steps have been taken to ensure that recruitment by the BBC is more representative of the range of ethnic composition and gender of the people of this country.
Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, does the Minister agree that it is welcome that the BBC now recruits beyond advertising in the Guardian? It has now decided to advertise in other newspapers, which is a step forward. Further, is not one of the great problems with the whole of this process the reality that there is a multiplicity of views on what public service broadcasting really means?
Lord Mclntosh of Haringey: My Lords, yes, and that is one of the issues which I hope the review process will cover. People do mean different things by "public service broadcasting" and we are not attempting, within the review process, to thrust a particular view down the throats of the public; rather, we seek to listen to what people say.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote: My Lords, I am sure the Minister is well aware that more and more broadcast material, including a great deal from the BBC, is now available on the Internet where no regulator has jurisdiction to secure the maintenance of standards of any kind. Will the Government consult the public—I hope that they will do so—on the need for Ofcom to be given some responsibility for material of this kind broadcast on the Internet, if only to draw up a code of practice?
Lord Mclntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I believe that we are straying beyond the subject matter of the Question. The ability of Ofcom to police the Internet is an issue that was debated at great length during our consideration of the Communications Bill. The general view taken both in this House and elsewhere is that policing the Internet is extraordinarily difficult to do.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, the Minister said that 600,000 copies of the brochure had been printed. While one is encouraged by that figure, by a rough-and-ready reckoning, there are probably close to 20 million households in the United Kingdom. Given that the BBC broadcasts to all of them, why should not some form of brochure be put through every letter-box?
Lord Mclntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, will recognise that the figure of 600,000 copies was a print order; it was not a limit to the number available. However, although we have considered the point, we have not taken the view that

947
we should put a copy of the leaflet through every letter-box. There is a limit to the number of things which people will accept and respond to through their letter-boxes.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, is it right that broadcasters should be paid huge sums of money for not moonlighting?
Lord Mclntosh of Haringey: My Lords, if I knew what the noble Lord, Lord Howell, was talking about I would refer the matter to the governors of the E!BC because it is not a government responsibility.
Lord Chan: My Lords, the BBC is to be congratulated on employing people from different backgrounds. Will the Minister ensure that ethnic minorities will be consulted in this exercise?
Lord Mclntosh of Haringey: Yes, my Lords, that is our responsibility. Recruitment to the BBC is, of course, a matter for the governors, but we shall make sure that the consultation documents and opportunities to respond go to all ethnic groups in this country.

Afghanistan: Opium Poppy Production
3 p.m.
Lord Astor of Heverasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are concerned about the increased growing of heroin poppies in Afghanistan and what steps they are taking to prevent the import of heroin from Afghanistan to the United Kingdom
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, the report of the United Nations' 2003 Afghanistan opium survey shows an unwelcome but not unexpected increase of 8 per cent in opium poppy cultivation and 6 per cent in production. This mirrors the experience of counter-narcotics policies in other countries, such as Pakistan and Thailand. The United Kingdom has taken on lead nation status in supporting the implementation of the Afghanistan national drug control strategy, adopted in May 2003, and aims to eliminate poppy production within the next 10 years. We are committing £70 million over the next three years to fund a wide range of counter-narcotics activity.
Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. Afghanistan supplies 75 per cent of the world's heroin and 90 per cent of that comes to this country. Does the noble Baroness agree that the Government are failing in their pledge to cut heroin production as this year's harvest is the second highest ever recorded?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, this country has a huge stake in ensuring the success of the Afghanistan national drug control strategy. Ninety-five per cent of the heroin on our streets in the United Kingdom originates from Afghanistan—a horrifying figure. The noble Lord said that we are failing in our strategy. This strategy has been running for seven months only of a 10-year programme. Sadly, experience in other countries—particularly in Pakistan and Thailand—tells us that inevitably the figures will rise as interdiction goes into different areas and drug production moves to the margins, to areas where the police find it more difficult to get to the drug producers. That is what is happening in Afghanistan. We are in this for the long term and I ask the noble Lord not to be too pessimistic at this stage.
Baroness Northover: My Lords, is the Minister worried about a link between the expansion in poppy production and recent reports that Afghan warlords are paying huge sums of money to buy votes to the Loya Jirgah, the body which will determine Afghanistan's new constitution?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the activities of the warlords in different respects are very worrying and it is important to look at the ways in which interdiction works. The point I made to the noble Lord, Lord Astor of Hever, is also important in this respect. As drug production is chased out of the areas where we are firming up on security, so it moves into other areas. This makes it more difficult for us to police not only drug production but the activities of those who manipulate local communities. I know that the noble Baroness will join me in hoping that the Loya Jirgah is a great success—as I am sure do all noble Lords. It began yesterday and it has got off to a reasonably good start. We need to give it maximum backing but to be very aware of the kind of problems raised by the noble Baroness.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, are alternative crops proposed for those who are growing this drug? This has been done in South America where, for instance, flower production, together with no import duties on flowers grown in most South American countries, has been successful up to a point. Would this apply to Afghanistan?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the noble Baroness is right. This is not a question of stopping the poppy growing but of providing sustainable alternatives for the people on the ground. Over the next three years the Department for International Development will spend £170 million on exactly that kind of development project in Afghanistan. Of that amount, £20 million will be earmarked to provide a sustainable alternative livelihood. For example, such a project is being established in Badakhshan. We are funding it jointly with the United States of America and we are looking at a variety of different crops for farmers to grow as alternatives.
Baroness Sharpies: My Lords, can the Minister say through which countries the heroin passes before it reaches this country?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the routes are various. Most are overland. I hope the noble Baroness will excuse me but it would be unwise to go into great detail about what we know of drug routes because it could compromise our ability to police those routes properly and to use effective interdiction when we get the chance. A good deal of our intelligence effort at the moment is expended on looking at the ways in which drugs travel overland from Afghanistan and eventually reach this country.
Lord Desai: My Lords, would it not be a better policy to buy up all poppy production and destroy it at source, rather than to follow this futile policy of discouraging production when it is in everyone's self-interest to make money by growing poppies?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, although that sounds very attractive, for how many years would we be forced to buy up production? It might sound like an attractive alternative in the first year, but if it continued year after year we would find that more and more people would think that poppy production was a jolly good line to go in for if it was underwritten by that kind of buy-up. So, attractive as it may sound in the first instance, in the longer term we might live to regret it.

Business
Lord Grocott: My Lords, I wish to make a brief business statement. At a convenient time after 3.30 p.m.—after the three opening speeches—my noble friend the Leader of the House will repeat a Statement on the European Council meeting.
As regards the length of today's two debates, if contributions other than the opening and closing speeches and the normal exemptions were kept to around eight minutes, I calculate that we will finish by about 10.30 p.m. That is past the normal time but not disastrously so.

Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Bill [H.L.]
3.8 p.m.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Scotland of Asthal): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
The Bill represents the most radical overhaul of domestic violence legislation in 30 years. It reflects the fact that domestic violence is unacceptable, that victims must be protected and offenders punished. It enshrines in legislation for the first time the rights that all victims have to support, advice and information. It includes two new measures to close loopholes where offenders are currently escaping justice.
950
The Bill is a tribute to those who have fought long and hard for change. This includes voluntary sector organisations such as the NSPCC, Women's Aid, Refuge and Victim Support. It also includes Members of this House. The measures in the Bill are the result of consultation, engagement and policy development with a range of stakeholders, including many victims personally, and the work of bodies such as the Law Commission.
The issues that the Bill seeks to address are of grave importance. Domestic violence constitutes one-quarter of violent crime; it claims the lives of two women a week. It will affect one in four women and one in six men at some point in their lives. It has a profound impact on the children involved. More than a third of children living in a violent home are aware of what is happening, and more than half are when the violence is repeated. It also has a profound impact on society. Fifty per cent of women in contact with mental health services have had violent or abusive experiences. Domestic violence is a major cause of homelessness; it accounts for 16 per cent of homelessness acceptances every year.
The measures in the Bill are central to the Government's overall strategy to tackle violent crime, to put victims and witnesses at the heart of the criminal justice system and to fulfil the manifesto commitment to legislate for a "victims' Bill of rights". They also support broader government aims and objectives, such as ensuring that every child has the chance to fulfil their potential. Children who witness domestic violence are more likely to suffer educational failure, ill health, substance misuse, abuse and neglect.
Domestic violence cannot be tackled by legislation alone. A change in attitude and culture is necessary. Although there can surely be few who still believe it is a man's right to beat his wife, one in five young men and one in 10 young women think that violence towards a partner is acceptable in some situations. We must work to prevent domestic violence happening and work with victims and offenders to stop it recurring. We must provide increased legal protection for victims and bring offenders to justice.
Finally, we must provide support to help victims rebuild their lives. To this end, the Government are investing £84 million in their three-stage strategy to tackle domestic violence, of which this Bill is a part. I am delighted to be able to say that today marks the launch of the new national freephone 24-hour helpline. This has been set up with £1 million funding from the Government and £1 million funding from Comic Relief. The helpline is being supported by an online database of all refuge accommodation and services available in the United Kingdom.
The Criminal Justice Act 2003 represented a major step in the radical overhaul of the criminal justice system, with its overall aim of bringing more offenders to justice and restoring victims, witnesses and communities to their proper place at the core of the system, thereby balancing the competing claims for justice. The Bill builds on those changes; it also complements the huge amount of activity being undertaken by criminal justice agencies, other services and voluntary organisations.

951
Victims want to see the perpetrator brought to justice. Unfortunately, there is a wide gap between the number of offences reported and the number of offences in respect of which someone can be brought to justice. Our focused action to narrow the justice gap includes: targeting persistent offenders who commit half of all crime; enforcing warrants for failure to attend court; improving the quality of evidence submitted to the Crown Prosecution Service by the police; and tackling offending on bail.
We have seen the numbers of offenders brought to justice increase by 4.3 per cent between March 2002 and March 2003. In the new year, we will publish a consultation on proposals to improve the efficiency and focus of the criminal injuries compensation scheme and proposals to resource and provide a wider range of services to victims. Subject to the consultation, we intend to legislate.
I have set out the context in which the measures in the Bill were developed. I now turn to the proposals in the Bill itself.
On average, one incident of domestic violence is reported to the police every minute. It is critical, therefore, that they have powers to deal with domestic violence offenders and protect the victim. Clause 1 makes breach of a non-molestation order under the Family Law Act 1996 a criminal offence. This means that such a breach can now be punishable in the criminal courts with a maximum sentence of five years.
It also means that the police can always arrest for a breach. At present, they can arrest without a warrant only if this is specified in the order. Courts will now have to consider whether to make a non-molestation order when they make an occupation order.
Clause 7 makes common assault an arrestable offence. Common assault covers a wide range of violence or threatened violence—for example, striking, or attempting to strike, a person with a fist, stick or bottle, or drawing a knife on someone. Together, Clauses 1 and 7 will clarify and extend the current police powers and ensure that officers attending a domestic violence incident can be more confident in putting "positive policing" policies into action.
We recognise that this is not just about a change in the law but, as I said earlier, about a change in culture and how the police approach domestic violence incidents. I pay tribute to the work ACPO has done in this field, led so ably by Jim Gamble.
It is vital that the law protects all victims of domestic violence, and recognises the relationships that exist in society today. Clauses 2 and 3 extend the protection currently afforded by the Family Law Act. This would mean that same-sex cohabiting couples could apply for occupation orders by virtue of being recognised cohabitants. An occupation order gives the court the power to regulate the occupation of the home for a temporary period of time. For example, the court may use this type of order to exclude the perpetrator of violence from the home and allow the victim to remain in it. Those in intimate personal relationships of a
952
significant duration who have never cohabited or married will also be able to apply for non-molestation and occupation orders.
We recognise that defining relationships is a complex and sensitive area. I expect that your Lordships will want to probe this issue in Committee. I am very keen that we work together to ensure that the law is sensible, coherent and applicable to modern society.
The Bill would make restraining orders under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 available to the criminal courts on conviction for any offence, but also, crucially, in cases where there has been an acquittal. This gives the magistrates or Crown Courts the ability to make an order, currently available only in the civil courts, if it is felt the victim is in need of protection. It does not undermine the presumption of innocence, since in deciding whether to make an order, the court will consider the same question as would a civil court—is an order necessary to protect from harassment? It avoids the situation in which, following an acquittal, the victim has to have a police escort from the Crown Court to the civil court to obtain adequate protection.
Clause 6 provides for the establishment and conduct of domestic homicide reviews. We believe these are necessary, as a domestic attack which results in the death of the victim—and, sometimes, the children—is very rarely the first attack. The victim and their children may have already been in contact with a range of statutory agencies including the police, schools, social services and healthcare services. These reviews will not be an exercise in apportioning blame, or "naming and shaming"; rather, they will be an opportunity to learn lessons, to better identify risk and to prevent future deaths.
Your Lordships are aware that the Government have asked the Law Commission to consider the law on the partial defences to murder, in particular the partial defence of provocation. The Law Commission is currently consulting on this area and will report to the Government. We await their recommendations before taking any decision on changing the law.
Clauses 4 and 5 create a new offence of causing or allowing the death of a child or vulnerable adult, and have some linked procedural measures to enable an increased number of murder or manslaughter charges to be safely left to the jury in these circumstances. This is to end the unacceptable situation in which those jointly accused of murder evade justice by remaining silent or blaming each other.
I expect your Lordships to scrutinise these clauses closely in Committee. It is a difficult area of law. The Law Commission made some detailed recommendations and, although we have not followed them completely, we believe that we have found a solution which will ensure that people will not escape justice, that all the evidence in these cases is made available to the court, but—and it is a very important "but"—that the proper safeguards are in place so that those who are entirely innocent are not blamed for the crimes of others.
Clauses 9 to 12 make provision for a two-stage trial procedure, following a Law Commission recommendation, whereby part of a trial on indictment

953
in the Crown Court could be heard by a judge sitting without a jury. This is directed at certain cases where the offending conduct of the defendant is repeated so many times that the number of offences is too great to be accommodated in a single jury trial. Such offending used to be dealt with by preferring an indictment charging offences that were regarded as specimens of a wider range of offending. If there was a conviction on the specimen counts, the court would then sentence the offender for the whole. However, a Court of Appeal decision in 1998—Kidd and Others—disapproved that practice on the grounds that it involved sentencing an offender for offences in respect of which he had not pleaded or been found guilty, nor had agreed to have taken into consideration.
Therefore, when it is not practicable for the courts to try an indictment containing hundreds of separate counts, it is no longer possible to sentence the defendant for the totality of his offending. That is a particular problem in cases involving innumerable similar thefts or frauds committed against a long series of victims, in which the defendant can be tried only for a small number of offences in order to make the trial manageable for the jury.
Cases involving child Internet pornography are another, topical example. People charged with such offences may have downloaded thousands of sexually explicit images of children on to their computers, but at present they can be tried and sentenced on the basis of only a handful of those images. To deal with that, the Government have decided to act on recommendations from the Law Commission in their report, The Effective Prosecution of Multiple Offending.
The Bill contains provisions allowing for a two-stage trial procedure. When the court considers that some counts in the indictment can be regarded as samples of other counts, the former would be able to be tried with a jury, and if the defendant was convicted of those, he could then be tried for the remainder by the judge sitting without a jury. The measures will enable the court to try the defendant on counts which properly represent the totality of his offending, and, upon conviction, to sentence him on that basis. They will increase the confidence of victims and the public at large in the criminal justice system by ensuring that people who have committed multiple crimes will be punished appropriately.
Part 3 of the Bill sets out a range of new measures to give victims the rights to consistent and guaranteed levels of advice, support and information from the criminal justice agencies that they come into contact with, and to give them a powerful voice across government. The Bill would give the Secretary of State the powers to issue a code of practice as to what services should be provided by organisations in the criminal justice system and organisations that deal with victims of crime. A preliminary and illustrative draft of this code is in the House Library for scrutiny and comment. It lists some 70 services that victims are entitled to receive as their case progresses through the
954
system. There will, of course, be a formal consultation process before the code is finalised and laid before both Houses.
If a victim feels that the code has been breached, he or she can take their complaint to the Parliamentary Ombudsman, whose job it will be to enforce the code. The ombudsman will have full powers to investigate and report to Parliament on breaches of the code.
The code concentrates on a victim's interaction with the criminal justice system. However, as we pointed out in our national strategy for victims and witnesses published last July, their needs can often extend beyond the responsibilities of the criminal justice agencies. A new independent commissioner for victims and witnesses will be a powerful voice to champion the needs of victims and witnesses across government. He or she will have powers to look at and make recommendations about, for example, the health, housing or social security difficulties that often confront those who are victimised. Taken together with the code, it provides the first focused and holistic response to the all-round needs of victims.
I feel proud and privileged to bring the Bill to this House. It is a Bill of which we can all rightly feel proud. I know that your Lordships will want to scrutinise drafting and seek explanations from the Government as to why we have pursued certain courses of action. However, I hope that we are all agreed that what the Bill seeks to achieve—to tackle domestic violence, bring more offenders to justice, and provide better support for victims and witnesses—represents a truly shared agenda. It will be a privilege and pleasure to work with the whole House on this much needed Bill. I hope that together we will ensure that we have a law that is effective and workable and can genuinely address those issues and better protect the people of this country whom we seek to serve. I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.— (Baroness Scotland of Asthal.)
3.26 p.m.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, we broadly support the objectives of all the provisions in this Bill. I welcome the fact that the Minister made clear the importance of the House scrutinising properly the Government's measures in Committee. It is always right for us to ask the Government to justify the route that they have chosen to take, especially on occasions when they have diverted from the route adopted by the Law Commission. However, that does not mean that we shall thereby be adopting a hostile approach to the Government's proposals. We shall try to expose any unintended consequences and to make the legislation as robust as possible, so that it may not be challenged in future.
In some part, the Bill bears the hallmarks of a rushed job. No blame for that can be attached to those who drafted it, as they simply have to follow the directions of Ministers. However, there does seem to have been confusion between government departments about what should and should not be in the Bill. That

955
confusion reigned until the very day of the publication of the Bill. The Minister told us in a very helpful briefing meeting last week that there was no disagreement between Ministers about whether there should be provisions to remove the defence of provocation. Her assurance is enough for me; I am not worried whether there was a disagreement between two government Ministers—which did not involve the noble Baroness. What is clear is that, in the Home Office press release at 8.44 a.m. on Tuesday last week, the Government said that the Bill did include measures on the, "reform to defences to homicide—including provocation".
But, hey presto, three hours later, at 11.44 a.m. on the same day, the Home Office press release has suddenly expunged any reference to that measure.
Well, so be it. Whatever lies behind the change, I believe that it was the right thing to do. It is right to refer such an important and far-reaching matter to the Law Commission to enable it to give a considered view. I hope that it will not be asked to give a snap response, as was suggested in the press, but that it will be given a reasonable time to consider the matter. If the original proposals had been in the Bill, it would have been far more controversial than, I hope, it shall prove to be. It is unlikely that it would have proved suitable for Grand Committee. As it is, when the Minister moves her Motion at the end of the debate to send the Bill to Grand Committee, she will have my full support.
I shall comment briefly on some major issues, but leave any detailed comments for Grand Committee. We have always made it clear that we welcome new legislation on domestic violence, and the first part of the Bill covers that. It is an appalling crime that often remains hidden behind closed doors. My response to the issues raised during our deliberations on the Bill will be governed by three factors. First, tackling domestic violence is not only or even primarily an issue for legislation. I very much welcomed the Government's recognition of that in the Minister's opening remarks. She echoed the briefing that we received from Liberty, which states:
"One of the central problems in tackling domestic violence is that existing powers are under-utilised".
We must try to ensure that education proceeds to ensure that laws are properly used. I associate myself with the Minister's proper words in recognising the work done by ACPO on training in this sphere. More training will be needed as these new measures come into force. Training is required across other agencies as well, as was pointed out earlier today in the latest briefing to noble Lords by Women's Aid.
The second factor that will be always at the back of my mind is that family life—indeed, the very definition of "family"—has evolved over the past three decades since the last major consideration of law on domestic violence. We need to take account of that. Partnerships, both of same sex and different sex, need to be brought within any legislation that we consider on domestic violence. I am therefore pleased to see the provisions of Clauses 2 and 3 that appear to recognise
956
that fact, although I will of course need to look very carefully at the definition in Clause 3 to see whether there is sufficient clarity about the length and depth of the relationship that is brought within this provision. I think that, at the moment, there could be real problems with the definition of a relationship that is an,
"intimate personal relationship … of significant duration"
The third factor that I will need to keep in mind is that in our joint endeavour to address the difficulties of securing the conviction of those who are guilty of domestic violence and child death that may follow from that, we must ensure that the measures in the Bill are robust enough to stand up to legal challenge and particularly that they are compatible with the ECHR.
The Minister painted a very disturbing picture about domestic violence and she was right to do so. For some, becoming a victim of domestic violence, or indeed of any crime, may be a minor inconvenience, but for many—for most—it is a devastating experience, taking weeks, months, years, perhaps a lifetime, to begin to pick up the pieces. She is right that being a victim of crime is not an isolated event but an ongoing experience for a large proportion of victims. Surveys have shown that 4 per cent of victims suffer 41 per cent of the crimes. Experience shows that a person's ability to recover from an offence can be considerably improved when others recognise the significance of the event. Sadly, however, as we know, that is not the experience of most victims. We therefore welcome the Government's commitment to raise the standards of service that victims of crime should receive from all criminal justice agencies.
Later today, my noble friend Lord Bridgeman will far more closely address the issues in Part 3 of the Bill. I shall leave that part to him. I shall concentrate on just some of the issues in Parts 1 and 2.
The Minister has outlined what could be some of the most difficult parts of the Bill; that is, the issue of the death of a child in family circumstances—the familial homicide, as it is called in shorthand, and which is covered predominantly in Clauses 4 and 5. Those clauses seek to resolve the impasse that occurs when a child is killed, more than one person is present at the death, but it is impossible to prove which is the guilty party. The Law Commission consultative report made it clear that there is nearly universal recognition among members of the judiciary, practitioners and academics that this is a problem that needs to be resolved, although, as ever, there are variations in the way that they would go about resolving it.
Research undertaken on this matter by the NSPCC makes deeply disturbing reading. During the three-year period covered by the survey,
"no less than three children under 10 years old a week were killed or suffered serious injury".
Of those children, just over half were under six months old, and 83 per cent were under two years old. Some 61 per cent of investigations that reached a conclusion resulted in no prosecutions, due either to a police or Crown Prosecution Service decision. Of the 27 percent of cases that resulted in conviction for a criminal offence, only a small proportion led to conviction for

957
either homicide or wounding/causing grievous bodily harm. In addition, as we know, the statistics on the reporting of injury to children show that there is significant under-reporting in this sphere. We know that the scale of the problem is devastating.
We agree with the Government that it is unacceptable that a child's killer should go unpunished. However, we will need to probe very carefully whether the Government's route is necessarily the best way. Nevertheless, I make it clear that I am setting out on this journey today with the hope that they have found the best route.
There are areas of particular concern that we shall need to examine. The first is whether the drafting of Clause 4(4) is satisfactory. Does it make it clear enough that the Government are imposing a duty of care upon those categories of people, with all the dire consequences that could fall upon them if a child does die? Is the definition of those who should be under a duty of care appropriate, taking special note of how and why the Government have diverged from the Law Commission approach? In casting their net to catch the guilty, have the Government made the net size too small?
As the Minister has already recognised today, we will need to pay very careful attention to the drafting of the Government's provisions in Clause 5 regarding the inferences to be drawn from the defendant's failure to give evidence or refusal to answer a question. I note that the Law Commission's consultative report, number 279, reported that the Criminal Bar Association had reviewed the authorities and submitted that a conviction which was "decisively influenced" by the defendant's silence would be bound to be a violation of Article 6. Therefore, in Committee, we will need to ask the Government to justify their assertion that the Bill is compatible with the ECHR. I constructively look forward to that; I hope that they will be able to justify that.
The first two clauses of Part 2, on criminal procedure, may well prove to be controversial in both Houses, but I support the Government's objectives. There has been much press coverage of the Government's plans to empower a court to issue a restraining order against a person who has been acquitted. The Government have said that orders may be made against either party and that the test is on a balance of probabilities. In looking at the Bill, I do not think that either of those matters is currently made clear in the drafting. I think that we will need to remedy that.
I turn to the matter of multiple offending, dealt with in Clauses 9 to 12. Some press reports have claimed that this part of the Bill is an assault on jury trial. Our objective is that they should certainly not be an assault on jury trial but that they should provide a sensible way forward in retaining jury trial in cases where there is such a large number of counts that there are too many to be accommodated in a single trial.
We agree with the Government that we need to find a way of overcoming the problem caused by the decision in the case of Kidd that precluded the practice
958
of sentencing on the basis of specimen counts, where those counts are the only ones proved and/or admitted by a defendant. I and my honourable friends in another place have already made it clear during our debates on the Criminal Justice Act that we would look with favour on any sensible resolution of the Kidd problem. It remains to be seen whether the solution in the Bill is the right one; it may well be. However, I look forward to debating in Grand Committee the Government's approach and others which I believe that one or two of my noble friends may very constructively bring forward.
This Bill—unlike so many of the Bills emanating from the Home Office—may be short in number of clauses, but I join the Minister in recognising that it is long in the importance of its potential good effect on society and the criminal justice system. I look forward to a lively and constructive debate in Grand Committee.
3.39 p.m.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, like many others, I very much welcome the Government's initiative to improve the legislative framework for dealing with domestic violence. Violence inflicted within the home by adults upon each other, and largely by men upon women, has been in some ways a hidden crime. Indeed, the government consultation paper on the subject clearly illustrates the inadequacy of the statistics as a measure of the incidence of domestic violence. The police have been reluctant to intervene between couples and family members. Nor has intervention always been welcomed, even by the victims. So it sometimes seems as though violence within the home is regarded by society as different in kind from violence in the street, at the football ground or in the pub. We reject that approach and welcome the Bill. Violence and harassment within the home are an assault against the safety and human rights of the victim and the state has a role in dealing with violence against its citizens wherever it takes place.
But while we are generally supportive of the Bill and believe that it will generally find favour in your Lordships' House, as the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, said, it may be necessary—I am sure that it will be necessary—to test the intentions of the Government or to improve the Bill through the processes available to us.
I shall deal only with the early part of the Bill, but before I do so it is worth noting that the Bill does not contain any definition of domestic violence. Several respondents have pointed out that different parts of central government use different definitions which could lead to difficulties when they are asked to collaborate in dealing with the problem. For example, what about the protection of older people? What about the protection of women from minority communities faced with forced marriages or genital mutilation? What is the existing law on those matters? Can the Minister reassure us that fears that this absence of a definition will cause problems are unfounded? As the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, just said, there is no mention of including a partial defence of provocation, which caused a feeding frenzy among

959
the press—I must say I thought that was slightly unjustified—from which the Government have been released by the more serious news of the past couple of days. None the less, it is important to know when the Law Commission, which the Government have tasked with advising them on this important topic, will complete its work.
Some people have serious concerns that the Bill does not contain any provision about contact arrangements, bail conditions or the powers of the courts in matters concerning the welfare of children. Of course, I know that there is a whole body of other law on that matter, but given the close proximity of children to domestic violence in their own homes and the damage it can do to them, even where they themselves are not physically harmed—the Minister referred to that—the lack of a provision about contact arrangements and so on could be an important omission unless there is already sufficient provision in existing law to protect children.
I turn to some of the clauses. There are clearly different views among lobbyists about Clause 1 and the establishment of breach of a non-molestation order as a criminal offence. Women's Aid Federation of England and the main children's charities are very supportive. The NSPCC in particular welcomed the introduction of a criminal offence for breach of non-molestation orders. However, in the context of the police being involved more closely in domestic violence or marital dispute situations, those organisations say that it is important that the police should themselves adopt new protocols. Perhaps specific training is needed to enable the police to specialise in domestic violence so that they can respond sensitively when called in to deal with such cases and gain awareness of the need to monitor the safety of victims and that of any children. I am sure that the wide range of initiatives in the original consultation paper will cover those points but I hope that the noble Baroness will reassure us on that matter.
Interestingly enough, the Women's Aid Federation reports a complainant's comment that without proper enforcement an injunction is no more use than waving a till receipt from Asda. That is an amusing comment but it shows that not all women are reluctant to become involved in the legal system and that some of them at least recognise the advantages that it can bring them.
Speaking personally, it seems to me that Clause 1 follows from the developing definition of the state's duty in relation to safeguarding people from violence wherever it occurs, which is the main thrust of the Bill. The new offence in Clauses 4 and 5 of causing or allowing the death of a child is controversial. The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, went into that in some detail. In view of the fact that we are extremely restricted by time, I shall try not to say very much about that, except that it seems that the research which the NSPCC carried out indicates that whereas there is a high rate of conviction where deaths are caused by strangers, there is a very low rate of conviction where they are caused by family members. That is clearly a matter that the Bill must address. I am sure that we shall discuss the matter but we have to be willing to
960
take account of the Government's view if they can defend it in every detail, which, knowing the Minister, I am certain that she is always prepared to do.
Clause 17 on the Commissioner for Victims and Witnesses is extremely welcome but I am quite surprised that not everyone feels the same way about it. Concerns have been expressed by what one might call the "children's lobby" that the interrelationship between the Commissioner for Victims and Witnesses and the Children's Commissioner may not be very smooth. I hope that the noble Baroness will assure us that those two people will work together because, if that is not the case, much of the work in terms of collaborative action by local government, central government and various agencies such as the health service, which the Government hope will occur, will be made even more difficult than such collaborative actions already are.
Noble Lords on these Benches welcome the Bill. As the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, said, we look forward to interesting discussions, if I may put it like that, and serious discussions. I am certain that they will be carried out in a spirit of collaboration and co-operation. I very much look forward to the process.

European Council, Brussels
3.47 p.m.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, Mr Speaker, before I make a Statement on the details of the IGC, I should say that the European Council also discussed Iraq. The presidency conclusions reaffirm the importance of the reconstruction of Iraq and condemn the recent terrorist attacks. These conclusions have been placed in the Library of the House.
"This gives me the opportunity to update the House briefly on the events of the past 24 hours. The celebrations on the streets of Baghdad, Basra and all over Iraq show once and for all how delighted the Iraqi people are that Saddam's rule is now history. The Iraqi people want their freedom and support the principles of justice, democracy and the rule of law, just as people do everywhere given half the chance.
"I should like to pay tribute to the American coalition forces and the intelligence services who brought about Saddam's capture. They have proved their professionalism, bravery and commitment. But let us also pay tribute to the Iraqi people who also helped capture Saddam. Thousands of Iraqis are now working in the new Iraq police and defence forces, and they are working to build a new Iraq, and we shall work with them to do so. There is still a massive amount to do, but we have achieved a lot in a short time: a political timetable taking us through to a democratic, elected government; and an Iraq where the public enjoy freedom of speech and religion, for the first time in decades.

961
"More than 17,000 reconstruction projects have been launched. Oil production has risen by 320,000 barrels per day, with the proceeds used for the benefit of the Iraqi people rather than stolen or squandered as they were under Saddam's rule. Iraqis now have a new currency to spend in the increasingly well stocked markets. Electricity has surpassed pre-conflict levels and clean water supplies are improving daily.
"But, as we have seen yet again today, the terrorists and Saddam's sympathisers will continue and, though small in number and in support, their terrorist tactics will still require vigilance, dedication and determination. But the hope of a new Iraq is now clear and evident to all. The final victory will be theirs—the Iraqi people's.
"I now turn to the details of the European Council and intergovernmental conference which took place in Brussels on 12th and 13th December. The negotiations which have been going on over the last 22 months have been about the effective management of the European Union after its enlargement to 25 countries next year. That enlargement is a hugely important event, not just for the countries concerned, but for the whole of Europe. The stability and prosperity of our continent stand to gain enormously from enlargement. That is why we negotiated the Nice Treaty three years ago to make enlargement possible. It is why we have been negotiating in the convention, and now the intergovernmental conference, on a draft constitutional treaty.
"A negotiation among 25 sovereign countries was bound to be complicated, particularly on the issue on which the Nice negotiation almost foundered; namely, the relative weight in voting terms which each country will have after enlargement. In the end it was on that issue that agreement proved impossible.
"But a great deal of progress has been made, and I pay an unqualified tribute to the Italian presidency, whose skill and tenacity made that progress possible. Prime Minister Berlusconi was able to sum up at the end of the meeting that, while of course, in formal terms, nothing is agreed until everything is agreed, there were some 82 points where consensus was close. Those included key changes on very important issues for the United Kingdom. If that proceeds on the basis outlined by Prime Minister Berlusconi, tax, EU finance, social security and criminal law will all remain the province of the nation state—subject to decision-making by unanimity, with any further treaty change subject to approval of national parliaments.
"I should also highlight the fact that the European Council welcomed the proposals put forward by France and Germany and the United Kingdom on the future of European defence, which is limited of course to peacekeeping and humanitarian issues. Those will strengthen the European Union's collective planning capacity
962
while in no way duplicating or conflicting with NATO, which remains the basis of Europe's territorial defence.
"The draft constitutional treaty is also close to an agreement in other ways which are important for this country. It contains a clear statement that the Union has only the powers which the nations give it. The Union acts only when objectives cannot be achieved by individual countries acting alone. There will be new powers for national parliaments to be involved in EU legislation. It will be for the Union's national leaders, in the European Council, to set the strategy of the European Union, and there will be a full-time chair of the European Council to drive forward that work. The European Commission will have all its necessary independent authority within that system.
"As I said earlier, the outstanding point of difference was over the relative weight of the votes that member states have within the EU. The Government made it clear in our White Paper, published in September, that we were content with the Nice system but were equally prepared to move to a new one, if there were a consensus for that. But this has been a particularly difficult question for Spain and Poland, and I believe it was right to take time to find a workable solution rather than to plough on in the hope of an unsatisfactory compromise. That is particularly so since the voting provisions of the Nice Treaty only take effect in a year's time and—something often not fully understood—under the convention proposal those Nice voting arrangements would anyway last until 2009. So we have time to resolve the issue.
"Above all, the negotiation was living proof that the European Union is and will remain an organisation of sovereign member states. We could not agree because agreement required unanimity. In time, an agreement will be necessary to allow enlargement to work effectively. But we now have a chance to reflect and consider before proceeding.
"In the mean time, the business of the European Union will continue under the existing treaty framework. We are in contact with the incoming Irish presidency to take forward the Lisbon economic reform agenda at the spring summit next March. Eight central European countries, and Malta and Cyprus, will accede to the European Union on 1st May.
"We shall turn our minds to the next financing framework for the European Union, to cover the period from 2007. I have today, with the President of France, the Chancellors of Germany and Austria, and the Prime Ministers of the Netherlands and Sweden, written to the President of the Commission to emphasise the need for budgetary discipline over the coming financing period.
"Ultimately, the negotiations are about the stability, security and prosperity of a Europe of nearly 500 million people, countries that are our principal allies and our major trading partners. It would be a serious mistake for any British

963
government to absent themselves from those negotiations and to allow decisions vital to our security and prosperity to be made by others. We must continue to shape the future of Europe in ways that reflect our national interest. We can be either on the touchline shouting our criticism, or on the field as an active and successful player. I believe passionately that we must remain fully engaged. We will continue to work for the successful outcome of the negotiations".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
3.56 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness the Leader of the House for repeating that Statement. I also express some regret and surprise that there were not separate Statements on Europe and, of course, the very important developments in Iraq over the past 24 hours. The Prime Minister boasted of that yesterday, and it was good news for the people of the entire world. I hope that it is not the view of No. 10 that a televised address precludes a full Statement to this House.
Perhaps the noble Baroness might consider writing to the ambassador of the United States, to congratulate President Bush on the resolute leadership that led to that success and to salute that country's military and intelligence services on their achievement. How soon does she hope that Mr Hussein's capture and co-operative stance will lead to the unmasking of weapons of mass destruction?
I shall turn to the EU conference. Does the noble Baroness share my relief that the prospect of a damaging new EU constitution has receded? Indeed, will she confirm to the House the reported sense of relief inside the Government at the result? Is it not the case that a new constitution was never really necessary for enlargement of the Union, and that its heavy and elitist emphasis on more centralisation of powers and more integration was set to take Europe in entirely the wrong direction? Does she agree with her honourable friend Gisela Stuart that it was all based on a model that was already 50 years out of date?
In the light of last week's events, is it the view of the UK Government that a new EU constitution is required—yes or no? Will we be pressing for a renewed round of negotiations? If not, why were we so keen to have the constitution in the first place?
There has been criticism of Mr Berlusconi's chairing of the summit, yet the Prime Minister described it as "heroic". Do the Government therefore reject the criticisms of Mr Berlusconi? Has the noble Baroness seen the comment by Mr Bertie Ahern that:
"This is a huge project, a fundamental change for the whole of Europe"?
Has she also seen the statement by the President of the Czech Republic that:
"The attempt to impose a European constitution was a radical step on the way to creating a European superstate. Anyone who did not know that, knew nothing"?
964
Did the UK Government know that, or did they know nothing? When the Government said that it was a tidying-up exercise, were they deceiving themselves or deceiving the British public?
Now that it is clear that the questions involved were so far-reaching as to cause a major crisis in the EU, will the Government stop prevaricating and give an unequivocal assurance that a future EU constitution will not be ratified without a referendum of the British people?
I understand that the British Government have been criticised by the French Government for not backing Germany and France. Why is that? Is it because the Prime Minister now accepts the prudent advice of Mr Brown that the Franco-German model is bad for competitiveness? Were Spain and Poland right? What is the Government's view on that? Is it our official policy now to stick with the Nice voting settlement? And what is our reaction to the threats from Chancellor Schroder to punish Poland financially? Is it not hypocrisy for France and Germany, which wrecked the EU stability pact in their own interests, overriding the worries of smaller countries, to attack others when they defend their national interests? What is our assessment of the risk of a so-called "two-speed" Europe? Do we share the views of Mr Berlusconi that it is inappropriate to form groups of countries? If so, in view of the wider uncertainties, will the UK Government now abandon their reckless dalliance with EU defence institutions that could undermine NATO?
The EU constitution negotiations have fallen at the first fence. Is the Leader of the House aware that this was probably the least difficult fence to surmount? Does not the uncertainty in Europe underline the folly of the Government's ill thought-out proposals to destabilise our own domestic constitutional arrangements? When we see the shambles of last weekend we should be grateful for stability and for institutions that work well. We should not put them at risk. The weekend's breakdown confirms what many of us argued from the start; that the convention was a flawed undertaking which should never have been allowed to go forward and was bound to create more disunity than unity.
It is time for genuine good Europeans to pick up the pieces and take the EU in different directions, building a better and more flexible kind of Europe which meets the true needs of all member states, large and small, and in which Britain should take a confident lead. What we saw last weekend was a defeat for the whole new Labour strategy for Europe, which has involved tagging along with France and Germany, weakening NATO, ignoring the smaller states, yearning pointlessly for euro currency membership, signing up to layers of outdated social regulations which would paralyse growth and weakening still further the EU's democratic accountability.
There is now a new opening for Europe. Europe should have the wisdom to pause and build on what it has—not put all at risk by ill thought-out schemes to drive too far too fast.
4.2 p.m.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I, too, thank the Leader of the House for repeating the Statement made in another place. First, on what is after all an important but complicated Statement, I want to ask about the arrest of Saddam Hussein. All of us, of course, greatly welcome this development and congratulate all those involved, including the United States troops and those from Iraq who were helpful as police and military, on bringing about that result. Does the Minister agree that the final conclusion must be a trial of Saddam Hussein that is accepted by the people of Iraq as a legitimate and proper procedure which culminates in a proper and carefully thought-through trial and sentence? In that context, does she agree that it would be sensible to look at the possibility of an internationalised trial procedure, in which a trial might take place in Iraq, but with judges brought in from other countries under UN auspices in order to give such a trial international weight and legitimacy? Is not that the conclusion for which all of us must wish, because any other kind of trial would be likely to be questioned by the international community and as such may be counter-productive?
Regarding the Statement on the constitutional settlement and the IGC, first, does the Leader of the House agree that it is in absolutely no one's interest that there should now be a breakdown? We are embarked upon a major historical effort—the attempt to integrate the whole of Europe. That is an aim and aspiration which would bring stability to countries that have been troubled by war and economic difficulties over many years. Therefore, it is in the interests of us all to find a settlement that will last.
Does the Minister also agree that there has been a real step forward on defence? We on these Benches would not for one moment agree with the Leader of the Official Opposition, because in our view it would be useful and, indeed, complementary to NATO that Europe should undertake tasks NATO would not wish to undertake itself, and in which the United States would not wish to be involved. Why is it that of the group of Petersberg tasks accepted by the EU, that of peacemaking—as distinct from peacekeeping and humanitarian efforts—has not been included in the Statement?
What is the Government's stance on the possibility of a breakdown? Do they accept the position of France and Germany with regard to weighted voting under the new two-requirement condition—that is, a majority of states and a majority of people—or do they believe that the Nice agreement, with all its difficulties and complexities, would be a better way to go?
Finally, do the Government believe that we should press for negotiations to start as soon as may be feasible under the Irish presidency to try to achieve a new settlement before the European elections? Is that not an outcome devotedly and devoutly to be wished? Does the Minister not agree that almost any other outcome will leave Europe without the unity, determination and purpose that it needs at this historic time of trying to integrate the whole of Europe, west and east?
4.6 p.m.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, and the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, for their comments and I shall attempt to address the issues raised. First, in relation to Iraq, having listened carefully to the statement made yesterday by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister, I was surprised to hear the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, claim that my right honourable friend boasted. He clearly did not. His statement was most measured and clear, and, importantly, he spoke of the implications of the event for the people of Iraq. Furthermore, we remain confident that Saddam Hussein maintained a covert WMD programme before the recent conflict and that more evidence of those programmes will be uncovered.
The noble Baroness, Lady Williams, welcomed the developments in Iraq—I believe that they will be widely welcomed—and asked specific questions on the next steps, in particular the trial. We have consistently taken the view that it is for the people of Iraq to decide how to bring to justice those responsible for crime, with appropriate international help. The noble Baroness will be aware that on 10th December the Governing Council established a special tribunal. Iraqi judges and prosecutors who will be involved in the special tribunal are receiving training in international human rights standards and international law. They have received assistance from a number of countries, including ours, in that regard.
I now turn to the specific issues raised on the EU, in particular on the breakdown of the talks. The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, asked whether the Government shared a sense of relief. Absolutely not. We remain of the view that it is sensible to modernise and consolidate Europe's rule books so that we, as the EU, can operate effectively and work better as a Union of 25 than a Union of 15. The constitution would be a means of creating an effective enlarged reforming Europe. That modernisation would offer clear gains for us in the UK: a president of the European Council and new rights for national parliaments. The noble Lord asked whether we share the criticisms of Prime Minister Berlusconi. We do not, and the Statement was absolutely clear on that point. I believe that the question of Germany and the threat to punish Poland would be more appropriately addressed to the Germans.
The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, also raised the issue of a two-speed Europe. It is essential that the Union continues to evolve in an inclusive way on the basis of equal rights and responsibilities before the law. Provisions for groups of member states to go further on certain policies have been embodied in treaties since Amsterdam. We have also been able to negotiate opt-outs where that has suited our national interests; for example, with regard to the Frontiers Protocol. However, inclusivity remains at the core of what we are about.
The noble Baroness, Lady Williams, also raised the matter of defence. I was pleased that she welcomed the settlement in respect of the French and that she saw it as a step forward. Three texts were agreed with France and Germany and endorsed unanimously by the

967
European Council. They concerned mutual defence, structured co-operation based on capabilities, and planning EU-led missions. NATO remains the cornerstone of defence and, in circumstances where NATO is not engaged, it makes complete sense for Europe to have capability and power to act in the interests of Europe and the wider world.
The noble Baroness, Lady Williams, asked me specifically about peace-making and the Petersberg tasks. That matter appears in the revised Petersberg tasks, laid out in Article III.210.1. I hope that that reassures the noble Baroness.
The next steps will be reviewed at the March Council under the Irish presidency. Members of the Council have already said that they will talk to member states to see where we can go in terms of next steps. I believe that I have addressed all the points raised.
4.12 p.m.
Lord Tomlinson: My Lords, first, does my noble friend agree that it was always unrealistic to seek the conclusion of an intergovernmental conference during the Italian presidency less than three months after it had started? In reviewing what happened at the IGC, is not the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, exercising the greatest fantasy in talking about the British tagging along behind France and Germany and ignoring new applicants? Was not the whole history of foreign policy development in the European Union, particularly over the Iraq crisis, a demonstration of exactly the reverse of the scene put to us by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde?
I want to ask my noble friend three specific questions arising from the presidency conclusions, which, as usual, were published before the discussions started; nevertheless, they are there. Paragraph 3 refers to the European actions in respect of the growth programme and states that the stability and growth pact will be consistent with that process. Does that mean before the French and Germans massacred the stability and growth pact or the stability and growth pact as it now is, having been shot to pieces?
Later in the presidency conclusions on the subject of Iraq, on which I very much value my noble friend's Statement, it is expressed clearly that the European Council underlines the need for full implementation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1511. Does that include all the demands—six specifically— made of all member states of the European Union? If so, that will bring about a major improvement in the peacekeeping role in Iraq.
Finally, in relation to European security and defence policy, would my noble friend agree with me if I suggested that, rather than have 15 or 15 plus 10 member states making great declarations about the improvements that can be made, it would be helpful if some of them spent some time concentrating on their capacity to do anything? Even with the force that is mentioned for Bosnia and Herzegovina, it would be
968
impossible for that mission to be launched without United States assistance in both physical and other assets.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, first, I thank my noble friend for his initial remarks reminding me that 1 did not address the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, on Britain's role in Europe. We have been absolutely clear about wanting to be at the heart of Europe and have been entirely confident of our strategy and policy. Therefore, when the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, made his remarks, I wondered whether he was living in a parallel universe because his comments in no way reflected my reading of the role that we have played in the negotiations.
I turn to my noble friend's specific questions. With regard to Iraq, my understanding is that we are looking for full implementation of Security Council Resolution 1511. I entirely agree with my noble friend that full implementation would mean a step change in what is taking place in Iraq at present.
On the issue of European security and defence policy, again, my noble friend is right. We need to consider the issue of capacity but we must also be clear about what is appropriate in relation to certain incidents. A number of different models have been used: NATO; Berlin Plus; the UK operating on its own, as it did in Sierra Leone; and a French-led European initiative in the DRC. Therefore, the issue is one of capacity, but it is also one of choosing the appropriate method.
On the issue of economic growth, we continue in support of European action for growth. It remains a realistic policy, and it is important that the EU presses ahead with its agenda of economic reform to enhance growth and job creation.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick: My Lords, will the noble Baroness draw some comfort and inspiration from the fact that 15 years ago a European Council broke down in irretrievable confusion in Copenhagen, leaving the European Union with a shortage of funds? On that occasion, a somewhat gloomy assessment from President Mitterrand was corrected by the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher. I rather had the feeling that, on this occasion, her corrections might go along her own Front Bench. However, two months later in Brussels, under the chairmanship of Chancellor Kohl, the Council came to an entirely satisfactory set of agreements, which were extremely beneficial to this country. Therefore, perhaps drawing some inspiration from that would be a good thing.
Will the noble Baroness also commit the Government very firmly to supporting whatever the Irish presidency does to try to put this show on the road again? It will need help. I agree entirely with the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, that the sooner it is done, the better. If it can be done in the early months of next year, I hope that the British Government will do everything to help that.
Finally, can the Government help to achieve a settlement by showing how exaggerated are the accounts of the differences between the two formulas

969
for voting, which have divided Europe in such a dramatic way? Perhaps they could publish some examples, using the qualified majority votes of recent years, to show whether the different systems would have made any difference at all. My own belief is that there is very little to choose between them, apart from the symbolic, which of course has become greatly exaggerated.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hannay. It is always helpful to have a good, long memory. I take comfort and inspiration from the comments of the noble Lord. Of course we shall support the Irish presidency, as I said in my response to the noble Baroness, Lady Williams. The Irish have said that they will take soundings and report to the March European Council meeting on whether it is possible to restart negotiations. As yet, they are not in a position to say how that will work out. We would all like to see a conclusion to this matter.
On QMV and the different systems, the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, makes a good suggestion about considering the decisions that have been taken recently and whether a different system would have made any difference. I know that the noble Lord is aware that issues of symbolism can be very important in the context of international negotiation.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, will the noble Baroness review her response to my noble friend Lady Williams in relation to the method of trying Saddam? I believe that I am right in saying that in East Timor and in Sierra Leone there was a joint bench comprised of local and international judges. While I entirely accept the thrust of her remarks in terms of ensuring that the Iraqis feel that it is their trial and presumably—although one should not say so—their conviction, the whole process needs to be of a calibre and a quality that is warranted.
Turning to the major part of the Statement which concerns the European Council deliberations, I adopt the phrase used by the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, who said that there is now a need to get the show on the road. That is true, but I suggest that an essential part of getting the show on the road is to get the British public and the public in other member states interested in what is going on, in having a modicum of understanding of what is going on, and in feeling to some extent, however vestigially, that it is their show. At present one thing that one can say with certainty is that the British public and, I suspect, the public of most if not all member states feel further and further away from everything that is being done in their name in Europe.
I was surprised that in the Statement the word "democracy" in whatever form one chooses is not mentioned a single time. The beginning of the Statement states:
"The negotiations which have been going on over the last 22 months have been about the effective management of the European Union".
970
I believe that that is the view of many people but it sounds more like a multi-national company than anything to do with democracy. Towards the end of the Statement it states:
"these negotiations are about the stability, security and prosperity of a Europe of nearly 500 million people".
There is no mention of democracy. I put it to the noble Baroness that without real, rather than theoretical or constitutional, democratic underpinning, we shall go nowhere with constitutional amendments, however long or short or however broad or narrow they are. I ask the Government to start to take seriously—frankly thus far they have not—the need for the British public to be brought in on this great project. It should be a great project and I want to see it as a great project that has a long-term future. Unless we do that it will not have a long-term future.
I ask the noble Baroness to cast her mind back to earlier today when the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said that 600,000 brochures had been printed to help the public to engage more effectively in the consultation on the renewal of the BBC Charter. I see no reason at all— perhaps the noble Baroness will respond to this point— why every single household in the land should not have a well prepared, understandable, accessible explanation of just where we are on those constitutional negotiations. The Banham Local Government Commission, for example, put 12 million brochures through the doors of the county and metropolitan areas that were affected. I would be grateful if the noble Baroness would address her mind to that.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, has raised two main points, one with respect to communication and issues concerning the IGC and recent events and the other in relation to Iraq. On Iraq and the method of trial, as I said in response to the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, we have constantly and consistently taken the view that it is for the Iraqi people to decide how to bring to justice those responsible for such crimes. As I understand it, an international court is usually established only if a country is unable or unwilling to prosecute those suspected of such crimes. In this case the governing council has made it clear that it is for the Iraqi people to try Saddam Hussein and others. We know that the knowledge and expertise that is required exists in Iraq. There will be international help for Iraqi judges and prosecutors, who will receive training to international human rights and international law standards.
On communication and ensuring that the British public understand what is going on, I could not agree more with the noble Lord, Lord Phillips. We are committed to consulting the public. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office is operating an online consultation on the draft constitutional treaty and my honourable friends Denis MacShane and Graham Allen launched that on 19th August. It will run until the end of the IGC. It provides an opportunity for the public to feed thoughts into the Government directly. So far there have been over 95,000 "readings". We have sought a wide range of views on the future of

971
Europe through ministerial regional visits, seminars, radio phone-ins and interviews. I entirely accept that we need to do that consistently and that we need to ensure that the public are brought on board. That is why we have gone down the road of phone-ins, using the web and so on. It is important that the public feel engaged in this process.
Lord Hughes of Woodside: My Lords—
Lord Jopling: My Lords—
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, there are five minutes left. We have not heard from Back-Benchers on this side for a while.
Lord Hughes of Woodside: My Lords, does the noble Baroness accept that yesterday was an immense occasion—the arrest of Saddam Hussein. I am sure that all who saw the pictures on the television screen and realised that it really was Saddam Hussein who had been arrested will feel that the whole world should rejoice in and congratulate all those who took part in the arrest.
With regard to the trial, which is becoming more and more of a real issue, does my noble friend accept that while there may be different methods of undertaking the trial, the suggestion, which I am sure was inadvertent—I took this from hearing the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, on the radio—that Saddam cannot receive a fair trial in Iraq will do immense damage in the future? Does she commend the view that if there is to be international acceptance of the result of the trial, which may be very difficult to achieve, the further away from Iraq that the trial takes place the less likely it is that it will be accepted internationally; and the closer to Iraq that it takes place the more possibility there is of international acceptance.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I thank my noble friend. It is very important that we remember that the Iraqi people have made it absolutely clear that they have a central role to play. The governing council established a special tribunal before the arrest of Saddam Hussein. It is important that not only the international community but also the people of Iraq feel that his trial is fair. That is why those who will be involved in the special tribunal will receive training from international human rights lawyers and others, so that it is internationally accepted.
Lord Jopling: My Lords, I am afraid that I was unaware that my old friend the noble Lord, Lord Tomlinson—not entirely surprisingly—had resigned the Labour Whip. Does the Minister agree that one of the most hopeful statements in the Council's conclusions published yesterday was that part on the declaration on transatlantic relations? I am anticipating our debate later today. The most important words are in the first paragraph:
"The transatlantic relationship is irreplaceable. The EU remains fully committed to a constructive, balanced and forward-looking partnership with our transatlantic partners".
972
Is the Minister confident that those are not just words and that she sees some prospect of that view being reciprocated in the United States; that there are moves back to a multilateral approach to world problems in the United States; and that from both sides we shall not be subjected any more to the kind of tit-for-tat situations which have arisen—for instance, on the European side for countries seeking to set up independent command structures within the ESDP and, on the other side, the rather petty United States announcement that countries which opposed the war in Iraq will not be allowed to take any part in any of the contracts? Can she give us an assurance that the Government are hopeful that those fine words in the conclusions are likely to be put into effect?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, is asking me to do the impossible. I know that the noble Lord understands that international relationships are dynamic. The fact that that statement exists in the declaration on transatlantic relationships is very important indeed, because that statement is at the heart of the relationship between the European Union and the United States.
We have always made it clear that we do not see it as an either/or relationship but as a both/and relationship. Having said that, that does not mean that differences will not emerge within the European Union. We have seen those recently with respect to Iraq and, most recently, this weekend on the voting system issue. It is most important and fundamental that there is a commitment on both sides to make that relationship work. I can assure the noble Lord that we shall work to ensure that that fundamental principle remains.

Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Bill [H.L.]
Second Reading debate resumed.
4.34 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of St Albans: My Lords, there is a city in this country about which some serious research has been done on levels of domestic violence and the effect of that violence on children. The statistics make grim reading. They are: of the 90 per cent of recorded instances of domestic violence which took place in family units over two years, 1,100 children were involved.
It takes little imagination to see what devastating effects witnessing violence might have upon those children. I refer to the sense of powerlessness among young boys, unable to protect their mothers from their violent fathers and stepfathers—an anger which has to be dealt with in some way and which may well result in themselves becoming violent in adolescence and adulthood—and the same sense of powerlessness among young girls which may then become internalised and gnaw away at their own self-esteem.

973
If in two years in one English city there were 1,100 children caught up in domestic violence, and one multiplies that figure by the number of cities in the UK, thousands of children would be seriously damaged by all that they see and hear. I concentrate on the children because they are the hidden victims whose voice is rarely heard. I welcome the fact that Her Majesty's Government are going to ensure that the Minister for Children will be involved in monitoring some parts of the progress of this Bill and its implementations.
I also focus on children because at this time of year they are at the forefront of our attention. But so also is one of the causes of domestic violence, which is alcohol. Millions of pounds will be spent in trying to persuade us to enjoy ourselves and that that enjoyment can be associated only with alcohol. So the numbers of people getting "wasted", "trashed" or whatever phrase one wishes to use, will be huge. I speak as one who from time to time has drunks throwing up over my front doorstep. I can assure noble Lords that Bishops now live a very long way from the sweet calm of Barchester.
If we could persuade the brewing industry that the amount of money spent on trying to persuade us to drink should be matched by a similar amount devoted to trying to educate young men especially about how to drink sensibly, we might get somewhere. It is reported that between 5 and 10 per cent of all calls to Childline mention alcohol as a serious problem.
However, I want to suggest that within all the domestic violence that goes on there is also a profound spiritual malaise. If I am abusive or violent towards others or indeed towards myself, it suggests that I have no concept of my or the other person's inherent worth. It means that I do not regard myself or the other person as in any sense being made—as the Judaeo-Christian tradition would express it—in the image of God. So, I do not see myself coming from God, being surrounded by God or at death going towards God. Therefore, many of us are alienated in the profoundest way from our own inherent dignity and alienated from that worth, which in my view is conferred upon us by God as creator. That alienation is then expressed in cries of anguish.
I simply do not know how intervention at the spiritual level in domestic violence can be achieved. I recognise, of course, what the Probation Service and social services try to do, and what they do heroically, in running group-work programmes, for example, for the perpetrators of domestic violence. I recognise also that intervention has to be multi-agency, but I wonder whether the Churches and other faith groups might be bracketed in to such work rather than being bracketed out. It is not that in such activities the Churches would engage in evangelism or proselytism—not at all—but they could and should be included as pastors and reminders that the spiritual elements associated with domestic violence may require as much attention as other elements. To convert—I use the word advisedly—from one form of living in which violence is the norm to another in which violence is abjured requires enormous moral and spiritual courage.
974
I know that in some areas, churches are already involved in those issues through the provision of women's refuges and housing for the homeless, offering counselling and advice and our work in prisons. There are people and churches working absolutely at the front line and I hope that the Government will consult them.
I carry in my mind an image that will always stay with me. It was a dark autumnal night when I answered my front door and found a woman standing there with her anorak hood pulled over her face so that I could not see it. She was supported by two women friends. I had no idea who she was, but her friends said that she was desperate to speak to me, so I invited her in. It was 20 minutes before she brought back her anorak hood to reveal her face. Her face was black and blue; it was cut; it was bruised; it was shiny with lumps; and she had some teeth missing. She was a battered human being who wanted just for a moment to touch not only a physical place of safety but a pastoral and spiritual place of safety as well.
As we strive to understand the causes of violence, please let us not forget what volunteer organisations and faith communities already do to try to address those causes. As we, rightly, strive to offer compassion to the victims, please can we have some joined-up thinking that recognises that words such as "healing" and "wholeness" have a rich and long-standing religious, spiritual and human content?
No matter how well meaning and brilliant our law may be—I am among those who welcome this courageous Bill—there are deeper issues that we as a society need to allow to surface on our social language map if we are to make any headway in tackling that grave social problem.
4.43 p.m.
Lord Desai: My Lords, I, too, welcome the Bill. My knowledge on the question is mainly academic—I have supervised some research students studying domestic violence—so what I shall discuss comes mainly from that angle.
To begin with, I want to take up the issue raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood, of the lack of definition of domestic violence. There is a definition in the White Paper, Safety and Justice. It states:
"The Home Office defines domestic violence as:
'Any violence between current and former partners in an intimate relationship, wherever and whenever the violence occurs. The violence may include physical, sexual, emotional and financial abuse'".
That is a good definition if we consider domestic violence in the context of a two-person arrangement, but, as we have already heard in several speeches, one welcome feature of the Bill is that it extends the definition of domestic violence to include harm done to children. We then enter a wider definition of a family within which there may be more than just the co-relation of two partners. There may be in-laws and children involved and, especially in some of our ethnic minorities, a joint family with a number of complex relationships.

975
Something that definitely occurs on the Indian sub-continent but also here among South Asian families is the so-called suicide of young brides. Those suicides must be carefully investigated, because they are really an instance of domestic violence. It may not be exactly the male partner who may be responsible, but in the definition of who may be included in the net under Clause 4, we must ensure that such questions may be pursued. It may be that existing laws already account for such violence, but what happens within the family can be very well hidden by a conspiracy of silence and we must investigate such cases as questions of domestic violence.
I turn to the Commissioner for Victims and Witnesses. I welcome that proposal, especially the fact that the commissioner will be allowed to commission research, because we need to know much more about patterns of domestic violence. One finding that one of my students was able to substantiate with statistical evidence is that it matters very much whether victims of domestic violence—women especially—have a network of support somewhere in the community, either in the wider family or among friends. They must be educated, literate and able to seek out such networks of support—whether through the local church, as the right reverend Prelate mentioned, or any other shelter group. That is very important. Some things will be known only once better research is commissioned by the commissioner.
I very much welcome the Bill. I should have liked the commission to have more than just a chairman and deputy chairman—perhaps a full commission—but that is a matter of detail. I welcome the Bill and look forward to detailed work on it in Committee.
4.47 p.m.
Baroness Seccombe: My Lords, I join my noble friend in thanking the Minister for introducing the Bill. At first glance, it seems a sensible Bill with provisions to help what I am sure we can all agree is a vulnerable category of people. However, on closer inspection, there needs to be much more clarification of many clauses for the Bill to be workable.
I do not think that there will be any opposition from these Benches to the principle that those who commit acts of violence on a husband, wife or live-in lover, whether they are men or women, deserve punishment. I welcome the inclusion in the Bill of a similar protection for same-sex couples, as they can also suffer violence at the hands of a partner. We must always remember that violence against a man in a relationship, although not as prevalent in the news or as widely acknowledged, is also a big problem—perhaps even more so as it is not so easily accepted by society and most men are reluctant to come forward.
We have a wealth of legal knowledge with some very experienced politicians in this House who will, I am sure, achieve an excellent result in improving the Bill. I was a magistrate for more than 30 years and, apart from a few months, was on the domestic panel and its successor, the family panel. Over the years, I have listened to many women who have been victims of
976
brutal and vicious violence. It must have been appalling for them and I assure your Lordships that it has left a lasting impression on me. I strongly believe that we must approach the Bill in a sensitive manner and from a human viewpoint.
I am sure that we all recognise that human relationships can be very volatile and personal. They can be loving, passionate and caring right through to loathing, indifferent and callous all in a short space of time. Many people act towards their partners in ways in which we ourselves would not act, and say things that we would not dream of saying. We must therefore be careful to intervene only where there is real or threatened abuse and where someone needs the speedy protection of the law.
I remember a case, when I was on the Bench, in which a young couple were having marital difficulties. In court the wife had become terribly upset relating the grizzly details of her husband's behaviour and was having trouble calming herself down, such was her anger. She asked for a glass of water in order to regain her composure. When it was handed to her, she threw it all over her husband. I am sure that once or twice we have all felt like doing the same thing, without ever having done it—and that happened in court in front of everybody. Many would have thought that such a gesture was the product of a doomed relationship. However, to my astonishment, by chance I saw them the next day walking hand in hand through a store as though nothing had happened.
That court appearance was in the family court, a closed court for parties and their advisers. It illustrates that there are times when perhaps the court should not get involved in people's relationships, as it can have a detrimental effect. Perhaps the order made on that occasion brought the parties to their senses, but I doubt it, as, I am sorry to say, we got to know them well as regular visitors to the court.
Although I understand the need for the power of arrest where a domestic incident is in progress or has just happened, and it is right that a vulnerable woman is not left alone with a violent man or vice versa, I worry that an enthusiastic police officer might use that power when he has interrupted a loud and regular argument. Once someone has been arrested and been through the adult court, an open court where anyone may attend, listen and report, is there any hope of a normal relationship prospering? I also worry that where children are involved, and one parent is charged under the Bill, the family would have a herculean task to make the relationship work again.
The police are key to the Bill's success, and I imagine that, in the main, they will welcome that extra power of arrest. I feel, however, that it will be an extra burden. Under Clause 7, I sense that it will be hard for police to make a snap decision at the scene of a domestic confrontation. It cannot be that easy to spot who the victim is; for example, is it the man who suffers daily verbal abuse for months and finally snaps and throws something at his wife, or is it the wife? I hope that the Minister can reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas

977
of Walliswood, and me that there will be appropriate and discerning training for the officers who will be called on to cope with such delicate, sensitive situations.
It is sad that at what should be a festive and joyous time, for many families there will be brutality and misery behind closed doors. I hope that, with today's increased personal debt, we shall not see even more violence in the home. Finally, I look forward to Committee stage, when many concerns can be addressed. I am sure that it will be as helpful, instructive and constructive as this Second Reading.
4.54 p.m.
Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, I welcome the Bill and wish to concentrate my remarks on Parts 1 and 2. Although I am conscious that there are men who are subjected to domestic violence, I shall approach the Bill from the perspective of women and children and shall judge it on its efficacy in protecting them. Domestic violence is more common than most people think. According to Home Office statistics, about one in four women experience it. Looking around the Chamber today, I notice that around 15 women are present. That means that probably three or four have direct experience of domestic violence. I am one of them. I speak from personal experience.
Any woman who has been attacked by a partner will never forget it, even if it took place 25 years ago, and even if she has had a second, very happy marriage in the interim. It is a searing experience. So when I talk about the issues that the Bill seeks to address, I have a very particular insight.
All violence is abhorrent but domestic violence is more appalling than most because it is a breach of trust. When someone whom you trust and used to love attacks you, it undermines everything that you used to think about yourself. It saps your self-confidence and your belief in yourself; after all, if the person with whom you chose to spend your life hates you so much as to attack you, what can you be worth? It is no small wonder that women often seem helpless, indeed hopeless, in the face of that treatment. But the very nature of domestic violence gives governments a particular problem, as it happens in the privacy of the home, behind closed doors and lace curtains, and the women who have been so undermined by it are often reluctant to admit to it because often they believe that it is their fault. An understanding of the situation should underpin government strategies.
So what can governments do? New legislation is not always the full answer, but it can be part of it. What is needed most is a cultural shift—that there will be zero tolerance of violence in the home and an accessible and supportive programme of support for women who need it. Of course, what women would want most is for the violence not to happen in the first place, but how can governments affect that? They cannot be in every home, spying on families, nor should they be.
There are two ways in which governments can help to prevent domestic violence ever happening. First, they can stop the cycle of violent abuse by sending out
978
a clear message that violence against children will not be tolerated. Children are often involved. In recent research, referred to by the Minister, 70 per cent of children in refuges were found to have suffered violence themselves. We know that many child abusers were abused themselves as children. How unfortunate, therefore, that the Government did not take the opportunity when drafting Clause 7, adding common assault to a list of arrestable offences, to remove the defence of reasonable chastisement from defendants accused of assaulting children. Recently, the Health Select Committee in another place and the Joint Committee on Human Rights recommended that. That has been a good opportunity missed.
Secondly, we can ensure that schools assist parents to teach personal self-control and discipline, to develop in young people respect for each other as equals and to educate them about what successful life partnerships are all about.
The second best option is that, although violence starts, it then stops voluntarily. What can governments do to encourage that? Agencies such as Relate and other relationship counselling services do very good work and deserve more support.
The third and worst though necessary option is to separate the perpetrator from the victim. That is where women need most help, because they are naturally reluctant to split up a family. Although abused children get considerable support from child protection units, family protection units are currently unable to offer the same level of support to women. We need an enormous increase in resources, and I very much welcome the new national helpline referred to by the Minister.
Women suffer enormous pressures to stay with their partner, particularly in the home, especially if they have children. Those may include financial difficulties; lack of confidence that they will be able to support their children if they leave the man in their life; lack of alternative accommodation; work commitments; reluctance to take their children out of school or to change their school; pressure from their family or their partner's family and even reluctance to leave behind the family pets— although I recently heard about a wonderful charity that fosters family pets until the family in a refuge can be properly re-housed. The fundamental issue to be addressed is the extent to which the state should step into a relationship to protect victims at the cost of destroying the family unit, because there is no doubt that children need their fathers as well as their mothers. Unless the children are also being abused, we should support the victim and allow her to choose how to deal with the problem whenever possible. That is where the measures in Clauses 1, 2 and 3 come in and why I heed the charity Refuge's warning about compelling women to give evidence, in case that should be an unintended consequence of the Bill. However, we will examine the balance of these issues when we scrutinise the Bill in Grand Committee.
I also welcome the proposals to deal with cases when two people may be guilty of a child's death but cannot be convicted because it cannot be proved which of them did it. I hope that the very existence of this Bill

979
will send out a message that there is no hiding place for deliberate child abusers and killers. However, I have a question about Clause 5. When one of the two accused adults is a battered wife, to what extent will her subjugation to the violent partner be taken into account in a trial?
I also echo the point made by my noble friend Lady Thomas of Walliswood. The Bill fails to take into account Home Office proposals to make sure that child contact arrangements guarantee the safety of all parties, especially the children. Perhaps the Minister will be able to tell us how the measures in this Bill will link with measures to protect children in the forthcoming children Bill.
I also wonder how the Commissioner for Victims and Witnesses will link with the new Children's Commissioner. I look forward to your Lordships' House sending to the other place in due course a piece of legislation that will help to ensure that fewer women and children suffer the horror of domestic violence in the future. I urge the Government to surround the legislation with a vast increase and improvement in services for the families affected by it.
5.2 p.m.
Baroness Gibson of Market Rasen: My Lords, it gives me tremendous pleasure to speak in this debate today because this is a Bill for which I have waited all my working life, as I will explain. As a Labour Party organiser, TUC official and national official for a large union, I came across domestic violence in all its horrors. One of the first cases that I encountered was of a woman who was beating up on a regular basis the man with whom she lived. That was in the 1960s. Domestic violence was not talked about, even when it concerned a man beating a woman. Women beating men was unheard of. The man in question had not sought help because he believed that it would show how unmanly he was. He was actually full of shame and self-hatred. I became involved only after he had been seriously attacked and had sustained a broken arm. Both people were members, I am sad to say, of a nearby Labour Party, and I became involved at the request of a bewildered male colleague. Of course, such cases are rare. The vast majority of cases involve men attacking women. I saw from an article in the Observer recently that 81 per cent of the cases of domestic violence involve men assaulting women.
Domestic violence is nothing new. A number of writers about working-class relationships at the turn of the century highlighted that a Saturday night beating after a drunken evening was almost a matter of course for some women living with men, especially in the poorer parts of our cities. However, such descriptions have perhaps skewed our thinking about domestic violence, because it occurs in all types of households—professional and non-professional, rich and poor, black and white, young and old. On the latter point, older women are more likely to endure violence before seeking help, according to the Observer article.
980
Because the terminology is "domestic" violence, it may surprise some that it is seen by the TUC and individual unions as a trade union issue. However, it most certainly is one. The results of domestic violence can be seen in far too many workplaces—offices, shops, schools, universities, the shop floor and any more. Domestic violence has a damaging effect upon employees' morale and upon the work in which they are involved. It impacts upon their health, attendance— particularly their punctuality—work performance and productivity. It is therefore an important industrial issue. It affects workers' job prospects and career development and, like other forms of bullying, it involves physical and sexual threats and intimidation. It often highlights financial dependence and increases a sense of helplessness and isolation.
The TUC and many individual unions have drawn up guidance for work forces aimed at helping members who suffered domestic violence. They are definitely needed. In a survey conducted by the TUC, it was found that 54 per cent of women in trade unions had, or knew colleagues who had, experienced domestic violence. For a number of years, the unions have argued that, although employers currently have no legal obligation to take action on domestic violence, they have a moral duty to do so, The drawing up of a public policy at the workplace covering the impact and effect of domestic violence is one of the most useful things that trade unions and employers can do to help.
The TUC's excellent guide highlights instances of domestic violence and how these have been dealt with: by providing a point of contact in a workplace; by ensuring confidentiality and discretion; by making special arrangements for employees to assist them to visit their solicitors, the police, a hospital or their GPs; and by taking steps to ensure that they are safe in their workplace. It is not unknown for men to arrive at the workplace to follow up their attacks upon women. It gives details of the excellent work carried out on all forms of violence by Leeds City Council. That work was sparked off by the Peter Sutcliffe murders and the violence involved in them. The TUC booklet also includes organisational contacts for those who need them in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
Before I move on to the Bill itself, I will give one more example of the kind of work on domestic violence that I carried out for my union. It is often forgotten that trade unions have employees as well as members. One morning, I was asked by the head of the union's research department to talk to one of the research secretaries whose work had deteriorated notably and who was showing signs of great distress. Reluctantly, she told me why. Her partner was drinking heavily and becoming increasingly violent. They had two young daughters. When she knew that her partner was going out drinking, to save herself and her girls, she wrapped them in blankets, put them in the back of her car and drove them round London through the night, returning home only when she knew that her partner would have left the house for work the next morning. By the time that we met, she was doing this most evenings. She was utterly exhausted and did not know who to turn to. I am pleased to say

981
that, in this instance, with the help of social services and a local women's refuge, she was able to escape her nightmare existence.
That story highlights why I am so delighted and grateful to the Government for introducing this Bill. It brings hope to those who have not had any before. It brings further assistance to those who have tried to help victims of domestic violence. It gives a voice to those whose silence has been at the cost of pain, fear and abuse.
Obviously, some criticisms have been made of the draft Bill. The Law Society is concerned, for example, that putting provisions for victims and witnesses in the same Bill as domestic violence may prevent full and serious consideration of all the issues involved. It pointed out that domestic violence brings its own special and particular needs, distinct from other victims of crime. I can see that reasoning, but we can overcome such difficulties in our considerations. I know that a number of children's organisations want to emphasise, quite rightly, how the needs of children—those suffering and witnessing domestic violence—must be recognised and borne in mind in our debate. The question of funding, which will be considerable, must be discussed in detail.
I am confident that the strengthening that is needed will be accomplished. I am sure that the Minister will listen sympathetically and with her usual intelligence and compassion to the points raised in our debates. The Bill is a major step forward in the fight against domestic violence and its consequences.
5.10 p.m.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, I take the opportunity to thank the Minister for arranging a briefing meeting. I found it most helpful. I warmly welcome the main thrust of the Bill. The Bill contains a range of practical measures designed to ensure readier access to help and justice for victims of crime. Much of that was praised by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay of St Johns, and by my noble friend Lady Thomas of Walliswood.
We are dealing with something that is obvious on the surface: the extent of the violence that blights the life of the victim. What we have never fathomed is the hidden violence. There are the silent victims who will not complain for fear of the break-up of their relationships or, in many cases, loss of support, financial and otherwise. The violence is not peculiar to this country; no country is immune. We learn little about its impact on the quality of family life and the extent to which it affects young children growing up in such families. That is one reason why the Bill is a step in the right direction.
Part 1 of the Bill and some of the provisions of Part 2 relate to domestic violence. For a long time, domestic violence was taken insufficiently seriously by criminal justice agencies. I welcome and endorse much of what the Association of Chief Police Officers has done, but the facts remain. The British Crime Survey shows that such violence amounts to a quarter of all violent crimes. Thirty per cent of women experience an act of
982
violence by a male partner at some point in their life. As the Minister pointed out, two women are killed in the United Kingdom every week by current or former partners. Measures providing better protection for victims of domestic violence will have the strong support of all those who believe that victims are entitled to dignity and respect.
It is one thing to have measures in statute that protect victims, but we also need a strategy to ensure that there is a programme of public education that spells out the rights of victims. It should cover questions such as how to seek help, who will provide help and what that help will entail. Nowhere is that more important than in our culturally sensitive communities. In many families, women endure violence but do not have the knowledge or resources to complain. That is unacceptable.
It is not just physical violence. There are other forms of violence that we should take into account. For example, somebody mentioned forced marriages, trafficking in human beings and the forcing of women into prostitution. The Home Office working party on forced marriages, on which I served, has laid down some good practice. We should evaluate the project and see how it helps women victims.
How far will the Bill achieve its objectives? Making common assault an arrestable offence will enable the police to act more speedily and effectively when such an assault occurs. However, it will still not be possible for an arrest to take place in all cases in which there has been a breach of a non-molestation order. Making a breach of a non-molestation order a criminal offence, as Clause 1 does, will enable an arrest to take place only if the victim wishes to pursue criminal proceedings. In other cases, the victim will first have to apply for an arrest warrant for breach of the non-molestation order to the civil court, unless that court attached a power of arrest when making the order in the first place. Will the Government consider providing for the attachment of a power of arrest to be standard when a non-molestation order is made?
I mentioned the need for a programme of public education, as victims are unaware of their rights. There are countless organisations and individuals who provide help. Equally, there are the passive victims of such domestic situations. Children in those families need protection and support. When scrutinising the legislation, we must first establish how effective the application of present powers has been. Have they been used adequately? Are victims aware of what protection they can receive? More importantly, we must establish whether existing powers are under-utilised? If so, we must ask, "Why? What lessons have we learnt, and how will we put things right?".
Extending the categories of persons who can apply for occupation orders to include same-sex couples is welcome, as is the extension of the categories of people who can apply for non-molestation orders. There is also logic behind extending the power of criminal courts to make restraining orders following conviction for offences other than those under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. However, there are problems

983
about the provision for criminal courts to make such an order after an acquittal. It is undoubtedly true that, in some cases, victims need such protection, even though the criminal standard of proof cannot be established. The court best equipped to make such a judgment is the family proceedings court, and a streamlined procedure for a criminal court to refer the matter to the family proceedings court would surely be a better option.
If we are to tackle domestic violence effectively, we need not only an effective legislative framework but a funding strategy that is sustainable in the long term. That point was made by the noble Baroness, Lady Gibson of Market Rasen. The £14 million announced by the Government in February for crime and disorder reduction partnerships to tackle the problem over a three-year period seems significant at first sight, yet it amounts to only £12,000 per crime and disorder reduction partnership a year. Some excellent work is being carried out to prevent domestic violence and to support those who suffer from it, including the provision of refuges, outreach work and helpline support. Many of those services are provided by the voluntary sector, including, in some areas, my own organisation, the National Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders. However, the development of that work is often significantly undermined by short-term and insecure funding. That means that projects are set up, work effectively but then fold when their funding ends. Will the Government develop a strategy to ensure more effective funding arrangements for services to combat domestic violence in parallel with changes to the legislative framework?
I am a member of the Commission on Women and the Criminal Justice System. At a policy seminar, the commission heard evidence from leading academics and practitioners about the problems that face innovative projects in the voluntary sector. They are usually piloted for a period of between one and three years, so that they can be evaluated and mainstreamed, if successful. However, many fail because of funding or other resource problems. We believe that the voluntary sector offers a great deal of experience that should be utilised and properly resourced to deal with low-level offenders.
We welcome the provision for a new offence of causing or allowing the death of a child or vulnerable adult. It will help to ensure that justice can be done in any case in which a child or vulnerable adult has been killed, following a lengthy period of abuse, even if it is not clear which of two co-habitants carried out the killing.
We unreservedly welcome Part 3 of the Bill, which contains a series of provisions relating to victims and witnesses. They include a statutory code of practice governing the services to be provided to victims by criminal justice agencies; provision for the Parliamentary Commissioner to investigate breaches of the code; the creation of a Commissioner for Victims and Witnesses; provision to put the Victims' Advisory Panel on a statutory basis; and the creation of a statutory basis for government grants to bodies assisting victims and witnesses. But I must add a word of concern about the code of practice. Clarity about the disclosure of
984
information between the relevant agencies will be crucial to any move to give effect to the code of practice for victims. Without it, the beneficial effects of the code could be undermined. Although Clause 23 provides for the transfer of data, subsection (8) states:
"nothing … authorises the making of a disclosure which contravenes the Data Protection Act 1998".
I am told that, for many years, Victim Support has experienced severe problems in obtaining consistent referrals from the police for the purposes of providing support services to victims. That is despite Home Office Circular 44/2001, which was agreed by the Home Office, ACPO, Victim Support and the Information Commissioner, and a subsequent supporting agreement by Victim Support and ACPO. This is a problem for the other criminal justice agencies as well.
Following legal advice, Victim Support proposed an amendment to the draft legislation (before it was published) stating effectively that if transfer of data was for the purposes of the code, it would be deemed to be consistent with the Data Protection Act. Perhaps I may ask the Minister why that proposal was not included? Is it likely to be included as part of the code of practice?
At the same time as the Government propose to introduce this welcome legislation, they have brought forward proposals to devolve the funding currently given to Victim Support for local victim and witness services to local criminal justice boards so that they can make separate contracts for this work. Pilots are planned for the coming year, with a view to devolving the funding in all areas in the following year. That is a recipe for the fragmentation of services. It will jeopardise the effective work that Victim Support has carried out to ensure that local services sign up and operate high quality standards. We hope that the Government will reconsider this misguided proposal. Certainly, I will make sure that in Committee there is an amendment to ensure that the new funding arrangement is not counterproductive to work done by voluntary agencies, including Victim Support.
It is disappointing that in the Bill which, refreshingly, contains generally welcome provisions, the Government should choose to include yet another attempt to whittle away at the jury system. Clause 9 provides for some offences to be tried by the judge alone in cases of alleged multiple offending. There may be some merit since the Law Commission has given its weight to that change. However, it would be helpful to tease out the Government's intention on the clause to ensure that it does not set a precedent for other areas of criminal justice legislation.
Nevertheless, the majority of the Bill's provisions are positive and the intention to improve the treatment of victims and witnesses is shared by almost all noble Lords on all sides of the House. As one who sat in my earlier days in the domestic and juvenile courts. I have seen the trauma of victims of domestic violence. There is a need to put a stop to it—a full stop. In that respect, the Bill is a right step forward.
5.22 p.m.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote: My Lords, I, too, warmly welcome the Bill. Perhaps I may start by bluntly stating that, in my view, domestic violence essentially is an equal opportunities issue. I am not of course stating that no violence is perpetrated by women against men. As the noble Baroness, Lady Gibson of Market Rasen, said, that clearly is not so. Violence is about the inappropriate use of power; that is, the abuse of power. Just as violence against children is violence by powerful adults, the most likely victim in a domestic relationship is the female.
Children are direct victims of domestic violence as well as indirect victims. The NSPCC and the Minister have drawn our attention to some cases, which the NSPCC's impressive campaign, Violence to Children Must Stop-—Full Stop, makes clear. During more than 20 years on the inner London juvenile bench, I came across innumerable instances when children appearing before the court for other reasons clearly came from homes with a background of violent behaviour.
In those early days, even the recognition of specifically sexual abuse of children within families was in its infancy. Straightforward domestic violence remained still barely a matter for the police to investigate, even in the unlikely event of the victim having complained. As we all know now, domestic violence occurs within all sectors of the community. But there are three major reasons why the problem has remained hidden for so long.
First, there is the belief that victims have brought the violence on themselves. Secondly, the financial dependence of women meant that they were unable to leave the matrimonial home with their children so that they could start again, quite apart from them having nowhere to go. Thirdly—and perhaps more in middle-class backgrounds—the fear of family shame if neighbours knew. Some 25 years ago, a few of the braver victims joined with Erin Pizzey in setting up self-help women's refuges to which frightened women from serial inflictors of domestic violence could flee with their children. That was the beginning of a major change in attitude and in the culture of domestic violence.
Today, thank heavens, there are many more voluntary and state resources to offer help, either through reconciliation or, failing that, rehousing and other forms of advice. In addition, women today have much more economic independence. As we have heard, despite all that, many victims of abuse remain reluctant to come forward. Even now, self delusion persists; in particular, the victim's belief that, even after repeated attacks, the violence will not happen again. As the Government's Safety and Justice paper points out, equally disturbing is the fact that research still shows domestic violence is, as the Minister said, sometimes deemed acceptable, even among the younger generation.
Although there has been some change in attitude, it is important to remind ourselves of the sickening role that domestic violence still plays in society. Almost half of all female murder victims are killed by a partner
986
or a former partner. But perhaps most horrifying, 30 per cent of domestic violence occurs when the woman is pregnant.
Thus, the Government are right. Domestic violence remains an important issue still to be tackled. It is to be hoped that it is also an issue the public take increasingly seriously, as well as all political parties. When introducing his domestic violence Private Member's Bill in another place in June, John Bercow, a shadow Conservative spokesman, said that since his arrival in Parliament in June 1997, domestic violence had featured in no fewer than 365 written questions, 74 oral questions and at least eight Adjournment debates. Perhaps the issue has not been debated quite as often in your Lordships' House, but the number of occasions is growing here as well.
I agree with the right reverend Prelate that the most important aspect is that domestic violence is almost certain to damage victims physically and mentally for the rest of their lives. The cost to the individual and to the economy must be considerable. Even more important, its effects could be long lasting. Domestic violence will influence the children—tomorrow's citizens—in those families and will influence their behaviour for years to come.
Some of the most sickening cases of domestic violence occur when committed against both mothers and children or against mothers in the presence of children. Quite apart from the fear that children experience and the danger to them if, as some do, they try to intervene, we should not be remotely surprised when that pattern of behaviour—like sexual abuse of children, as mentioned by another noble Baroness—is carried into the next generation.
All that underlines the case for early help and intervention, particularly for vulnerable families. It demonstrates the need for all school children to learn from an early age what good parenting involves and the importance of acceptable behaviour in all kinds of relationships. I should like to think that that is now happening within the recently introduced "citizenship" classes. But I remain somewhat sceptical about whether anything like enough curriculum time is being devoted to parenting and relationship-building skills. Management training routinely involves instruction on how to get the best out of employees. How much more important it is for children to learn early how best to manage relationships within their lives.
In addition, we now need greater emphasis on, and respect and support for, the important and undervalued role of parents; that is, as others have said, fathers as well as mothers. There is a great deal more that I would like to mention and probe, but I shall limit myself to three points. First, we are told that the Government's strategy involves three stages; namely, prevention, protection and justice, and support, all of which are admirable objectives. One example of treatment, which could be both preventive and supportive, if available when a violent offender arrives in prison, is training in social and life skills. But what percentage of those convicted of such offences

987
receive that form of basic education? Judging by the many complaints about the lack of resources for education in prisons, again I am not optimistic.
Secondly, the plan to criminalise breaches of non-molestation orders and to make common assault an arrestable offence will, one hopes, help to reduce concerns about danger to children and, indeed, mothers when a court order allows contact with fathers under so-called "strict supervision". From all accounts, this form of supervision varies considerably. No one wants to stop responsible fathers from seeing their children if, sadly, the parents are not living together, but children's organisations are worried that cases of physical harm and even death have resulted when supervision has been lax. Apparently, no figures are available nationally for the number of deaths that are believed to have resulted from situations of this kind. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, it would be most helpful if the Minister could advise us whether the Bill addresses sufficiently these concerns.
Thirdly, I turn to the new offence in Clauses 4 and 5 of causing or allowing the death of a child or vulnerable adult. This is, of course, a new legal concept for the United Kingdom. However, as we heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, the Law Commission has commented that a considerable minority of respondents to its consultation had reservations about these proposals. If not at this point, it is important that at a later stage we are told how much account has been taken of those reservations in the Bill.
I want to end as I began by reminding the House that the elimination of domestic violence should be seen as part of the campaign for equal opportunities. The campaign in the UK has made considerable progress over the past 30 years. However, the most basic of all relationships, that between men and women, can provide a real basis for equality of opportunity only if violence in the home is rejected by all of us as absolutely unacceptable behaviour in a civilised society. To adapt the words of the NSPCC's campaign, domestic violence must stop—full stop.
5.32 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I am delighted to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Howe of Idlicote, and I hope that she will avail the Committee on the Bill of her invaluable expertise.
I should like to begin by thanking my noble friend for the care the Government have taken to consult most, if not all, the people concerned with these issues. It is right to stress, as did my noble friend, the consequences of domestic violence: they are very wide. She was also right to stress the consequence in particular, although not exclusively, of the effect on homelessness. I know about that as a Member of Parliament for many years.
I also thank my noble friend for her outline of the Bill and for emphasising the value of the Committee stage in order to pursue further matters which need closer definition. I know that the House is agreed that this legislation is desirable, but I emphasise that, in certain respects, it is vital to peruse whether the
988
Government have sufficiently defined certain matters. In that respect, a Committee stage with very few votes, and none from the Back Benches, is of great importance.
The concept of ensuring that the victims of domestic violence are protected is long overdue and much to be welcomed. The same is true of the protection and support to be made available for the witnesses and victims of crime. For a long time, when I practised in the magistrates' courts from the 1950s right up until the 1970s, I thought that witnesses should be afforded protection of this kind. Counsel for the prosecution were often embarrassed by the determination of the defendant to menace witnesses so that they would not come forward. From my point of view, as someone who acted as a defence solicitor, I derived no satisfaction whatsoever from that situation. 1 often wondered whether the witnesses would ever recover from the threats uttered against them in the first place. I do not know; I never found out. But I do know that, palpably, justice was not done in those cases.
I am glad that, under the Bill, the victims of domestic violence will include couples in same-sex relationships as well as those couples who have never cohabited. However, a problem which does give rise to some concern relates to the way in which such persons are defined. That is a point which needs to be aired in Committee and possibly at later stages.
Turning to common assault, it is high time that it should become an arrestable offence. It will be open to the police to intervene and make an arrest, thus providing more protection for the victims of violence, which is to be applauded.
I should like to ask my noble friend to be more specific than has been the case in the past as regards how much money is to be made available to implement the proposals set out in the Bill. That is enormously important so far as concerns the police and the criminal courts because they have the task of enforcing injunctions. How much can they spend? Furthermore, are the Government satisfied that, first, there are sufficient people properly trained in that behalf; and, secondly, that there are enough people available to do the job properly?
I turn to the question of the criminal courts making restraining orders after acquittals. Is it right that the criminal courts should be responsible for imposing ancillary matters, which may be of the utmost significance—in no way do I deny that? But should they have the jurisdiction to do that? Will that not undermine, in the most salient way, the acquittal concerned? Should it not be for the family court to have that jurisdiction rather than the criminal court? In my view, it is vitally important that the personnel concerned, the judges and the lawyers, should have experience of the matters involved and, by no means least, of the children who might be affected. In my view it is clear beyond peradventure that victims do need to be protected, but I question whether the Government have gone about this in an entirely satisfactory way.
I also support the idea of a Commissioner for Victims and Witnesses, as does my noble friend Lord Desai. It is an invaluable provision that the

989
Government have advanced but will it extend to the families of victims of crime and witnesses? It is right that the provision should cover all witnesses—both defence and prosecution—in all kinds of proceedings, including inquests and civil proceedings, in the same way that it covers criminal proceedings at the moment.
I turn now to the victims' code that is envisaged. The complaints system which, via the commissioner, may be used by witnesses is wholly to be welcomed. Victims and witnesses should have an independent voice, and regrettably that is not always true at the moment.
I also support the idea of a parliamentary investigator who will be able to make complaints and raise issues, but I should like to know exactly how that is to be done. How is the parliamentary commissioner to function? Is there a risk that other methods of raising complaints will become otiose? Is there a risk, too, that there will be some confusion between victims of domestic violence, who have special requirements, and those of other victims of crime?
As I have intimated, I believe that the purposes of the Bill are wholly to be supported, but various important issues need to be broached in Committee without in any way endangering the main implications of what is at stake and which I and others fully support.
5.42 p.m.
Baroness Linklater of Butterstone: My Lords, our debate today reaches to the very heart of our society, the essence of which concerns the quality of people's lives within families. The family forms the foundation for all subsequent relationships, growth and development and should be a place of love and security. We endlessly talk about it for we are all members of families of one kind or another. Where a veil of secrecy descends, where understanding and the possibilities of succour and support become so hard, is where the desperate depths of domestic violence exist. It is a hugely important and enormously complicated subject for, as we know, domestic violence crosses all boundaries of class, age, income, sex, race or geography.
Last year a distinguished professional in the field described at a conference how her own father had survived years of violence to become a loving father himself but how his brother did not. The result was that the brother's son suffered mental collapse, tormented by the violence inflicted on him and troubled why his own father was so different from his uncle.
Even if we have been fortunate enough to have avoided such dreadful experiences, we all have various relationships within families, friends and the wider community which imbue us with attitudes which bear on our beliefs and our behaviour. As the Minister pointed out, one in five young men and one in 10 women believe that violence towards a partner is sometimes acceptable. Where has that been learnt?
The Bill is therefore to be welcomed in its aim of preventing and protecting victims and witnesses of violence as well as punishing perpetrators. Indeed, I would hope that the protection of those suffering from
990
domestic violence should be the absolute priority, taking precedence over the punishment of the offender. I welcome inter alia making common assault an arrestable offence and the new provision of joint liability in cases involving the death of a child.
The Bill suffers from weaknesses that I sincerely hope will be addressed—I am sure they will be—during its passage through your Lordships' House. For instance, the blurring of the criminal and civil law is concerning— as, for example, with the breach of non-molestation orders becoming a criminal offence and restraining orders being imposed following an acquittal in a criminal court. The former carries with it the risk that victims may be deterred by the criminalisation of a breach from seeking this useful remedy in the first place, particularly if the relationship is ongoing and where there is already the facility for attaching a power of arrest to orders where there is any suggestion of violence being an issue. However, I respect the support given to this provision by many women's groups and I am sure it will be discussed further. The latter risks the precious presumption of innocence if the order is imposed following an acquittal. Also, the adverse inference from a defendant's silence has serious fair trial implications and for the right of silence.
Lastly, there is the provision for a two-staged trial where multiple offences are being considered and where the second stage of the proceedings may be conducted in the absence of a jury, thus reviving the question of the limiting of trial by jury. I am confident that my infinitely more able legal colleagues will be addressing these issues in more detail from these Benches, but I would welcome the Minister's comments.
Domestic violence is defined in the Home Office White Paper Safety and Justice—and here I echo and totally agree with the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Desai—as:
"Any violence between current and former partners in an intimate relationship, wherever and whenever the violence occurs. The violence may include physical, sexual, emotional and financial abuse".
This is too vague. While the definition does now include same-sex relationships and people who have never lived together, there are a range of other relevant relationships such as forced marriages, honour killings, foster carers and, above all, those with children which are not specifically included. I understand that the definition in New Zealand is a very clear one. It might be worthy of some consideration by the Government, for clarity is all.
While children may not be a "partner" in the "intimate relationship" of the Government's definition, or the primary object of direct physical violence in many cases, they are still integral to the domestic setting in another kind of "intimate relationship". Ninety per cent of children are present or in the next room while violence occurs—and if that is not direct emotional violence I do not know what is.
Indeed, 70 per cent of children are at risk of direct violence from their mother's violent partners and, as we have already heard, one of the hideous statistics is that at least one child a week dies at the hands of their parents or carers. The Law Commission found that between 1998 and 2000, three children under the age of

991
10 were killed or suffered serious injury each week. Yet
in the Bill children are relatively invisible whether as
victims or witnesses of domestic violence.
There is now enough evidence to show the causal link between a significant number of children who suffer violence and who then become perpetrators of violence themselves, even before they are grown up. Here I should declare an interest as I am on the committee for Barnado's, Scotland. In Stirling we have a project called Matrix, working with a group of anti-social, disruptive boys aged between eight and
11 and already into offending. There we have found that 90 per cent lived with domestic abuse.
Another project, the Tayside domestic abuse initiative, gave me an example of work with a nine year-old boy who had real behavioural problems and had assaulted his teacher. His mother was being abused by his father. The assault happened on the day that his mother and sister were appearing in court for the equivalent of a non-molestation order. Some time later, when the court was considering allowing the father contact, the boy's behaviour seriously deteriorated once again and he was considered for exclusion. It emerged that the father had been back at the home, intimidating and violent. Thanks to the intervention of the worker, the boy remained at school, and the contact was not allowed by the court. Here was a child so at risk and completely vulnerable to the aggression experienced at home. Without professional intervention, he was trapped in a cycle of violence which was already being replicated in his own behaviour. He was both victim and aggressor.
It is the internalising of violent behaviour repeated into adulthood which is the desperate additional dimension where children are concerned. We must address it and do all in our power to break this vicious cycle of violence.
I, too, urge the Government to look carefully at including provisions on the face of the Bill around contact arrangements for children where the parent or carer is separated and violence has been suspected, and to require the sharing of all information on the situation between all parties so that the safety of all is guaranteed. The best interests of the child must come first, before those of the parent. My Tayside example demonstrates just how fearsome the prospect of contact with the father was in this case and how important the input of the support worker was, which resulted in contact being refused.
Finally, I commend an initiative in Montgomeryshire, where the family crisis centre also helps male abusers with, among other things, the possibility of crisis accommodation. Helping perpetrators to change goes to the dark heart of the problem. Punishment alone changes little. Sometimes the reality of a refuge for a woman who has taken the brave step of leaving the family home is that she finds herself in a situation which presents new terrible difficulties. If she has a son with her, he may not be allowed in. She may find the children harder to control in the new situation and end up going home with nothing but a confirmation of the abusive partner's accusations of her inadequacy. On the other hand, if he leaves for other accommodation, the suffering all round is
992
diminished and progress is possible. The fact that 23,000 children are accommodated in refuges each year and 110,000 need refuge support services speaks for itself. These refuges are a lifeline beyond price and are sorely stretched.
The words of the children speak volumes, and more eloquently than we ever can. One girl said:
"My friends don't want to listen anymore—it's been going on too long—I've become a broken record".
A boy said:
"I was petrified when Dad hit Mum and the police were called. I hate him … but I miss him too … I miss the things we did together".
He is 12.
I wish the Bill well. I also hope that some of its shortcomings will be constructively addressed so that its aims of protecting these children—who are our future—and preventing their suffering, are truly achieved.
5.54 p.m.
The Earl of Rosslyn: My Lords, I begin by declaring an interest as a serving police officer. During my 23 years' service, I have had operational responsibility for the investigation of domestic violence offences. More recently, when director of training for the Metropolitan Police, I have tried to provide a coherent programme of development and training for colleagues working in the field.
I think it is fair to say that during those 23 years the police service has developed a more thoughtful, creative and robust approach to confronting domestic violence. Regrettably, the cost of operational failure along the way has been very high, but today, police and other agencies generally collaborate more harmoniously and effectively. This has been a key determinant in the progress that has been made. The development of good practice is also more widely shared between forces. Indeed, that collaboration extends internationally, and I feel particularly proud that we were able to develop a project to train police officers and volunteers as far away as the Kirov district in St Petersburg. This led to the creation of the city's first domestic violence unit which, during its initial 48 hours, received more than 1,000 calls. I know that all involved felt hugely encouraged when the Prince of Wales went to see the project during his visit to the city in July.
Nearer to home, domestic violence, at its most serious, accounts for a quarter of all the capital's homicides. It accounts for one in four of all assaults in the United Kingdom, as we have heard, and for two murders a week. In the Metropolitan Police district alone, there were more than 100,000 recorded incidents in a year, and that in the context of the British Crime Survey estimate that only 25 per cent of domestic violence incidents are ever reported.
Domestic violence is, as we know and other noble Lords have said, not limited to any social group, although some individuals are particularly vulnerable. However, the wide range of abuse experienced by victims distinguishes it from attacks by strangers. In

993
addition to physical assault, threats and intimidation, domestic violence is often accompanied by other forms of humiliation and deprivation, typically repeated over many years and often incremental in scale and intensity. The long-term psychological effects on victims have been clearly demonstrated in research, likewise the impact of growing up in a household where domestic violence occurs.
With such distinct and corrupting features, it is surely right that tackling domestic violence should be a priority for the police service, as it is in London, and there is much in the Bill to assist us.
I particularly welcome the proposal to make common assault and breaches of non-molestation orders arrestable offences. The benefits to victims of a positive pro-arrest approach are increasingly understood, but at present the powers available to officers are somewhat ambiguous and often misinterpreted. The distinction between criminal and civil cases is also confusing for victims. These new measures would enable evidence to be gathered more effectively and for action to be taken to protect vulnerable victims at the earliest opportunity. The extensions proposed in Clauses 2 and 3 are equally welcome, enabling the police to protect the vulnerable without discrimination.
I also hope that a full register of civil orders and injunctions, referred to in the Government's White Paper, will in due course be added to the police national computer, allowing police officers to deal appropriately with incidents with the fullest available information, no matter where in the country the incident occurs. I wonder whether the Minister is able to say anything more on that point.
I also welcome the Bill's proposals for domestic homicide reviews. Working together with other agencies, the Metropolitan Police has, for the past two years, routinely reviewed domestic violence homicides. Such reviews seek to establish whether there are lessons to be learned from the case about how local professionals and agencies work together to safeguard victims of domestic violence. Those reviews demonstrate very vividly the impact of such crimes, beyond the horror of the offences themselves, with 30 per cent of such homicides being witnessed by children.
The sharing of information between agencies has emerged as a critical feature, and the reviews have enabled us to identify a range of high-risk factors associated with domestic violence. A clearer understanding of these, and their early identification, may allow for more effective interventions for which— returning to an earlier theme—appropriate training will be critical.
Finally, may I say a very brief word about the Government's proposal to create a parliamentary commissioner for victims and witnesses and for a code of practice to put their rights on a statutory basis? If I were to be mildly critical of the criminal justice process as a whole—and I acknowledge our own responsibilities here—it would be to reflect that it still too often seems to revolve around the offender and that there is still too little
994
community or victim focus. Although there have been positive developments, the process is still too often slow and expensive, concentrating on punishment and blame rather than repairing the harm that has been caused. More attention to the needs of victims is therefore warmly to be welcomed and is a worthwhile objective in itself. It is also an important principle to assert, since there is widespread evidence that many victims continue to feel alienated by the criminal justice process. But for all its imperfections, witnesses remain the bedrock of the adversarial process, and I am very pleased to see their interests and importance recognised in this way.
6 p.m.
Lord Borrie: My Lords, to my mind, personal violence is no less objectionable or criminal when it takes place in private than when it takes place in the street or in some other public place, and I welcome the points to that effect made by the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood. In many cases, domestic violence is more heinous because it is furtive and secretive and the perpetrator knows that generally there is no witness other than the victim. Moreover, the perpetrator often knows that he—and of course it is usually a "he"—can take advantage of the fact that if there is another witness besides the victim, that witness is a co-habitee who is too loyal, too scared or too financially dependent on him to give evidence against him.
Even when a small baby or child has been killed deliberately by one or other of two adults—and that sort of case has been referred to more than once in this debate—if it cannot be demonstrated which one is responsible, under the present law they will both be acquitted of murder or manslaughter. Clauses 4 and 5 create a new offence of causing or allowing the death of a child or vulnerable adult. The name of the offence is "familial homicide", which is a bit of a complicated mouthful. It will not be necessary to show which member of the household caused the death or failed unreasonably to prevent it.
The new offence, carrying a maximum penalty of 14 years, is much more appropriate and proportionate in many cases than the more modest charge of wilful neglect, which at present is the rather pathetic fall-back offence for prosecutors. However, I echo some of the points made by of the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, who spoke from the Opposition Front Bench. It will be important in Grand Committee to ensure that a blameless member of the household, who may perhaps be only 16 or 17 years old, is not improperly put at risk by Clauses 4 and 5.
Clauses 1 to 3 tighten up the law very properly on domestic violence, by making breach of a non-molestation order a criminal offence. Many noble Lords have welcomed the widening of the application of such orders to cover same-sex couples. Because the maximum penalty for the new offence is five years, the offence is arrestable, so there is no need any more for the victim to apply to a civil court for an arrest warrant for civil contempt. Although under the Contempt of Court Act 1981, the maximum penalty for contempt is two years, I recollect that prior to 1981 the common

995
law allowed an indefinite sentence to be imposed. Therefore, the penalty of two years is not a great legal tradition going back for centuries.
I welcome, as I am sure that many noble Lords do, the current view of the police as expressed by the noble Earl, Lord Rosslyn. Too often in the past, the police have regarded domestic violence as nothing to do with them. The fact that breach of a non-molestation order was termed a matter for the civil courts did not exactly help. The police could say that it was a civil matter. Now not only is breach of a non-molestation order to be a criminal offence, which I welcome, but the offence of common assault is to be given added seriousness by being made an arrestable offence in Clause 7. Most domestic violence cases are, at least at the beginning, common assaults. When the Bill is passed, the police will no longer have to satisfy the complex of conditions before they have a legal basis for making an arrest. As the Law Society says in its briefing, Clause 7 enables the police to intervene decisively—I like the word "decisively"—and so give greater protection to victims of violent domestic crime.
My noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis mentioned a more controversial topic. Under Clause 8, restraining orders may be made even when a court has acquitted someone of a charge of common assault, for example, but the court believes that such an order is necessary to protect someone from harassment. On the face of it, as my noble friend said, such an order seems inappropriate when there has been an acquittal. However, an acquittal is not necessarily a verdict of innocence. It means that the prosecution has not satisfied the heavy criminal burden of proof. A restraining order under this Bill, following an acquittal, may be made only if it is necessary to protect someone from harassment. Why should one object to that?
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that, since the 14th century, after an acquittal there has been a power to bind over a person to be of good behaviour? There is no breach of ancient principle.
Lord Borrie: My Lords, I am grateful for the noble Lord's intervention. I had that in mind when considering the subject this morning, although I did not introduce it into my speech.
The changes in the law that we are asked to give support to in the Bill are useful rather than major. This is not a grand criminal justice Bill such as we had in the previous Session—and I am sure that many noble Lords are glad of that. The Bill amends statutes from as recently as 1996 and 1997. Your Lordships are not usually keen on being asked to return to the same subject so frequently. However, experience of the courts, the police, lawyers and social workers shows that some strengthening of the remedies is needed and some tweaking of the procedures required. Sanctions need to be imposed in respect of domestic violence. Surely, therefore, it is right that following consultation and the 2002 White Paper we should seek not to make a meal of things but to improve the law as it stands, in considerable detailed directions, as the Bill does.
6.8 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I echo the broad support of my noble friend Lady Anelay and share her reservations. In the same vein, I share the reservations of the noble Baroness, Lady Linklater of Butterstone, who made a quiet, proportionate speech. I am grateful to the Minister for her invitation that we should co-operate on problems of definition. She shall certainly have my co-operation.
The concern is with the manner in which it is proposed to implement the variety of the good intentions in the Bill. On domestic violence, the breach of a non-molestation order under civil jurisdiction is to be dealt with as a criminal offence. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, pointed out— and this arises also in another context—the power to bind over has always been there in the criminal courts. As I see it, there is rarely any need to criminalise the position on one breach of one non-molestation order. If there is an element of persistent breach or injury, there may be such a need. But I think that, in principle, it is going to raise difficulties that are all too obvious, as neither the man nor the wife, when it comes to the point, wishes to indulge in a criminal prosecution. It is a practical problem. Apart from that, it is not necessary unless there is the persistent element, and that could be cured as a matter of drafting.
Clause 4 deals with causing or allowing the death of a child or vulnerable adult. All I wish to say to your Lordships is that there has to be some clarification of the burden of proof as drafted—it is not satisfactory as it stands—and also some consideration of the definition of a member of the household.
Clause 5 deals with the drawing of the inference where there is no case to answer. My noble friend Lady Anelay of St Johns pointed to the Joint Committee on Human Rights. At her request—and I would ask for the co-operation of the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland of Asthal, on this—the Joint Committee on Human Rights has been apprised that the Committee stage will be about 5th January. It is disposed to provide a provisional opinion, an opinion or to entertain correspondence on the incidence of the convention on Clause 5. That would be helpful when we came to debate in Grand Committee.
So much for Part 1. I turn to Part 2 and the restraining order on acquittal under Clause 8. The order is far too widely drawn. Indeed,
"anything described in the order",
could constitute a wholly unacceptable invasion of privacy, quite apart from the convention on human rights.
One then comes, in Part 2, to Clauses 9 to 12, which make a general provision of a procedural nature applicable to all multi-count indictments that inhibit the right to trial by jury save on sample counts. I quite agree that a way has to be found on how to deal with these multi-count indictments, but I respectfully suggest that this is not the way. For your Lordships' critical consideration, it is proposed to table an amendment in substitution for Clauses 9 to 12; that is, to introduce the procedure to be implemented by rules

997
of court for such matters to be dealt with by a judge of the High Court at a pre-trial hearing, subject to review by the trial judge, and in effect to provide a procedure to reduce complexity and length of trial on all multi-count indictments in the interests of due and expeditious dispensation of justice.
On implementation of these provisions, there should be introduced rules of court to ensure that appropriate directions on the form of the indictment and on other matters arising on the definitions should be given by the judge of the Crown Court at a pre-trial hearing, subject to review by the trial judge before arraignment. As part of that procedure, the judge of the Crown Court would have to consider these matters on the depositions before the hearing and give an indication of his views, on which he would receive representations and then make up his mind, not only on this point, but generally, because this is a general provision. I refer to severance of counts, directions for trials, designation of sample counts, directions of other counts to lay on the files, election whether to proceed on the conspiracy count or on substantive counts where there is a replication of the substance, and all sorts of ancillary directions which could produce and reduce the length and complexity of trial.
I turn, finally, to Part 3. Something has to be done about victims; but, indeed, it has to be done about victims where no complaint is made and where no person has been charged. I respectfully question whether the complex, tiered, bureaucratic structure of Clauses 13 to 25 is really at all appropriate and will serve the end to which we all wish it to be put, or whether indeed it is apt or requisite, with a commissioner in Schedule 1 and the advisory panel. I share the concern as it was put by the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood. She gave a shrewd warning of muddle and ineffective and inadequate consultation. I could not put it better than she did. She put it very moderately, but it was a very telling speech.
I come to the last issue that I shall raise, in Clause 15, which also concerns the victims. There are two limbs as regards the status of the code of practice. The two limbs, in context with legal efficacy, are self-contradictory. A code of practice means nothing unless you understand its status in terms of legal efficacy. So what you have is the old oxymoron. That, assuredly, will require attention.
6.20 p.m.
Baroness Greengross: My Lords, I, too, very much welcome the Bill. It deals with extremely important issues about which we all care deeply. I shall concentrate my remarks on domestic violence and the abuse directed against older people. I do so partly as a patron of Action on Elder Abuse, which I helped to set up in 1993 when I was director general of Age Concern.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Linklater, said when she spoke about domestic violence generally, abuse against older people can be physical, emotional,
998
psychological, financial, verbal, mental or sexual. It can lead to death but more often involves cruelty of varying degrees, and it is often of a domestic nature.
When caring for a frail older person at home, a carer can be marooned for 15 years or more in a job that will end only with the person's death, be that person a wife, husband, aunt, uncle, grandparent or whoever. This is a very difficult set of circumstances for anyone to cope with emotionally. It can lead to guilt, despair and unspoken wishes when, for example, a loved one with dementia becomes completely unrecognisable as the person he or she once was.
Vulnerable adults vary enormously. We all know that some can be delightful, charming and grateful for the care that they are given. However, others who displayed negative traits in their younger days may find that those traits become exaggerated as they get older leading to very much more demanding behaviour than anyone can cope with. They can make life hell for a carer. In those kind of cases action to prevent abuse is absolutely essential—real respite care, quality community care and so on. Just as important as this Bill is the need to ensure that care is there when it is needed and that it works for the benefit of the carer and of the cared person. However, when abuse occurs, domestic or not, we have to make sure that the law is there to protect the victim.
For many years it was thought that this type of abuse was very rare and restricted to certain groups and sectors in society, and that it never occurred among some minority groups, for example, for whom respect for their elders was part of their culture. However, research over recent years has shown that to be a fallacy. Unfortunately, it occurs among all ethnic and socio-economic groups and is much more widespread than was previously imagined.
Action on Elder Abuse estimates that between 500,000 and 900,000 older people suffer elder abuse, but we need more information on its prevalence and what proportion of this is domestic. For example, much of this abuse might be a continuation of domestic abuse in a family with a history of violence.
I therefore welcome the Bill as it is a firm step in the right direction, but I am a little unclear—given the Minister's understandable focus on women and children in her opening speech—how much attention in the genesis of this Bill was given to tackling domestic elder abuse. I hope that the Minister can reassure me.
I welcome in particular Part 1 of the Bill, which includes the new charge of unlawful killing of a vulnerable adult. In Clause 4(6), the definition of a vulnerable adult is very broad. While old age is not as such a defining factor of being vulnerable, age plays a significant part for some very old people as they are unable to remain independent. They no longer earn their keep and their resulting poverty, and their need for help in every-day tasks can lead, and often does lead, to their vulnerability. The important words here are,
"a person aged 16 or over … [who] is significantly impaired through physical or mental disability or illness".
Can the Minister confirm that I am right to assume that the Bill's provisions apply to people who have never cohabited but live together, for example, two

999
sisters, a mother-in-law with a son and so on? I welcome the provisions of Clauses 2 and 3 to extend coverage to same-sex couples and non-cohabiting people.
As I have said, vulnerability can be multi-faceted and is not just caused through mental incapacity. We have to do more to recognise elder abuse. I mean by this that we must educate the police, the Crown Prosecution Service, nurses and social workers, among others, to recognise it and tackle it. Frankly, we must also educate the general public that it is as unacceptable as child abuse, and seek to give its eradication as high a profile as that very worthy cause gets in the media. If even cases of alleged unlawful killing can go unpunished, is there any hope that we can deal with less serious but more common cases of elder abuse unless we tackle the matter? For example, a 78 year-old woman died five weeks after moving in with her son-in-law and was found to have a catalogue of 60 injuries—razor blade cuts, cigarette burns, bruises and so on. More than 2 years later no one has been charged with her murder.
I have one further question about Part 1. I am unclear what is the definition of a household. Will it, for example, cover domestic violence in sheltered housing, other communal living arrangements or long-term care homes, which become the home or domestic setting for a long-term resident? I wonder whether this might have to be spelt out more clearly in the Bill.
Part 3 of the Bill concerns support for victims. My worry here is that victims are often unwilling to make a complaint, or may not be able to do so due to their vulnerability. For example, the elderly mother of a violent son may feel that making such a complaint reflects on her failure to raise her child successfully. Another victim may fear reprisals. For example, a victim in sheltered housing may worry that the warden against whom she makes such a complaint could take revenge for that. In that respect I welcome the announcement of the new helpline. The helpline of Action on Elder Abuse has been running for six years and has taken more than 5,000 calls, of which less than one-third were from victims; the majority were from relatives and care workers. I also welcome the Victims' Advisory Panel. I hope that it will include experts from the field such as experts from the charity, Action on Elder Abuse.
In conclusion, I congratulate the Government on introducing this important Bill. I hope that it will play a role in helping to tackle domestic abuse of all kinds against people of all ages.
6.27 p.m.
Baroness Pitkeathley: My Lords, like all noble Lords who have spoken and like anyone who has been witness to the effects of domestic violence in their professional life, or indeed, in their personal life, I, too, welcome this Bill and commend the Government for being willing to tackle an issue which was for too long ignored in our society.
1000
As a social worker I must own my share of responsibility. Like other noble Lords, I remember when this issue, and, I am ashamed to say, that of sexual abuse of children, was a no-go area.
The results of turning a blind eye are all too apparent in the fear, injury and even death which vulnerable adults and children have suffered. Tributes are due not only to the Government for tackling these issues in the Bill but also to the many voluntary organisations that have long campaigned to obtain protection for victims and adequate punishment for the perpetrators of domestic violence.
Anyone who has been a social worker could tell many a tale of police who would not interfere in what was then called a "domestic" and of women who measured the worth of their husband by the fact that he did not ''knock her about" on a Saturday night in societies where physical abuse of women was commonplace. However effective we become at punishing those who are violent to their intimates—I believe that this Bill will be effective in that regard and, indeed, at closing loopholes in the law—our prime concern must surely be to ensure that violence is prevented in the first place. I want to raise issues in connection with that which I hope your Lordships will not think are sidetracks or diversions. I preface those remarks by reminding your Lordships— several speakers have alluded to this—that violence is not always of a physical nature. Verbal violence can also be extremely damaging to those who suffer or witness it.
Let me first mention violence within a relationship where one person is the carer for another—a matter so eloquently referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross. I welcome answers to the questions that she raised, although in the interests of time I shall not set them out again. As she reminded us, the issue of elder abuse is very well documented thanks to the splendid work carried out by organisations such as Action on Elder Abuse. The stress which can result from being a full-time or even a part-time carer is similarly now well understood thanks to the work of carers' organisations, such as Carers UK, and the attention given to carers by the Government.
We must always be mindful, however, of the fact that there is a huge difference between a carer temporarily losing patience and being angry or even lashing out, and sustained abuse over a long period. Similarly, there is a major difference between someone who is suffering from, say, dementia verbally or physically abusing their carer as a result of their condition, and someone who is habitually violent towards the person caring for them.
The research shows that, when there is repeated violence in a caring relationship, it is almost always a result of a pre-existing abusive relationship. All family caring takes place within a pre-existing relationship. If someone was not already the spouse, daughter or son, they would never become the carer, and we all know that family relationships are very variable in their history and quality. Would anyone be surprised if a daughter who has been sexually abused by her father as a child and is then expected to be his carer, carrying out the most intimate of personal tasks, used her new

1001
position of power over her father to perpetrate violence against him? There are women in that position; I have met many of them.
Can we really blame a wife who has been regularly beaten by her husband in the past if she is tempted to retaliate, either physically or verbally, now that he has Parkinson's disease? Indeed, it seems to me that the only wonder is that those situations do not occur more frequently and that most people, whatever the history of the relationship, care willingly and, when they can, with love, considering it their family and public duty to do so. Out of 6 million carers, who are often in the most stressful of situations, incidents of violence are in fact extremely rare.
What we have to do is ensure that no carer who has faced such problems is ever placed in the position of having to agree to be a carer when all his or her instincts rebel against it. All carers or would-be carers are now entitled to an assessment of their circumstances, and it should be part of that assessment process to review the relationship, including the wishes and needs of both the carer and the cared for. No carer should ever be expected to take on the role where the relationship is or has been an abusive one, and no person in need of care should be put in that position either. That will be an important step to reducing the risk of violence.
Aside from caring situations, we can help to reduce the incidence of domestic violence by ensuring that professionals who are likely to come into contact with the results of abuse at an early stage—nurses, health visitors, casualty officers and so on—are alert to the signs and see it as part of their treatment to provide information about protection and redress and, when it is enacted, the extra protection that the Bill will provide. The message that domestic violence is simply not acceptable, no matter in what circumstances it occurs, must be understood and spread by everyone. Changing society's attitude to violent behaviour of any kind is the key.
A further contribution can of course take place by changing the attitudes of those to whom we refer as victims. If such people can be more assertive, and if they can be encouraged to have more self-esteem and be more empowered, they will be less easily oppressed or allow themselves to remain in a risky situation. We must pay tribute to the tremendous work which has been done in that regard by voluntary and community organisations.
Another way to prevent violence to which I would like briefly to draw to your Lordships' attention is the use of new technology. Other noble Lords may be aware of it, but I have only just realised that personal alarms, long used to help older people maintain independence, are extremely useful in situations of potential violence and are widely used, as I understand it, by police forces throughout the United Kingdom. Personal alarms can alert the police or a professional response centre to potential dangers immediately, enabling the potential victim to feel safe and maintain independence.
1002
In short, I hope that we shall remember that the Bill and its effects need to fit into a programme of prevention of violence as well as tackling it when it occurs.
6.34 p.m.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws: My Lords, I wish to join others in congratulating the Government on the introduction of this legislation. I pay special tribute to the Solicitor-General, Harriet Harman, for her energy and commitment in driving the Bill so that we now see it coming through Parliament.
As many have said, domestic violence has been for too long a trivialised issue. It has not been treated like other crimes. For a very long time, many of us who have campaigned on it have felt that it has been a slow process to get to this stage, where there is wide acceptance that it is the root cause of many other social ills. If we could engage with domestic violence with proper seriousness, many other areas of crime, misbehaviour among children and problems of an emotional and psychiatric nature would be much lessened.
It is a long time since the idea of the domestic being something that took place behind closed doors and should be sorted out within the family has been spoken about. We no longer have that view expressed publicly, but there are residual feelings that, somehow, domestic violence is not the same as other crimes. The reason for that is that there are evidential problems, which have been referred to by others including the noble Lord, Lord Borrie. It is a difficulty when events take place in privacy between two persons, as that sets up problems in our courtrooms.
Even where there are witnesses, the problems concern people coming forward. If the witnesses are children, particularly very young children, the sense that it really would not be good for them to be introduced into the court process is accepted by us all. Neighbours very often simply do not want to get involved. I have often represented women in the courts who have been beaten in public places, and they will describe how others have rushed by rather than be in any way drawn into the event.
It is great that the taboo has been lifted. We now accept that domestic violence is a social ill that crosses all classes and is found in all communities. I work very closely with an organisation called Southall Black Sisters, which has done incredibly powerful work, particularly in the Asian community, around issues of domestic violence, which were unspoken for so long. In close communities there is often a sense of shame about even speaking out about domestic violence— about the ignominy that it brings on the community— so the community closes ranks to prevent discussion of the issue.
I welcome the fact that this legislation has broadened the debate, and that it has been very clear that it extends to all manner of couples and, indeed, might extend beyond that to violence within a household. I want to endorse what was said so powerfully by the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross.

1003
Like me, she is a patron of Action on Elder Abuse, which covers a serious area where abuse still takes place. It is very rarely spoken of, and I cannot think of many cases that come before the courts.
The reason that the police had difficulty with the cases for so long was often that women themselves would not want to testify against their partner. They would be prevailed on to withdraw their complaints, not only by their spouse—the man who was battering them, the father of their children—but by his relatives due to the effect that those complaints about the main breadwinner would have on the family as a whole. For those reasons, women would often retreat from the prosecution on which they had been encouraged to embark.
The Bill will help in expediting the processes so that those women—so often mothers of young children— do not have to go trailing between criminal and civil courts, trying to get injunctions but also to proceed with a prosecution, and that we do not have the terrible problem of delay that allows pressure to be brought to bear on women to withdraw their complaints.
So I very much support the pro-arrest approach that is at the base of the Bill. I believe that we need to have an arrest attached to common assault, so that the abuser can immediately be taken into custody to give the woman some space and evidence can be gathered from her and those around, without the problems of having to obtain a warrant. It is also important that a power of arrest is attached to the non-molestation orders which the criminal court can now make. That business of having to go from the criminal court to the civil court to obtain an order became a nonsense.
We have also had some distortion of the proposal that a judge might be able to make such an order when there has been an acquittal. I have often appeared in cases where someone is charged with a particular assault. For example, in one case I represented a man who was charged with pouring boiling fat over his wife. He accepted that he had been fighting with her; that there had been assaults upon her; and that they were screaming at each other. He said that he saw fat smoking in a chip pan on top of the cooker. He ran to take hold of the pan, but the handle was so hot that he let go, fat went everywhere and his wife was scalded. He said that it was not a deliberate assault. He was acquitted by the jury of that assault, I think rightly, but the history of abuse was still present. I think that it would have been right for the judge in those circumstances, given the man's own admission of those assaults, to have been able to make a non-molestation order based on the evidence of the other matters.
I would like to see that reflected in the press reports; that there would have to be evidence before: a judge could do that. He would not make such an order if there were an acquittal and no evidence of anything else. Only where there was clear evidence of a course of behaviour would a judge seek to rely upon it. Unlike my noble friend Lord Borrie, I do not believe that it is a question of a judge gainsaying the verdict of a jury with the words: "Well the jury may have acquitted you, but I think you
1004
were up to no good". It is not for a judge to do that, and that is not the intention of the Bill. The intention is that where there is other clear evidence of a course of conduct, the judge can act by making a non-molestation order based on proper evidence.
An issue that causes me some anxiety is standards of proof. We must be clear that before a person has his liberty removed, and where there has been an alleged breach of a non-molestation order, it is critical that there is a high standard of proof. We do not want to see people's liberty removed on the balance of probability. So the breach of an order would have to be made, I submit, on the normal criminal standard. I hope that that can be ironed out in Committee.
I am glad that there is to be a homicide review. I am unhappy about hearing provocation being described as something that is used only by men. I represent many women in homicide cases who are able to invoke the provocation defence and I would be reluctant to see that removed on the basis that it does not serve women well. In recent years, the law has developed in such a way that it can be positively used for battered women. The defence should be gender-free, if that is possible.
I turn to the new offence of allowing both parents in a household to be charged with a domestic homicide to prevent them both escaping conviction over the death of a child. While I understand the sentiment attached to the issue, like the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, I am concerned about one matter. A number of years ago, I represented a young woman who was on trial with her partner, both charged with causing the death of a baby. The little girl died in horrible circumstances. It was clear that she had been punched in the stomach and that there had been rupturing of internal organs. The young woman I represented was a battered woman. She was terrorised by a deeply violent, psychopathic man. Eventually, evidence came to light showing that she was so traumatised that she was unable, even at the police station, to feel free from his power and to speak of his behaviour. She was in such terror of him.
When someone is so tyrannical, there could be a failure of justice if both partners are automatically convicted on the basis that they remained silent. I hope that in Committee we will tease out that charge to allow for circumstances in which there clearly is domestic violence of such a level that one of the partners might feel incapable of speaking out.
It has become fashionable to say that domestic violence is perpetrated on men as much as on women, but I want to put that statement to rest. Of course there are women who are violent towards men and I am sure that there are men who live in terror of their female partner. But it is very rare indeed to find such a level of fear inculcated that a man ends up being incapable of freeing himself from a relationship. It is rare to come across men in that situation, but I am afraid that one comes across women I n that situation—and more often than people imagine. There is a sense of being paralysed and of suffering such a degree of helplessness that one cannot free oneself from a relationship. I have seen that with

1005
women clients on a number of occasions, but I do not believe that that level of terror is often created by women on men. It relates to the imbalance of power within relationships, and we all know from where that derives. It is to be hoped that in the new world we are creating, in renegotiating relationships, we will see much less of that, but I want to put paid to the idea that there is an equality of arms in this area. There is not.
The terrible pain and anguish felt by children on seeing parents involved in violence has been spoken to by many in the Chamber. We heard the noble Baroness, Lady Linklater, speak with such humanity about the way in which children suffer. We also heard my noble friend Lady Pitkeathley speak of people's complicated feelings about loving those who abuse them. The complicated nature of the human condition can allow those things to live in the same heart so that you can hate the person who abuses you or your mother, yet at the same time care for that person and want him or her still to be a part of your life. That is a problem that we face in the courts in dealing with domestic violence. It is why the problem is so difficult. It is not an easy path to go down. It is not exactly the same as all other crimes, but we must try to get it right.
Finally, while I pay tribute to the Government for all the good stuff, I feel that yet again we are seeing the rearing of that ugly head—a despising of the ordinary person who performs his role on a jury. The Government seem unwilling to see the benefits of jury trial and we are again seeing the salami slicer coming at juries, even in this Bill. I therefore ask them to look again at the part of the Bill which suggests that it would be enough for a jury to try a sample charge and for the judge to deal with everything else thereafter. It is a recipe for clearing the books and the situation that many lawyers involved in criminal trials can describe. When someone is brought before the courts charged with burglary, everyone assumes that every burglary that has taken place in the area must be down to him. The difficulty is that such assumptions are readily leapt to.
The pressure on the police in respect of clear-up rates is so considerable that this part of the Bill may well be misused. Therefore, I ask noble Lords to examine the Bill very carefully and to consider some of the reservations expressed by others in this House, which suggest that there must be better ways to deal with the matter. I also hope that we may see an end to attacks on the jury system.
6.50 p.m.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, the Bill has been warmly welcomed on all sides of the House. First the Minister and then the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, agreed that legislation is only part of the solution to the problem of domestic violence. Amnesty International expressed it very well when it said it believed that women and children who are affected by domestic violence deserve the very best protection, support and access to justice that the Government can provide. It said that this legislation should be a starting point and added:
"We welcome the Bill but believe that it must be supplemented by a broad, comprehensive and fully resourced national strategy to eliminate violence against women".
1006
I believe it was with that sentiment in mind that the noble Baroness, Lady Gibson of Market Rasen, called for more resources. My noble friend Lady Linklater said that preventing violence and protecting a partner and children takes precedence over punishing the offender—a sentiment with which, somewhat surprisingly but welcome none the less, the noble Earl, Lord Rosslyn, agreed.
Like the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, my experience in this area is in domestic homicide. However, for about 13 years earlier in my career, both as a solicitor and as a young junior counsel, I was concerned with domestic violence. I found that its typical cause was the desire of one partner— sometimes influenced by drink or drugs and usually through feelings of inadequacy—to exercise power and control over his partner. It would manifest itself not only as physical attacks but also as isolating and humiliating the woman, reinforcing her sense of worthlessness and threatening her and her children with physical violence. Then, by contrast, and in an attempt to make things better, the partner would make himself seem vulnerable with comments such as, "If you leave me, I'll kill myself or "I've been a real bastard with you but take next weekend off with your friends". Having persuaded the partner to remain, the cycle of violence would continue. In my experience, that is a typical case.
I shall direct my remarks, first, to access to justice. As my noble friend Lady Walmsley reminded us, today abused children are given considerable support through child protection units. They and their families are told how cases are progressing and they are supported through the trauma of court proceedings, which are generally fast-tracked. By contrast, a woman who has been the victim of domestic violence makes a complaint but then becomes lost in the system because cases are not fast-tracked. They take time to be heard, and courts do not offer the same level of support in their procedures. Unless complainants have the network of support to which the noble Lord, Lord Desai, referred, they develop a sense of helplessness.
Some police officers have regarded a "domestic" as low-level crime and have not understood domestic violence at all—in particular, why abused women return to their abusers and refuse to support criminal proceedings. I was delighted to hear the noble Earl, Lord Rosslyn, say that police attitudes are beginning to change. The reasons that women suffer such pressures were outlined very movingly by my noble friend Lady Walmsley.
The difference between civil and criminal proceedings is that the former are victim-led—that is, the victim institutes the proceedings and controls how they progress with the assistance of legal advice—and criminal proceedings are evidence-led, whereby the police and the CPS institute and control the proceedings and are entitled to act, regardless of the victim's views. As referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, the fundamental issue raised is the degree to which the state steps into a relationship to protect a victim, sometimes at the cost of destroying that relationship altogether.

1007
However, domestic violence is not a private matter; it is a matter for the state. The state must become involved because of the effects upon the family in the broad sense—upon the children. Very frequently, abusers are adults who were abused themselves as children, as, again, my noble friend Lady Linklater pointed out. However, legislation which tilts the balance towards greater state involvement must be carefully examined, and we hope to do so during the passage of the Bill.
Any assault or breach of the peace is already a police matter and may lead to criminal charges. But the proposal in Clause 1 is for the Crown Prosecution Service to bring a breach of the molestation order already made in the family court on the civil burden of proof. The suggestion is that it should bring that breach before magistrates or before the Crown Court; in other words, that there should be a cross-over from civil to criminal proceedings. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, in querying that proposal and, for the first time that I can remember, I disagree with the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, on this issue. I believe that such matters are better dealt with in the civil court.
At present, a breach of a non-molestation order is treated as a contempt of the civil court. However, that is the court that made the order. The application will have been heard initially in the family court and will be heard again, often by the judge who made the order and who will be fully appraised of all the issues which caused the order to be made in the first place, including those of contact with the partner and the children and so on. The standard of proof that the victim must satisfy is the civil one the balance of probabilities. I am not sure that I agreed with the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, when she said that a breach of a molestation order must be proved beyond reasonable doubt. I believe that the civil balance is sufficient.
The Government's purpose in making the breach of a molestation order—a civil order—a criminal offence is not clear from the White Paper, Safety and Justice. Is it a matter of speed? The decision to prosecute for breach of a non-molestation order must go through the police to the Crown Prosecution Service and the criminal court must address the family problem afresh. We learn from paragraph 11 of the White Paper that the CPS is against the setting up of specialist domestic violence units within its own organisation. Therefore, the CPS does not want that burden.
Will things go faster than if the victim, with the assistance of a lawyer, takes the matter to the civil court? Perhaps the idea is to utilise the specialist domestic violence courts. They were promised in the Labour Party manifesto and have been piloted in Leeds, the West Midlands and west London. However, so far, those courts have dealt only with criminal offences and not with molestation orders and so on. If one changes from one system to another, one must carry over the papers, the evidence and the information about the family from the civil court to the magistrates' court. Instead of dealing with a professional judge, who must give his reasons for his decision and who bases them upon the evidence that he
1008
hears, the magistrates, who may not be as well trained in domestic issues as the professional judge, will give a simple answer as to the solution. Paragraph 51 of the White Paper may give a clue. It is said that if the proposal is taken forward, it will free up the county courts. But that is simply administrative convenience and has nothing to do with victims.
Perhaps the Government's thinking is that in the criminal courts one can take proceedings even if the victim is against that and does not want the family to be broken up. I do not know that the state should step in and say, "You have been knocked about; your family ought to be broken up". Some decision making has to be left with the victim of domestic violence. In its response to Part 3 Refuge states:
"Although Refuge supports a vigorous prosecution policy, compelling women to give evidence should not be an unintended consequence of this action".
It would not be right to drag an unwilling partner into the criminal court to give evidence. Other agencies have suggested that women may be unwilling to use the criminal process in any event to enforce a civil order.
Perhaps the Government want to take such cases into the criminal courts to set out a scale of punishment. Five years is the sentence proposed for conviction on indictment. As the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, pointed out, at one time punishment for contempt of court was entirely at large. It was for the court to decide the fine or the length of imprisonment to be imposed, but about 10 years ago that was pulled back to a maximum of two years. However, this Bill could usefully give powers to the civil court to extend the period of sentencing and, more particularly, to order community sentences that might include parent relationship-building skills, lectures or talks or whatever in that field, to which I believe the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, referred.
Is the Government's purpose to make arrest easier? Where there is any suspicion of violence in any case, the county court judge adds a power of arrest to the order. That did not happen in the past. In the old days the non-molestation order or its equivalent had one strike; there was no power of arrest the first time, but when the order was breached the power of arrest was added. But that has gone. I have the figures from the Judicial Statistics annual report of 2002 and in that year 19,208 non-molestation orders were granted by the county court with a power of arrest and in only 2,855 instances was no power of arrest attached.
There have been calls from all sides that a power of arrest should automatically be attached to a non-molestation order, which would solve the problem. If that happens I see no reason why we should introduce the concept of making common assault an arrestable offence. The power in the Bill to make common assault an arrestable offence is not limited to domestic violence, but covers the whole shooting match—65 per cent of the criminal cases that are reported to the police, common assault or violence. If it were made an arrestable offence that would apply to all those cases.
In 2002, 8,722 occupation orders were made in the county courts with a power of arrest and only 1,588 were made without that power. An occupation order

1009
is an order by which one partner can prevent the other partner coming into the house. Conditions can be laid down as to who is to occupy the house, what contact there is to be with the children and so on.
Curiously enough, breach of an occupation order will not, under the Bill, become a criminal offence, so it will still be treated as a contempt of court. I believe that the Government should answer why they have a cross-over from civil to criminal proceedings for non-molestation orders but not for occupation orders. No doubt we shall hear about that from the noble Baroness, if not today certainly in Committee.
If the powers of arrest are confusing to police officers, as the noble Earl, Lord Rosslyn, suggested, that is a matter of education. If it is confusing at the moment, what will it be like when a police officer does not know whether he is dealing with a civil or a criminal matter? I cannot see that that is going to make it simpler for the police to operate.
I turn to the new offence of causing or allowing the death of a child. I declare an interest: in one particular case that has been referred to in all the press releases from the Home Office in relation to this matter I happened to defend the husband. As both the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, and the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, have pointed out, Clause 4(1)(d) requires to be examined very closely because a partner living in the same household is liable to be convicted of such an offence if he or she fails to take reasonable steps to protect the vulnerable victim. What is meant by "reasonable"? If a battered partner, the kind of client to whom the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, referred, or a mentally unstable partner is involved, is he or she to be found guilty of this new offence because he or she does not match up to the standards of the reasonable person? We are back to the problem of provocation about which I shall wait eagerly to hear from the Law Commission.
The fundamental problem about provocation has always been comparing the action of a particular defendant with that of the objective, reasonable person. Does the word "reasonable" in Clause 4(1)(d) mean that one must ask whether a particular person has acted reasonably or are we to carry out the difficult comparisons that have plagued the courts in relation to provocation, with which I have—some of you may have forgotten—wearied your Lordships in relation to other Bills?
Clause 5(1) is very odd. It suggests that a defendant could be found guilty, not just of this new offence, but of murder or manslaughter although the evidence, apart from his or her failure to give evidence, would not sustain the case. That means that there is no case to answer, but because the defendant does not give evidence, there is a case to answer. A jury could think that a defendant did not give evidence, so that can be taken into account in looking at what otherwise would not amount to a case. That is totally contrary to Article 6 of the European convention.
The Explanatory Notes point out that it is subject to the safeguard in Section 38(3) of the 1994 Act which explicitly states that a defendant may not be convicted
1010
solely or mainly on the basis of an inference drawn from silence. We now have a provision that conflicts with Section 38(3) of the 1994 Act. Unless Clause 5(1) is made explicitly subject to this limitation, it is unenforceable or at least it is certain to go to Strasbourg. It is not in accordance with the views of the Law Commission on this topic.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, and the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, have pointed out, the provision that leaves the determination of a case to answer until the close of the defence case on a charge under this clause is all right, but I am dubious that it should extend to all cases with a domestic element of murder or manslaughter. How would leaving the question of a case to answer in a domestic case of murder or manslaughter until the end of the defence case work? What is meant by a domestic element to murder or manslaughter? How would one define it or distinguish it? The problems of Clause 5 at the moment are insuperable. From these Benches we shall do our best to overcome those difficulties.
I do not wish to weary your Lordships any further at this time. I am sure that I shall do so a great deal more in Committee. We give a general welcome to the aims of the Bill, but clearly there are matters within it that require much further consideration and examination.
7.9 p.m.
Viscount Bridgeman: My Lords, this has been a most interesting and informative debate. I thank all noble Lords who have made contributions. It is a reflection of the experience which this House commands that we have had expert contributions from the Bar, the police and social workers, to name only three.
I echo the words of my noble friend Lady Anelay: there is much that we can welcome in the Bill. New legislation on domestic violence has been a long time coming. We have heard from all sides of the House moving, and in some cases personal, accounts of the pain and suffering, both physical and emotional, that is caused by domestic violence. The victims have to deal not only with physical threats—although 62 per cent of domestic violence incidents were reported to have ended in injury, with 18 per cent requiring medical attention—but also with the emotional harm such incidents can cause and which can have such long-term effects. Such emotional harm can extend to any children who may be involved. It can have a great effect on their future relationships and can affect a whole new generation.
The Bill contains some very sensible provisions on important topics, such as violence in the home, familial homicide and creating better support for victims. However, predictably, there is much that we will wish to probe, analyse and in some cases change. I look forward to the Committee stage when we can discuss our concerns in detail.
My noble friend Lady Anelay has given notice of our particular concerns on the practicability of Clauses 4 and 5. We are privileged to have had the benefit of the practical court experience recounted by the noble Lord,

1011
Lord Thomas of Gresford, in respect of Clause 4. But we shall certainly return to the subject in some detail in Committee.
Domestic violence has been a terrible problem for many years. It is hard to determine how much actually goes on as so much of it is unreported. However, according to the British Crime Survey of 2001-02, there were between 518,000 and 752,000 incidents of domestic violence in 2001, which means that the problem affects a large number of families. Interestingly, the Family Law Bar Association points out that,
"violence in the home should be considered to be a more serious matter than violence, of an identical level in terms of force or injury, outside the home".
As we heard, the Bill will increase the powers of the police to deal with domestic violence. Both the Bar and the police find domestic violence a most distressing and frustrating offence. I am sure that they will welcome the increased powers given under Clause 7. My noble friend Lady Seccombe has drawn attention to the need for the police to be trained in the additional powers of arrest granted by that clause. However, I was reassured by the confidence expressed in this respect by the noble Earl, Lord Rosslyn, with his police background.
I turn towards the later stages of the Bill and Part 3. We on these Benches recognise the need for a more focused approach to the victims of crime in this country. The Audit Commission's report on victims, which was published earlier this month, stated that last year around one-quarter of the population of England and Wales were victims of crime. That is a staggering number of people who can now be classed as "victims".
The summary in the Home Office publication, A New Deal for Victims and Witnesses: National Strategy, published in July this year, advanced four points. They are:
"very few victims see 'their' offender brought to justice; victim satisfaction with the police has gone down from 68 percent in 1994 to 59 per cent in 2002-03; fewer than a third of all victims feel they have been kept well informed by the police; and in many parts of the country, people will not report a crime—either as victim or witness—because of fear of reprisals, or because of disengagement from the system.
The Audit Commission has called for national targets to be set across the sectors for the care of crime victims and witnesses after research showed that only one in 10 crimes results in conviction and two out of five witnesses said that they would not want to repeat the process of reporting crime.
Those statistics show that many victims will be unhappy with the criminal justice system and need strong support from the criminal justice agencies. We need to ensure that the provisions in the Bill actually address the needs of victims rather than just being another layer of bureaucracy, to which they will be subject.
I say a brief word about the code of practice. Your Lordships will be aware that there is a great temptation to use codes of practice in legislation as a "cop out" to avoid having to address difficult issues on the face of the Bill; I detect some scepticism from my noble friend
1012
Lord Campbell of Alloway in that respect. I very much hope that that is not the case. I welcome the details of the proposed working of the code of practice in Clauses 13 and 14. That of course is set out in considerable detail in the code of practice itself, which I must say only came into my hands this morning.
Nevertheless, in Committee we shall be subjecting these provisions to close scrutiny. We will ask how the new commissioner will operate; how he will interact with the other commissioners; and what real powers he will have to make changes. The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, made an important point about relations between the commissioner for victims and violence and the proposed children's commissioner. The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, spoke of some practical considerations that need to be addressed in setting up the post of commissioner.
The Bill, effective though I hope it will be, must not deflect all those concerned—government and agencies— addressing the basic causes for domestic violence which caused the Bill to be needed in the first place, a point made in an impressive contribution by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, who quoted previous speakers on the subject.
We support the idea that attitudes towards victims need to change in order to make a real difference. Victims need more consultation and feedback at every stage along the criminal justice process. Many noble Lords have spoken on that point. The noble Earl, Lord Rosslyn, with some frankness, acknowledged the part the police need to play. The noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, also particularly made that point.
We must address the culture to which both the Minister and my noble friend Lady Anelay referred— the culture of acceptance; a culture called into question so movingly by the account given by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans.
In conclusion, there is so much to be welcomed in the Bill, but with all the proposed additional support for victims, we must not raise their hopes only for the Bill to prove disappointing and ineffective in its working. That is the challenge posed for this House in the first stage of the Bill's passage through Parliament. However, the Minister can be assured that we on this side will do all we can in Grand Committee and in later stages to ensure that the Bill leaves this House as an effective instrument to address this serious and tragic problem.
7.18 p.m.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I take the opportunity to thank the noble Viscount for his support and indeed every noble Lord who has participated in the debate. I am basking in the warmth of approval that has been showered upon the Bill from every part of the House, not least from these Benches and those who have spoken behind me. I hope noble Lords will forgive me if I particularly thank my noble and old friend Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, for the fact that on this occasion she joins me with full voice. We have always walked together; I am glad we are back in step.

1013
Nothing that I say detracts from the passion with which several noble Lords have spoken about the iniquitous nature of the offence. I join my noble friend Lady Gibson, the noble Baronesses, Lady Linklater and Lady Walmsley, and others who made it absolutely clear that domestic violence is no respecter of race, class, religion, ethnicity, region, occupation or anything else. It is a breach of trust, as was so clearly said by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley. It disables those who are put under its spell. Most iniquitous of all, as several noble Lords—not least, latterly, the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford—said, it produces more in its image. Those children who are either abused or watch their parents abuse can go on to abuse themselves. The pernicious nature of that ill has been rightly recognised by all noble Lords who have spoken about it.
I also tell the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans that the Government recognise that it will take the efforts of all good men and women if we are to succeed in overcoming the adverse effects of that terrible behaviour. We need the spiritual and the non-spiritual; those of faith and those of none. We welcome the engagement of the faith communities and all others who will willingly take up arms with us against that terrible ill.
I mentioned the cyclical effect of the offence, but I must also make clear that, as I said in opening the debate, we want the blanket of comfort and succour that we provide not to be limited to the Bill but spread much more broadly. Many noble Lords will know that we have an inter-ministerial committee on domestic violence, which I am privileged to chair, and which involves the Department of Health, the Department for Education and Skills, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, the Department for Constitutional Affairs, the Solicitor-General—who has been rightly praised for her great efforts on the issue of domestic violence—the Home Office, which I represent, the Welsh Assembly, the Department for Work and Pensions, the Northern Ireland Office and the Department of Trade and Industry. All of us are working together to try to thicken and strengthen the net to ensure that we catch those who need our support.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, for her collaborative approach and the warmth of her support and reassure her that we expect careful scrutiny of the provisions because we want to get them right. We think that they are right now, but things can always be improved and we are open to any such justifiable improvement. We believe that the provisions for familial homicide are ECHR-compatible and will of course explore the reasons why we say that in greater detail in Committee.
I turn directly to some of the issues raised later in the debate. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, in supporting the concerns of the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, went on to comment on how we will deal with the criminalisation of the breach of non-molestation. I should make plain that the Bill retains
1014
the civil enforcement route for non-molestation orders. So victims who do not want to go to the police will still be able to use the civil route. The Bill also retains undertakings for parties who do not want to pursue cases through civil orders.
I hope to give considerable pleasure to my noble friend Lady Kennedy of The Shaws by saying that we believe that proceedings for breach of a non-molestation order, if held in a criminal court, will be to the criminal standard of proof. My noble friend was right to make plain that many cases, at the end of the trial—the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, mentioned that there could be a bind-over—give rise to justifiable evidence from which, if it had been produced before a civil court, an injunction could flow in accordance with civil standards. Indeed, sometimes such cases are also proved beyond reasonable doubt. The noble Lord will know that the more serious the allegation, even if the civil standard applies, the weightier the proof needed to satisfy the court. So sometimes the difference between the civil and criminal standard can be very small.
We seek to consider matters from the victim's point of view and ensure that the victim gets as much support as the victim is entitled to receive without putting the victim through the whole process of going to another court on another day at another time. Noble Lords will know that there is sometimes a hiatus between the end of the case and the time when the victim can go to another place to get a civil order. Regrettably, sometimes, during that period further offences are committed.
I shall say a word about breach. The reason why it is so important for common assault to be arrestable is that often, as the noble Earl, Lord Rosslyn, made clear, when the police attend an incident, a common assault is witnessed, which is not arrestable. So the wife or woman involved—regrettably, as my noble friend Lady Kennedy made clear, it is usually a woman— cannot get immediate relief and respite, which is what we seek.
To answer the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, about making a power of arrest attached to each injunction, the reason we have phrased the provision as we have is further to assist the police. Again, we will have a register of civil orders, so that when the police go to an address they will know that there is an injunction relating to that family. If a common assault is being committed in breach of an injunction, the police will be able to act. So the clarity for which officers have been asking for a long time will exist.
It is right for us to remember the wise words of the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, when she said that this is an equal opportunities issue as well as an issue of power. Many women feel under the power of their husbands and at the very instance at which they need greater succour, they may say to the police officer, "No, no, no; I wish nothing to be done", but the officer may have been present when the breach was committed and be able to arrest none the less.

1015
I take on board what the noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, said about the nature of relationships and that people may change their minds, but we must be absolutely clear that fights take place in the home that would never be tolerated if they were committed between two strangers on the street. That is a public issue.
Regrettably, we know that men who abuse can escalate that abuse as they move, like a butterfly, from one women to another. It is a tragedy that sometimes when a man kills his latest partner, we subsequently hear that there was a long line of women who were ritually abused by him before he finally killed. So it is not simply a personal choice for an individual woman: it may have many consequences for the women who may replace her in that man's affections. So that must be dealt with.
I turn to the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross. I know that we have emphasised the issue of domestic violence between partners, but I reassure her that elder abuse is much in our minds as a significant issue because of individuals' vulnerability. Her comment on the nature of the relationship, which was reinforced by the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley—that it was a wonder that many more carers did not behave and respond aggressively—has been taken on board. The noble Baroness will know that the Family Law Act 1996 already covers sisters and people living together but not cohabiting. Under the Act they are already recognised as associated persons and are therefore eligible for non-molestation orders. Relatives are also covered. That is a broad definition that could offer protection to many elderly people.
The noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood, supported the provisions, for which I warmly thank her, and raised issues about the definition of domestic violence, asking why it had been left as it was. The Government recognise the difficulties caused by the different definitions used by the Home Office and other key agencies. We are working with partners towards a single definition. We will ensure that the definition is as broad as possible and that it takes on board the responses that we have received on the consultation paper, including those from a wide range of minority communities. However, a statutory definition of domestic violence is not needed for the purposes of the Bill, and it would be difficult for any statutory definition to reflect the breadth of domestic violence and to keep it up to date, as it will change. If we look back at what we classified as domestic violence even 10 years ago, we know that we have advanced. We need that breadth to ensure that all are covered.
The noble Baronesses, Lady Thomas of Walliswood and Lady Seccombe, were right to say that training for domestic violence agencies would be important. We recognise that. Training for all agencies involved with victims of domestic violence, including the police, is of great importance. The Government will review all the domestic violence training available across the agenda and the professional bodies with a view to ensuring a more consistent, multi-agency approach.
1016
The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, and others teased me gently about the report on provocation. We expect the final report in late spring and wish to take what it says very seriously. There has been an open debate—the proper type of debate that we should have—on the definition of provocation. The noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, is absolutely right to say that the defence of provocation is used not only by men but by women who have been ritually battered by their partners. We want whatever we come up with to be an improvement on our current position, not a regressive act. We shall therefore look carefully at the recommendations, considering all the different permutations and the other defences to reduce murder to manslaughter. The Law Commission may suggest a hybrid. Some noble Lords asked whether self-defence should be changed. We shall look at all those matters. We wish simply to be as open as possible and to craft something that better meets the needs that we have identified. We make no commitment on change because we simply do not know.
The noble Baronesses, Lady Thomas and Lady Walmsley, and, I believe, my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis discussed the link between the Children's Commissioner and the Commissioner for Victims and Witnesses. We understand and agree that the two roles must be dealt with very carefully, and that the commissioners will have to work together across government to ensure that both effectively meet the needs of children affected by crime, either directly or through witnessing it at home.
I commend the comments made by my noble friend Lady Gibson of Market Rasen. In her very thoughtful presentation she outlined how we have developed since the 1960s. I pay tribute to the work done by individuals such as the noble Baroness, and in the unions, to make clear that employers can, and should, take the issue very seriously—fortunately, many employers do. We welcome the fact that my noble friend raised the issue, as the Government are very keen that the opportunities presented by the workplace to prevent domestic violence should be pursued. We shall introduce throughout the Civil Service guidance for all government departments.
The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, mentioned the right of reasonable chastisement. The Government have consulted on where the line has been drawn on that. The noble Baroness should know that that has been an ongoing consideration. We do not propose to change that line at present, but I can reassure her that we will take on board her comments on how children are treated and the need to set them proper examples of good behaviour.
The noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, and my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis raised the issue of funding. Many have said that the proposals are all well and good but asked about the money. The Government are making a major investment in domestic violence this year. We are investing £84 million, including £19 million from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and the Housing Corporation, towards refuge provision. The Home Secretary also announced in February a further £14 million over the next three years. This year we have

1017
provided £30 million to Victim Support to deliver services to victims and witnesses. That helps to support almost 1.5 million victims of crime and more than 300,000 witnesses of crime each year. The Government's annual grant to Victim Support has more than doubled in recent years, from £11.7 million in 1996–97 to £30 million in 2003–04.
The noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, raised the issue of devolution of funding for witness services. It is not just about taking away money from the centre in terms of victim support, but about taking money away from the Home Office and putting it into the hands of local criminal justice boards, which will be in a much better position than we are to know what is needed locally and to ensure that it is delivered. We will pilot the devolution of witness services funding in four areas next year: Lancashire, Greater Manchester, Essex and Surrey. Subject to the success of those pilots, we shall roll out nationally in 2005–06. Devolution of funding for victim support services will probably be allowed to happen from 2006–07, but no decision has been taken on the date. We will review how that progresses.
I have already commented on and, I hope, commended the contribution by the noble Earl, Lord Rosslyn. He asked how we would deal with the civil orders register. The police will have on the register information about names and addresses, but we are most keen to ensure that they can monitor serious, violent offenders. The civil orders go through the civil courts and are not always directly linked to a crime. The register of civil orders will improve the protection of domestic violence cases that go through the civil courts. Around 14,000 non-molestation orders are made each year. The more dangerous offenders are already registered on the violent and sex offenders register (VISOR) when they have been convicted of specific violent and sex offences and given a sentence of 12 months or more. That covers the majority of domestic violence offenders, who will be convicted of offences such as actual bodily harm and wounding with intent. VISOR gives the police a way of risk-assessing.
The local initiatives in various areas are working very well. Fulham and Hammersmith, for instance, runs the project Standing Together, as part of which information is being collated. We are seeking to address the issue of data protection, because we are working together to get one hymn sheet from which all departments can sing in harmony, it is to be hoped, without finding any discord. We hope thereby to strengthen the net.
I hope that I have answered the main thrust of noble Lords' comments. I look forward very much to working together in Committee, as I am sure that we will be able to fashion something that is not only fit for purpose but will better protect the individuals whom we seek to serve.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Grand Committee.

Consolidated Fund Bill
Brought from the Commons endorsed with the certificate of the Speaker that the Bill is a money Bill, and read a first time.

European Union and the United States (EUC Report)
7.41 p.m.
Lord Joplingrose to move, That this House takes note of the Report of the European Union Committee on A Fractured Partnership? Relations Between the European Union and the United States of America (30th Report, Session 2002–03, HL Paper 134).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I would like to add a personal note before I begin. Having been a member of Sub-Committee C since it was first instituted and its Chairman for the past three years, and having now been rotated off that committee, I would like to tell all noble Lords who sat with me on that Committee over the years how grateful I am for all their support and all the interest that we shared. My noble friend Lord Bowness, who is here, is taking over that committee. I wish him all the best of good fortune for the future.
Turning to the report, the committee was grateful to Sir Michael Quinlan for all the wisdom and experience that he showered on the committee. It served to give this report a great deal more authority than it would have had without his help. Finally, I thank Audrey Nelson, our Clerk, who came to the House only a year ago. I have never seen a clerk take to the water like a duck as she has. She has been outstanding.
With regard to the report, I am sure that I speak for the whole committee when I say that we are extremely grateful for the kind comments it has received. I am thinking of the Government's response, which has been published, and particularly of the kind words quoted by my noble and learned friend Lord Howe of Aberavon in last week's debate.
I can do no better than begin by repeating the words that start our report:
"The European Union's relations with the United States are at their lowest ebb for at least a generation".
I was interested to see last week in the publication European Voice that those sentiments were exactly echoed by the former United States ambassador to the European Union, Stuart Eizenstat. It is a tragedy that, so soon after the events of 9/11, given the rising threat of terrorism in the world and the possible use of weapons of mass destruction, EU/US relations are in such a poor state today when they should never have been stronger. We asked ourselves at the beginning why relations had become so fractured, and I believe that there are six main reasons, although there are others.
First, we must recognise that there has always been friction between the United States and the European Economic Community, as it was, and the European Union, as it is now. We remember the French opt-out

1019
of the central command structure of NATO, although that was not an EU matter, and the various trade disputes that have arisen over the years—I remember ones about bananas, beef hormones, with which I was personally involved, and steel. Within the past few days, steel has, like so many of the others, been resolved or circumvented, with a certain amount of tension while the difficulty continued. There has been residual irritation in some cases, but such issues never created a situation anything like the present rift that exists between the EU and the US.
The second reason is the irritation in the EU at the United States' policy over the years towards Israel. There is a feeling that, if the United States had not pursued such a blatantly biased policy in favour of Israel, the Israel/Palestine problem might have been more easily settled. That problem has been the virus at the centre of the tension in the Middle East and one of the reasons for the rise in terrorism and Muslim fundamentalism.
The third reason is the attitude of the present administration in Washington, which has caused dismay in Europe. In recent years, the United States seems to have moved away from the multilateral approach to world problems that served us pretty well in the past in favour of going it alone on a unilateral basis. I think I speak for most of the committee when I say that I was shocked when we went to Washington last February and heard the expression used which appears in our report,
"if you agree with us, fine—if you don't then get out of our way".
That is the new attitude in Washington and some of us were very shocked by it.
The fourth reason for the tension leads from the last one. There is despair in Europe at the attitude of those who currently run the Pentagon.
The fifth reason for the rift is again a recent one— the dismay that the events in Iraq this year seem to have been ill thought-out and prepared, as many of us warned before the conflict began. We warned that the post-war phase would be infinitely more difficult than the war itself. One can only hope that the capture of Saddam yesterday will help to reduce the obstructions to returning Iraq to normality.
The sixth and final reason for the rift is the belief held by many that action in Iraq should have been delayed, and not preceded by dodgy spin until there was a surge of support for action by the worldwide community. If that had happened, the climate in the Middle East and the wider Islamic world of burgeoning loathing for the West and the United States in particular could well have been very much reduced.
That is part of the background to our report. We believed very strongly—unanimously, I think—that both the European Union and the United States would be the losers if things remained as they were. Things are only made worse by some of the tit-for-tat that seems to be going on. As an example, there is the absurdity, in the mind of many, of the new French-German-Belgian-Luxembourgeois proposal for an independent command structure for the ESDP. Again,
1020
there is the mean decision of the United States to bar countries that opposed the war in Iraq from bidding for the re-building contracts that will be available in the future.
Lord Gilbert: My Lords, can the noble Lord explain to us why the American taxpayer should be expected to fund contracts to the benefit of French and German companies, when those countries made no contribution to ridding Iraq of Saddam Hussein's regime? Would he be prepared to recommend to his former constituents that they should fund a system whereby foreign countries who did not participate in those actions should be the beneficiaries of taxpayers' dollars?
Lord Jopling: My Lords, it will not be only American money that will be spent in re-building facilities in Iraq. I quote to the noble Lord an extract from the Financial Times that appeared only last week:
"Most of all, the contracts edict shows yet again the Pentagon's preference for sticking to its own alarmingly overoptimistic postwar scenarios".
I was interested to see a quotation from BBC News from last week. Professor Steven Schooner of George Washington University said:
"This kind of decision just begs for retaliation and a tit-for-tat response".
That is my point. The time has come, as I said, for both sides to stop that sort of thing.
The committee felt that, whereas the United States was used to the European Union as a trading alliance, it had not begun properly to accept it in its infant role as a world player in foreign affairs and defence. The committee felt that that was not necessarily only the fault of the United States. The European Union has a good deal of work to do to improve its public relations and its presence in Washington. We met the diplomatic representatives of the European Union when we were in Washington. That led us to the view that there were major improvements to be made. The appointment of a European Union Foreign Minister holding the immense powers likely to be attached to that post could be a positive help in establishing the European Union as a major player in foreign affairs and defence.
What else should the US and the EU do to restore the generally good relations and partnerships of former years? The EU should do more to shoulder the burden in Iraq. Already, the sum of 200 million euros, which was agreed in Madrid in October, is going in that direction. I am sure that there is more to be done. Both sides should put more weight behind the efforts of the quartet to settle the Israel/Palestine situation. The committee has always favoured the building up of ESDP, but more should be done to make it clear that the role of ESDP is in support of and complementary to NATO.
There are already some hopeful signs that the rift is becoming less apparent. There are the recent German-French-UK-US agreement on how to confront Iran's nuclear aspirations and recent documents such as the Thessalonika document and Mr Solana's security strategy. Yesterday, at the conclusion of the Council,

1021
the following words, which are to be heartily commended, were used in the declaration on transatlantic relations:
"The transatlantic relationship is irreplaceable. The EU remains fully committed to a constructive, balanced and forward-looking partnership with our transatlantic partners".
Those are the ways in which we should move. Both sides must look to the future, not to the past.
The predictable guerrilla war that has gone on in Iraq for several months seems to have had a sobering effect on the United States. Recently, one can detect more understanding on the other side of the Atlantic of, for instance, the build-up of ESDP. There is more understanding in the United States of the need for a multilateral effort to re-build Iraq.
There has been too much trading of insults. There is too much to lose, if those insults are not forgotten and the rifts healed. I was particularly taken by a phrase used in the weekend declaration of the European Council:
"Acting together, the EU and its transatlantic partners can be a formidable force for good in the world".
I spent a great deal of my life trying to further good relations between the United States and Britain, in particular, but also between the United States and the European Union. I ran the British-American Parliamentary Group for 14 years, and I regarded it as a labour of love. I could not endorse the words of the declaration more. The two sides must come together. We must never turn away from the force for good that that alliance can create.
Moved, That this House takes note of the Report of the European Union Committee on A Fractured Partnership? Relations Between the European Union and the United States of America (30th Report, Session 2002–03, HL Paper 134).—(Lord Jopling.)
7.58 p.m.
Lord Harrison: My Lords, like some other noble Lords tonight, I rise to give my swansong on Sub-Committee C of the European Union Committee, concerned with the common foreign and security policy. In doing so, I thank the committee's ring of Lords, who have made the past four years of discovery and debate so interesting and congenial. Above all, there is the Lord of the ring, the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, who has presided over us with Gandalfian wisdom and good humour.
Last week, I went to the Imperial War Museum. I found the room in the museum which displays exhibits from the conflicts in which British troops were deployed since 1945. Standing in the entrance was an enlargement of the celebrated Herald newspaper cartoon depicting an American soldier offering the reader a wreath, on which is displayed the legend, "Victory and Peace in Europe". The soldier's accompanying heartfelt words read:
"Here you are—don't lose it again".
1022
Today's debate on our report, A Fractured Partnership? Relations Between the European Union and the United States of America, gives us the opportunity to assess whether we have done enough to heed the lively warning contained in that memorable cartoon.
In the interim years, NATO has been established, the European Union created and the USA has become the world's supreme economic and military power. But the fall of the Berlin Wall more than a decade ago has brought new challenges that have shifted yet again the dynamics of all three countries and institutions.
Several issues arise from our report, which are crucial in influencing the future of our common development. They give the USA and the EU the chance to strengthen our common bond through change within NATO. But not all those issues are treated with the sense and sensibility that they warrant in the world outside. Perhaps I may take the vexed question of the so-called European army and its latest incarnation; that is, the proposal in the current IGC that the EU should develop a separate planning function, complementary to NATO, to undertake security operations to which the USA is neutral or perhaps even hostile.
Throughout our evidence taking, it was impressed on us that in order to fulfil our obligations to NATO, Europe had markedly to increase its defence spending, expressed as a percentage of national budgets. The committee agreed. However, at the same time, we were frequently apostrophied on the need to preserve the inviolability of NATO procedures. We were conjured that anything that fell outside NATO's usual procedures was deemed to be anathema and a threat to the Atlantic alliance. But is that credible politics? If Europe increases its defence spending—as it should and must—in comparison to the USA, which will always remain the major donor to our common defence, is it feasible that the EU will continue to accept the USA's veto on Europe's freedom to make its own decisions in the security field? I have in mind not only those instances where the USA, unsurprisingly, believes that it has little or no locus, but also those occasions where the USA is neutral or even hostile to NATO intervention.
However few those occasions are likely to be in future, is it politically acceptable that British or European politicians might stand before their electorate to say that they were not only forbidden by the USA from acting independently, but also failed to develop and prepare any separate planning function. That would be the politics of Ethelred the Unready, noted neither for his military preparedness nor his political wisdom.
Moreover, the saliency of the IGC proposals has been blown out of all proportion by excitable press and political backwoodsmen. Any separate EU planning function will entail some 30 to 40 staff, and not the 1,000 plus personnel who currently plan for NATO. It would be hardly a major break from NATO, but more a sensible addition to current competences. The lesson is that in the Morganatic marriage that joins the USA and the EU, the former brings by far the greater dowry

1023
of weapons and warriors. When the other spouse here—the EU—begins to pay its way, a more equal relationship will inevitably ensue, a development that should be celebrated, not decried, on both sides of the Atlantic.
That brings me to my second and allied point. Those who oppose this natural rebalancing of power and forces within the alliance all too often invoke the spectre of duplication and confusion. "Too many cooks will spoil the broth of command and control", they cry. But the self-same apologists cry foul if any commentator suggests that the current armed forces and military structures of the member states of the EU—more properly referred to as the European members of NATO—are themselves riddled with duplication. The memorable example given by the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Port Ellen, about the difficulty of drawing together an effective and efficient rapid reaction force from Europe's current standing army of some 2 million servicemen and women is a case in point.
Whenever it is suggested that even the mildest steps might be taken to minimise the duplication of armed resources associated with the lack of specialisation of tasks, with the imperfect systems of common procurement, or with the haphazard stabs at shared training among Europeans, hands are thrown up in horror at this threat to each member nation's inalienable right to waste money on behalf of its taxpayers. And all that is to satisfy the illusion that member states preserve their 19th century sovereignty intact.
I have not begun to enter into the lists of the need to refocus our defence efforts on to the needs of tomorrow and not the outworn targets of yesterday, which, as last week's defence White Paper astutely observes, may require the substituting of the soldier by the satellite to meet the challenges of tomorrow's threat to national and international stability and security. Of course, there is a hidden agenda practised by those who deplore duplication in NATO but accept it in the EU. Their true vice is their ingrained antipathy to a uniting Europe; they fear what they perceive as the disintegration of the nation state.
That view is ably exemplified by the noble Lord, Lord Rees-Mogg, who recently asked in his column in The Times whether it was now time for Britain to choose between its allegiance to the United States and its membership of the European Union. He answers his own query by saying that Britain should forsake the latter for the former. Such a view is a patent folly, not least because it would undermine NATO. Britain should, of course, anchor itself in the European Union—its geographical home—and strengthen its ties with the United States, the Commonwealth and all other willing partners, which is a policy boldly developed by Prime Minister Blair and the present Government.
But the confrontational views of the noble Lord, Lord Rees-Mogg, find curious echo not only in the anti-Americanism which thrives in certain political circles in Europe, but also in the thinking of the neo-conservatives in Washington who wish to use the
1024
IGC's modest proposals for an EU planning function as a pretext for the United States to withdraw from its NATO responsibilities. Those of us who seek measured change in the relationship between the USA and the EU compatible with changing priorities should resist these siren voices and their sinuous simplicities. The partnership would indeed be fractured if we were to follow the American isolationists whose beliefs were reported in Irwin Stelzer's recent column in The Times, as those deeming NATO to be "irrelevant".
A Fractured Relationship is the provocative title of tonight's report and is one born of the recent conflict in Iraq and its effect on European unity. Yesterday's dramatic revelation of Saddam Hussein's welcome capture will bear further consideration elsewhere. Meanwhile, in the new year, a real opportunity is offered us here in Europe and across the Atlantic to repair the fractured relationship.
In conclusion, I want to draw one parallel with the path upon which NATO has now embarked as it shuffles off the coil of being a defence organisation wholly concerned with the mutual defence of its members and its reincarnation as an entity providing defence and security at home by pre-emptive action out of area. Invoking wider global security concerns, Prime Minister Blair has rightly highlighted the redundancy of the belief that, in the future, the defence and security of the global village can remain the separate responsibility of the parish councils of nation states.
Technology and communication have caught us out. In the future, we will all hang separately if we do not hang together in the new and developing coalitions of the willing, of which NATO and the EU are supreme and complementary examples. This Barkis principle, promoting, like Dickens's Barkis, the marriage of the willing, must inform our future thinking and action. The willing and able must support, as we do on both sides of the Atlantic, active democracies, dynamic markets, respect for human rights and the rule of law as the lodestones of a fairer, freer and far-sighted world. If our report helps to clarify that change and those challenges, then our retiring Sub-committee C will, I hope and believe, have done some small good.
8.11p.m.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick: My Lords, no one could reasonably argue that this debate is not topical, or that it does not address the single most significant aspect of any effort by Europe to develop a common foreign and security policy and its evolving relationship with the United States. It does both of those things. In doing them, the report before the House strikes, in my view, the right note: deep concern that all is not well with that crucial relationship, combined with a commitment to working to improve it. The House surely owes a debt of gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, for his long service in this cause. I remember well when he ran the British-American Parliamentary Group and how much

1025
he contributed to it before he came to this place. I thank also his colleagues for having sounded an alarm bell after their visit to Washington.
My only regret is that, as is so often the case, we have taken more than six months to find time to debate such an important matter. In this House and during this new Session, we really must cut down that gap if we are not to lose our relevance.
The relationship between the European Union and the United States is fundamentally asymmetrical and atypical, and that is what makes it so difficult to analyse and to shape. It is asymmetrical in a number of different ways. First, it is so because of the unevenness of the weight of the two parties in different fields of external policy. To take the two extremes of the spectrum, in trade policy, as we saw recently over the lifting of US trade barriers on steel and as we can see whenever the main players in global trade policy sit at the negotiating table in multilateral negotiations, the US and the EU are equals. Agreement between them is a necessary if not a sufficient condition for any progress. At the other end of the spectrum—military power—there is no equivalence at all, and the gap is widening.
Between those two extremes, the situation is less clear-cut, with Europe's "soft" power assets in aid and nation-building often matching or exceeding that of the US. But the relationship is also asymmetrical because it is not one between two nation states, but between, on the one hand, one nation state and, on the other, a collectivity of states which approve a number of their functions, but each one of which has its own longstanding relationship with the US. In a way, every European country has a special relationship with the United States and so does the European Union as a whole.
Just to make it a little more complicated, all these aspects of the overall relationship are constantly moving and changing. So it is no good simply trying to draw up a blueprint and hoping that it will apply for all time and for all circumstances. There has to be flexibility and adaptability at both ends.
If we look first at the European end of the equation, it becomes clear that there is a massive difference in the influence we can hope to have over US policy making if we speak with one voice or if we are divided. Recent examples where we have influenced that policy making are on steel tariffs, on Europe's defence identity and on the handling of Iran. An example of the opposite situation has been where we have, both collectively and separately, had little influence on Iraq. And there are plenty of others.
But that does not mean to say that we should strive for unity at any price. The policy options we support have to make sense in terms of protecting and furthering our own European interests. In more cases than not it will be a case of pursuing a dialogue with Washington designed to maximise, in partnership, our ability to secure shared objectives and to promote shared values. That has already been the case in the Balkans and in Afghanistan, and it needs to be the case in post-war Iraq and in the Middle East peace process.
1026
But unity certainly does not make sense if it is designed, systematically and deliberately, to promote policies in opposition to or at variance with those of the United States. That is the defect of the image of multi-polarity. That approach in any case will not correspond with Europe's interests, which so often coincide and are not in contradiction with those of the United States. It will not rally anything like a consensus in Europe, so it fails the basic test for an effective European policy.
The other end of the equation in the United States is less certain than at any time since the end of the Second World War. Successive US administrations from Truman to Clinton favoured and supported European unity even when there were short term costs—for example, in the field of trade policy. That policy outlived the end of the Cold War as it became clear that the new world disorder of the 1990s required effective co-operation across a wide range of issues between the two sides of the Atlantic.
Now, however, it is challenged by influential voices both outside and within the present Administration. Splitting Europe with slogans such as new and old Europe and measures such as the sheep and goats approach to the grant of contracts in Iraqi construction are pursued with a reckless disregard for the long-term consequences. If I was to answer the question of the noble Lord, Lord Gilbert, to the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, I would say, "Why should the American taxpayer pay for a wider range of countries to subscribe to these projects? First, because he will get value; and, secondly"—
Lord Gilbert: My Lords, who would get better value?
Lord Hannay of Chiswck: The American taxpayer, my Lords, because we have untied our aid. Why have we untied our aid? Because we get better value from it that way. And, secondly, because playing these kinds of games does not pay in the long term. Splitting Europe will not work.
The fabric of multilateral co-operation is challenged and the Europeans have made clear that it is essential for their involvement. That view is often treated with disdain in the United States.
This might not matter so much if the world was a more stable and secure place or if the United States really was a benign hegemon able on its own to ensure that nothing went seriously wrong, a little like the Roman Empire at the height of its power. But neither of these propositions stands up to careful scrutiny. The new threats which have taken the place of the Cold War—from terrorism, from the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and from the failure of states—are as real as the old ones, and more complex and more difficult to counter. Combined with still festering old disputes such as those in Palestine and Kashmir, aggravated by poverty, pandemic diseases and environmental degradation, this is a witch's brew which particularly menaces the open societies that emerged so successfully from the Cold War.

1027
It is not the United States acting alone that is either capable or willing to shield us as it did in the Cold War. Iraq and Afghanistan are already revealing how stretched US resources can be by two crises. Moreover, these new threats cannot be countered by military action alone. They need the widest possible global coalition, underpinned by a framework of international law, to give the effort the authority and the legitimacy it requires if it is to be successful.
That will simply not be achieved if Europeans and Americans do not work together in close partnership. If we cannot achieve that partnership, the Americans will find themselves with a burden that they are unwilling in the end to support, as they did in Vietnam, and we Europeans will be faced with an increasingly unilateralist and isolationist United States which will reveal how ill-equipped we are to look after our interests on our own.
Are we now beyond the point where we can hope to heal the fractures of this last year or so? In my view, certainly not. Damage has been done, but it is not irremediable. The institutions on which we depend— NATO and the UN—are capable of use if we can rediscover the habit of using them constructively and not as forums for discordant political debate.
However, a Europe seeking to develop its own common and foreign security policy—as I believe it will necessarily do as its individual nations' capacity for independent action steadily reduces—needs to be more imaginative than that. We need, I believe, to reach out to the United States and ask them to build new organic links between us which will enable the whole process of crisis and threat management, from analysis and assessment through the discussion of policy options to action itself, to be handled discreetly and calmly, with differences aired unpolemically when a fully common approach cannot be achieved.
The idea of specific EU/US machinery to handle foreign policy co-operation has been around at least since the 1970s. It is surely now time to move it from the realm of academic debate to actual practice.
8.21 p.m.
Lord Bowness: My Lords, the report of the committee has been comprehensively presented by my noble friend Lord Jopling. However, having had the privilege of being asked to succeed him as chairman of the sub-committee, I would like to take this opportunity of paying tribute to my noble friend, not only for his chairmanship and conduct of this inquiry and the presentation of this report but also for his tenure during his three years as chairman of the sub-committee. It is daunting to follow him, since he brought great skills, knowledge and expertise to the chairmanship, to say nothing of kindness to less well informed members—at least, one less well informed member—of the sub-committee. I am sure that all noble Lords who have served with him will want to thank him for his work, as well as thanking other noble Lords who left the committee at the end of the parliamentary Session.
1028
There is very little to add to the report in the light of the analysis of my noble friend. However, the situation is, I submit, evolving, and the committee's recommendations in this report may be affected by the result of the weekend's European Council meeting and what ultimately happens to some of the proposals in the draft constitution. It would, I suggest, be unwise to indulge in too much jubilation that agreement was not reached this weekend, although the timetable was probably unreasonable. However, the total failure of the whole project will mean that a number of important recommendations which are designed to improve EU/ US relations need a new vehicle if they are to have a chance of succeeding.
The committee's recommendations place much emphasis on what the EU and the nations of the Union should do. It places rather less emphasis on what the United States should do. However, a partnership is a two-way street, and there are obligations on the United States if they truly want the European Union as a partner and not a satellite.
My noble friend Lord Jopling indicated that some people we met in Washington showed great reluctance to recognise the need for that partnership. Indeed, there was almost total disregard by some of any contrary opinions which might be expressed. As other noble Lords have said, I believe that crude attempts to divide Europe into old and new Europe are extremely unhelpful. It is quite extraordinary that some in the United Kingdom have taken up that theme.
I also suggest that forcing states soon to be members of the European Union to make a choice—a false choice, I believe—between the European Union and the United States is not helpful. The United States is likely to be better served by Europe working together, especially on foreign policy and defence.
I think, looking at the divide between old and new Europe, that nothing is quite that simple. Remarks were made about particular nations in the context of Iraq; yet some which opposed action in Iraq were deeply involved in the mission in Afghanistan.
The health of the partnership between the European Union and the United States is vital for both sides. As has been said, both sides will need to work at it, and disagreement on particular issues should not be an excuse for patronising or ostracising those who disagree. Paragraph 34 of the committee's report made it clear that the European Union's foreign policy framework should avoid failure in any particular field—failure to achieve total agreement being portrayed as a common foreign and security policy failure or as a reason for not trying to agree.
The health of the partnership will come from both sides having the ability—though not necessarily the equal ability—to contribute substantially, especially in the field of defence. The recommendation in paragraph 32, supported by the committee and endorsed by the Government, asks for the European Union to drive that forward. Of course, the details will be important; NATO will remain of paramount importance, and should remain so for the European Union and for the United States, which should not

1029
disregard it when that is convenient for them. Members of the European Union working together to improve capability, together with the necessary frameworks to work effectively, should be welcomed by the United States and not constantly portrayed as an attempt to subvert NATO.
The report and its presentation by my noble friend Lord Jopling shows the position as we found it and, to some extent, as it still is today. It may not make for comfortable reading or listening, but unless we can offer to friends in the United States and partners in Europe a frank assessment of our concerns, the relationship will not prosper.
8.26 p.m.
Lord Powell of Bayswater: My Lords, there is probably no issue more important for Europe than transatlantic relations, and our sub-committee was absolutely right to survey those relations and propose how the damage done in recent times could be repaired. Our timing could scarcely have been better, although that is more than can be said for the time that it has taken to have this debate.
Our report is certainly a tribute to the acute, shrewd and perceptive chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, the vast experience of our special adviser Sir Michael Quinton and the model industriousness of our excellent Clerk and researcher. The report is all the better for being brief, objective and very much to the point. In speaking to it, I must declare an interest as chairman of Atlantic Partnership, which is a bipartisan organisation established to maintain support for the transatlantic relationship. We are active in the United Kingdom, the United States and four major European countries, and I believe that our message is being heard.
As the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, said, our report notes that transatlantic relations are at one of their lowest ebbs ever. That was certainly true in July when we published the report; since then, the tide has begun to flow back in. On the United States' side, steel tariffs have been removed and legislation is now before Congress to remove tax incentives for American exporters, which the World Trade Organisation ruled illegal. That should avoid further escalation of trade disputes between Europe and the United States.
Perhaps most important was President Bush's remarkable speech at the Banqueting Hall during his state visit to the United Kingdom, where he restated vigorously America's preference for working with allies and through international institutions, provided always that they are effective.
"Our first choice and constant practice is to work with other responsible governments",
were his words. Given that America's immense strength allows it the option of acting on its own, it is remarkable how often it has preferred to act collectively rather than unilaterally.
Europe, too, has moved some way in the right direction. NATO's involvement in Afghanistan is one positive step, which I hope will eventually be mapped
1030
by NATO involvement in Iraq. We have seen Europe's Foreign Ministers square up to Iran for that country's deceit over its nuclear weapons programme. The adoption of the European Union security strategy by the European Council at the weekend—at least, I hope that it was adopted—marks a welcome firming up of Europe's sense of purpose in foreign affairs. While an explicit reference to pre-emption was a bit too much for some European governments to swallow, "preventive engagement" seems to me much the same thing. We are assured by the Government that the phrase commits Europe to early and resolute action to prevent threats materialising.
So there is reason to hope that we are past the worst in the relationship. We should not romanticise about an idyllic past—there have been plenty of other low points in that relationship. But for the future we need to focus on some of the structural changes which are bound to affect transatlantic relations. The fact is that the Euro-Atlantic relationship has regularly worked well only in the core areas—above all, the defence of Europe itself against the Soviet threat. But there has almost never been much agreement on issues outside Europe, whether Suez or Vietnam or central America, yet those very out-of-area problems are the very ones that will feature most prominently in the future and where the divisions between Europe and the United States are greatest. So we need to find a way to extend traditional transatlantic collaboration to these areas and to the challenges arising from them, particularly terrorism and weapons of mass destruction.
The European Union's new security strategy is a step in the right direction. The test will be whether we can convert it from being a purely declaratory document into concrete measures—including equipping European members of NATO with the military capabilities to make it effective in dealing with these qualitatively new risks. Without that, the new security strategy will be toothless. The Government's recent defence White Paper helpfully addresses the consequences for the structure of our own forces. There is regrettably not much evidence so far that the rest of Europe has any intention of following our example.
We need to move cautiously on European defence arrangements and institutions. If the Europeans appear to be seeking alternatives to NATO—and that has been and remains the perception of many in the United States—then a process of unravelling will be set in train. Our report stresses that NATO should not be treated as a last resort or disagreeable necessity but as the principal and most systematic forum for EU/US consultation on security and defence issues. A European military planning unit separate from NATO and housed separately may seem very small and inoffensive in the beginning. But nothing in the EU ever shrinks—except national sovereignty. Every EU institution expands over time and assumes greater powers in what is called "competence creep". The first step is therefore the fateful one. It sounds as though the Government have avoided that danger for now, but they—and we—must be vigilant to ensure that it does not come back to haunt us in future.

1031
Another fundamental risk to the transatlantic relationship is that the process of European integration so drains and absorbs our energy and attention—as it did during last weekend's European Council—that we are left exhausted and unresponsive to external threats. Whether the new institutions proposed in the European constitution—such as the more permanent presidency and the foreign minister—will eventually enable Europe to be more proactive remains to be seen. But so far we too often seem to get the worst of both worlds. The common foreign policy is strong enough to oppose and dilute the assertion of American power, but too weak to allow Europe itself to act independently and assertively on the world stage.
That is one reason why it is so important to preserve an independent British voice in foreign policy, which must mean no majority voting on foreign policy in the EU. The Government appear to have secured acceptance of that important point of principle at the weekend, in which case they deserve congratulations. I emphatically do not agree with noble Lords who argued in last week's debate on the draft European constitution that Britain's influence with the United States is now so slender that it is only by taking refuge in a common foreign policy that we can hope to be an influential partner to the US. That is a species of defeatism, and I know from my own contacts at very senior levels in the American Administration that is not how it looks in Washington, where Britain is frequently still a catalyst in American decision-making on many important issues. I was glad to see President Bush reaffirm the special relationship during his state visit, without a trace of the diffidence and embarrassment which inexplicably overcome some of our own Foreign Office experts at any mention of it.
For me the greatest danger is not of some cataclysmic crisis threatening the Atlantic partnership, but a steady erosion of trust and confidence, so that we wake up in 10 years' time to find that the two sides of the Atlantic have drifted irreparably apart and the concept of "the West", which has achieved so much for us, has been forfeited. There are forces pushing that way both in America and in Europe. Plenty of people in America believe that the European Union is a broken reed interested only in institution building and clinging to ineffective multilateralism, or, even worse, intent on building up Europe as a rival to the US, and ultimately intent on getting rid of the United States from Europe. They would be happy to see the US wash its hands of Europe and go its own way. In Europe, just as many see America as a bull in a china shop, interested in allies only as a "toolbox"—to use a favourite phrase of Secretary Rumsfeld—and unwilling to go through the processes of consultation and persuasion which have habitually been the strength of transatlantic relations.
The only way to avoid those perceptions gaining ground and becoming reality is to rebuild the relationship of confidence and mutual support which characterised the Cold War years and make that relationship work in the new international environment. Of course, we shall not always agree but we must not let occasional differences undermine the long-term
1032
relationship. That can be done only by engaging at every level through NATO, through the emerging common foreign policy and through the bilateral relationship— with the last of these, the bilateral Anglo/US partnership, remaining the ultimate guarantee that we can be guided by our own national interests and not have to rely in the last resort on soggy consensus or, even worse, anti-Americanism.
8.36 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, one of the difficulties of debating a report such as this is that time has gone by since we even started in the committee under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Jopling. I believe that we started in January. Since then a lot of water has flowed under a lot of bridges. In particular, last weekend seemed to mark some considerable flow under the bridge. Given that any report has a short-term shelf life, we have to ask ourselves, where does that report stand now?
Is there now, after last weekend, a coherent European Union that can produce a coherent statement on relations with the United States? Is there likely to be any coherent European Union foreign policy—given that there will be no Foreign Minister or anything like that—before general elections take place in the United Kingdom, presidential elections take place in the United States, and elections take place in Germany, Spain, Poland and so on? If I may say so, we are living on a slightly different planet from the planet we started on when we investigated this matter in our committee.
My noble friend Lord Harrison quite rightly pointed out that we are—this is true also regarding our report on the Russia matter—looking at the end (and the consequences of the end) of the Cold War. Personally, I do not think that we have quite settled down to the idea that in 1948 NATO had its proper function of defending the West against the Soviets, and that the Soviets had the Warsaw Pact defending them against us. When the whole thing broke down, we had a great problem in deciding what the role of NATO was and, consequently, whether there should be an EU role in defence and what the function of the WEU was. If I may say so to the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, we have been investigating this problem in the committee for quite a long time in both our reports on Russia and the United States. That is a very important point that I should like to put on the table.
My noble friend Lord Harrison said that we have to deal with what we have to deal with. There is going to be no constitution of the EU, there is going to be no EU Foreign Minister, so a large part of our report, I am afraid, is now irrelevant. Nevertheless, some positive things come out of our report. The first is that the EU such as it is and will be, even if there is no constitution and no foreign minister, can act on trade. The noble Lord, Lord Powell of Bayswater, has just introduced the idea that the EU did a pretty good deal on steel. There is humanitarian relief. There are all sorts of areas in places such as Macedonia where the EU can act.

1033
It is difficult to see, however, how the EU can have any serious collective policy in regard to the United States. I shall quote a bit of the report that is quite important. Page 12 states:
"In practice, if an issue proves particularly divisive, as the crisis in Iraq was, the common position is likely to have little substance, leaving Member States free to pursue their national interest. An effective EU common foreign and security policy exists only in areas where Member States see a clear advantage in reaching agreement".
I have absolutely no doubt that member states such as the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Italy and others see a clear advantage in maintaining bilateral relationships with the United States. For the life of me, I cannot understand how they will accept going through an organisation—that is what the European Union is—in dealing with the United States. On trade there is a positive, but on the generality of matters there is probably a negative.
We spent a lot of time on Iraq, but events have moved forward, probably in a beneficial way. I certainly endorse what our committee said about the importance of the EU being involved in what one would normally call the peace process in the Middle East, through the quartet. I am sure that the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Guthrie, will speak about ESDP in a minute. There have been some advances on that subject, and I believe that the United States has come to the conclusion that there is merit in EU-US relations, in terms of a function for an EU defence force of some form or other where America does not want to be involved.
Other than that, all that I can contribute to the debate, which is not very much, is to say that I deeply regret that there is in the media a wave of anti-Americanism in Europe, and that there may be a wave of anti-Europeanism in America. We spent a long time on the matter and had to rephrase our report.
I shall summarise, in so far as I can, after what has been a slightly confusing weekend in terms of the European Union and Iraq. It is a time to rebuild the EU-US relationship, as the noble Lord, Lord Powell, said. I do not know how the EU will be constructed. We do not know because we are in suspense. But until and unless we go through a process of rebuilding some coherent organisation in the European Union, I am certain that we cannot as a European Union adopt a sensible and constructive relationship with the United States. Bilateral relations will remain as they are, but until there is a European Union with some sort of construction then bilateral relations will be paramount.
8.46 p.m.
Lord Guthrie of Craigiebank: My Lords, of course the relationship between the United States and the European Union is important and needs whenever possible to be one of close partnership and co-operation, rather than one of confrontation, counterbalance and, from Europe, Gaullist opposition. The implications of the disagreements over Iraq will be with us to a greater or lesser extent for a long time.
1034
I want to touch on a different matter. Syria is one example of where the EU and the United States need to be in step and appear now to be out of step. The EU wishes to give Syria associate status with access to each other's markets. In the past the EU has insisted that those countries granted associate status should conform on basic human and civil rights and standards. Syria has no political freedom, nor has it political opposition. The country is ruled by a small group, the Alawites. The Syrians are now the most repressive Arab regime there is. They also have an appalling record of hatred against Israel. Like many noble Lords, I am not uncritical of all Israel's actions, but Syrian schoolchildren have an unrelenting diet of hatred based on propaganda and deliberate historical distortion. Their syllabus is one of extreme anti-Semitism.
I have seen in the past few days films made in Syria recently which yesterday in the Observer newspaper William Shawcross described as "hideous". Actors portrayed Rabbis engaged in human mutilation and pouring molten lead into the mouth of a Jew who was alleged to have had an affair with a non-Jew. They also portrayed a child being kidnapped and having his throat cut so that his fresh blood could contribute to a Jewish religious ceremony. Those films were made with the help of the Syrian Government and broadcast at prime TV time. There were 29 episodes lasting through the month of Ramadan. Millions of Arabs saw them. We should remember the "Protocols of Zion".
So far, the EU and the UN appear to have said nothing about such racial hatred and behaviour. Why not? Syria has also allowed terrorist training to take place in its country; and many terrorists cross from Syria to Iraq, many intent on killing not only United States' troops but our own British soldiers. Of course I understand the concept of good cop/bad cop, but the divergence of attitudes between the EU and the United States is notable, serious and damaging. In the United States a special Act has just been passed giving powers to the President to approve sanctions. That is a very different message from that of the EU.
President Bashar al-Assad is receiving very mixed messages and must hope that the Europeans' approach will prevail. Assad appears to be nervous. His eventual and belated co-operation with the United States over Al'Qaeda suspects has, I suggest, had far more to do with the fact that the United States had more than 100,000 soldiers close to his border than it did with European carrots and diplomacy. What has Europe actually achieved with soft power in Damascus, apart from sending mixed messages to Assad?
The noble Lord, Lord Williams, was expecting me to say something about European defence. I was not intending to do so but I do not wish to disappoint him. I believe in European defence but I am very suspicious about what Europe's people are thinking at the moment. European defence must be a sensible concept if it means that we have stronger capability. But do we have stronger capability? No one in Europe is spending more on defence.

1035
I am worried about our performance. We could be a real partner if we were prepared to spend more on defence. However, having a small planning headquarters of 30 to 40 people when there are hundreds of staff officers up the road in Belgium does not seem to me to be a very sensible approach at present. A small headquarters such as that will not be able to plan anything serious. It will have to be bigger. All such headquarters always become bigger and are very expensive indeed. Spending money on a headquarters such as that when the defence budget is so short of money and resources seems to me to be wasteful.
We should understand just how feeble the European effort is. Today, the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, interjected that the Minister had forgotten to mention peace-making. I do not believe that the Minister had forgotten to mention peace-making; she recognised that the Europeans were incapable of making peace. They can keep the peace if people want that, but we should not set our sights too high. We may be heading for a political and not a military solution, and that is always disastrous so far as concerns the military.
If we wish the world to be safer, we must do better with the United States. Like the noble Lord, Lord Powell, my feeling is that, following the Iraq crisis, US-EU relations are improving again. But there is still a long way to go before the European Union and the United States will be able to make the difference that they have the potential to make when working together.
8.53 p.m.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, we are all very grateful for this excellent report. I do not believe that it is outdated. I welcome the phrase in the declaration this weekend that the "transatlantic relationship is irreplaceable". We all agree with that. Part of our problem is that, unfortunately, at present too many people in Washington do not agree with that and some within Europe have forgotten it.
This morning, I received a new book written by Elizabeth Pond, the very good American observer of the transatlantic relationship, which referred to the "near-death" experience of that relationship over the past year. Ten days ago in Washington, I heard a senior State Department official refer to the hole which, he said, the United States had itself dug over the past year in its relations with its allies and which, he assured us, the US would stop digging further.
How do we get out of where we are? We face a difficult mood in Washington. It is the most divided Administration I can ever remember, with active rivalries between different factions within the Administration, and all the excited exaggerations of the Washington think-tank world.
We have also faced many divisions and weaknesses in Europe, not only in the past year. I recall President Bush's first visit to Europe in the spring of 2001 when he came to the EU summit in Göteborg in Sweden where he had to listen to 15 heads of government insisting on lecturing him on America's failures on climate change in not ratifying the Kyoto protocol.
1036
Not unnaturally, having heard those unco-ordinated messages, he returned rather bored. There was also European solidarity on Afghanistan but a great deal of scepticism on the push to move from Afghanistan on to Iraq, shared by many in this country.
How do we repair the damage? I was grateful to see that the report does not suggest that the answer is, as some who write for The Times and elsewhere suggest, to follow Washington uncritically as each new Administration changes direction. After all, we should recall that from time to time when in office Mrs Thatcher disagreed sharply with Washington; for example, over America's invasion of Grenada. We need partnership and not "followership".
Occasionally we on these Benches have criticised our current Prime Minister for being too uncritical in his support for Washington and for not spelling out to the American public and to Congress the points on which Britain's policy legitimately differs from the current policy of the US Administration. Partnership can come only from a more coherent European grouping; and as British participants in the transatlantic debate we have to insist that there is partnership and not deliberate rivalry. The Gaullist rhetoric that comes from Paris is deeply damaging in its own way. It arouses a counter-paranoia in Washington about a deep suspicion of French and European motives, which is also very unhelpful.
We need to recognise the long-term trends that have weakened the transatlantic relationship. When I first went to the United States in the early 1960s as a graduate student, by meeting contacts in Washington I discovered what my parents-in-law had been doing in the war. There were old wartime links with people who were still making policy and who had been at Bletchley together or in various other areas where the British and the Americans had co-operated. There was a generation who knew Europe very well. After all, foreign policy was run from the east coast.
Now the balance of American politics has shifted to the south and south-west. Once when I was working for David Watt, an excellent journalist and a strong Atlanticist, he recalled the shock that he experienced when he first lectured in western Texas and discovered that his audiences there did not know what the Atlantic Alliance was and had not heard of the acronym NATO. That was in the early 1980s. The United States is now run substantially from Texas, Florida and the south, and we have to do much more to explain where Europe is and what are our interests.
The disappearance of a common threat that held us together has of course made Europe seem less central to US foreign policy. We may say that NATO is the most important alliance for us, but European command is no longer the most important command for the Pentagon. The European region is far less central to American foreign and defence policy. The introversion of the American foreign policy debate, with its intense free market ideas and tangle of think-tanks and lobbies, preoccupied with real and imaginary threats and with other regions of the world, tends to shut out European voices unless they are clear

1037
and loud. So there is much less attention to Europe, less knowledge of European developments and of course, given patterns of migration, fewer human links to Europe. It is unlikely that a change of presidency party would change that position very much. The neo-conservatives, who have influence over the current administration, would go and rant and would be outside rather than inside. The underlying trends would still be there. So we need a more coherent European voice.
In the Government's response to the report, I was very happy to see strong support for a more coherent European voice in Washington, including a strengthening of the EU representation, as well as closer co-ordination of our embassies there. I recall that there have been occasions in the past when European Commission representation in Washington was chaired by a former Prime Minister: for example, Van Agt at one stage. That is clearly the direction to which we should be returning, and I glad the Government recognise that.
I agree very strongly with the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, that too many European governments separately pursue their own special relationships in Washington, without recognising that our voice would be stronger if we were better at co-ordination. I also welcome the reports on links to Congress from parliamentarians and others. I have been a member of the Transatlantic Policy Network for 12 years. One of our major activities is to persuade senior Congressmen from both Houses to visit Europe twice a year and to talk about European concerns: to see the world through European eyes.
I also think that we need to raise the European voice in the introverted think-tank debate. As the Minister knows, I have argued that matter before with the Foreign Office. It would be worth while the British Government investing in supporting British scholars spending more time taking part in a debate which matters so much for us, but which listens so little to the views of those outside the beltway.
However, we must also have a positive message to deliver. The report rightly says that it is rather shocking how little policymakers in Washington— even so-called experts on Europe—know about European developments; how easily misinformation gets around. There is little known about European assistance to the third world, or about the scale of its troops, which often support American as well as European objectives outside the European Union, such as in south-eastern Europe, Afghanistan, Kuwait, the Gulf, the Indian Ocean and of course Iraq. In the past three years, the 50,000 European troops deployed outside the EU at any point do not compare that badly to the 130,000 US troops in Iraq. We do not make the best of what we are doing, even though what we are doing is still too little.
I welcome the European security strategy. I was in Washington the day before the previous EU/US summit and was struck that the draft European security strategy was being handed around publicly there with far more enthusiasm than the British
1038
Government ever circulated it with here. Clearly, it was intended partly to tell the Americans what we were beginning to do. I rather hope that now that the final versions have been agreed Her Majesty's Government may indeed encourage the rest of us in Britain to take on board what they have now signed up to.
Some on the American Right seem to want to detach the United Kingdom from Europe and to confirm its status as America's most loyal follower. Irwin Stelzer, who has already been quoted in the debate, and who is of course an adviser to Rupert Murdoch, wrote an article I happened to see last year entitled, Is Europe a Threat? His definition of Europe as a threat was as a threat to American dominance of the world. But partnership for many on the neo-conservative Right in the United States is itself a threat to an imperial American approach to the world. That is part of the case we have to argue, therefore, with more reasonable people in Washington, in Congress and around the United States.
It is not a sustainable position for Britain simply to remain America's most loyal follower, given that Britain's interests are not always identical to those of the United States. I doubt whether it is sustainable in terms of British public opinion. After all, we saw how much public opinion doubted the automatic support that we gave to the American invasion of Iraq.
So we in Britain need in our national interest to rebuild a transatlantic partnership. Part of that must recognise that despite this week's set-back, practical co-operation among major EU states can and should move forward with a high representative—if not yet an EU Foreign Minister—a European security and defence policy, which is becoming stronger, and continuing EU-US summits—which will come to play a rather more important role than NATO-EU discussions as the relationship changes. I am glad to hear that President Bush will be coming to Europe this year to attend the Dublin EU-US summit. I hope that the Government are already actively preparing for a coherent European approach to that meeting.
British foreign policy has for the past 50 years rested on the determination to hold the United States and Europe together. We can do that successfully only through a stronger European pillar of sufficient strength to command respect and attention from the self-absorbed opinion leaders and policy-makers in Washington. That is what the report states; that is why we welcome it so warmly.
9.6 p.m.
Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Jopling for opening this debate, which covers a huge subject. I declare an interest as a trustee of the Atlantic Bridge, a charity set up to promote public education on both sides of the Atlantic in areas such as healthcare, science and economics.
I also pay tribute to my noble friend for the outstanding work that he did in chairing the committee. Reading the report, it is clear that my noble friend has chaired the committee with great authority; the noble Lord, Lord Harrison, added that he did so with wisdom

1039
and good humour; and the noble Lord, Lord Powell, used the word astute, I think. Having run the British-American Parliamentary Group for so long, there is little that my noble friend does not know about UK and EU relations with the United States. I congratulate my noble friend Lord Bowness on agreeing to succeed my noble friend and wish him well in future.
The House has been treated to some excellent speeches. As someone who used to be guardian of the Downing Street-White House hotline, it was especially interesting to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Powell. I am aware of the excellent work of the Atlantic Partnership—incidentally, founded by my right honourable friend the Leader of the Opposition. The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, made some stimulating points about the position of NATO and the EU since the end of the Cold War. I agreed with much of what he said.
The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Guthrie, spoke with great authority on the terrible situation in Syria. As he is a former Chief of the Defence Staff, I hope that his points on European defence—especially the need for stronger capability and substantially larger defence budgets—will be taken on board.
I share the aspiration of the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, that the Government should do more to build up exchanges between British and American students, but I fear that I do not agree with him that Americans want to detach us from the EU.
I am sorry that my noble friend Lady Park, a member of the committee, was unable to speak tonight. The same is true of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Inge, who plays such a positive role in fostering the special relationship between this country and the United States as president of the Pilgrim:?.
The overall EU-US relationship cannot be assessed without also examining bilateral relations between each EU country and the United States, as the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, said. UK-US links, French, Spanish, German and Italian links are all different and shaped by different histories. The world is a network, not just a pair of weights with one big bloc on either side of the Atlantic. That is even so in trade and investment, despite trade being in theory solely an EU competence. In practice, as US discrimination against France and Germany on reconstruction contracts in Iraq shows, the interests of the separate member states vis-a-vis the US do diverge sharply.
Although the report's conclusions, as the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, said, have been overtaken by events, particularly those of the past 48 hours, its publication is timely—more so following the show of public anti-Americanism during the recent state visit. We cannot ignore the opinion polls, which show a much wider unease in British public opinion about President Bush, his administration and his policies. That is worrying; no country is so powerful that it does not need friends. We wish the Secretary of State, Colin Powell, a very speedy recovery after his operation.
1040
As the report states, the EU's relations with the US are at their lowest ebb for a generation. Two years on from the horrors of September 11th, the mutual support, reassertion of a common outlook and shared values across the Atlantic have been pushed into the background. The old concerns are back, particularly highlighted by the divisions over Iraq. French headlines that once asserted, "We are all Americans now" have given way to anti-US sentiment. The German Chancellor won re-election on a platform of naked anti-Americanism. The Atlantic Ocean seems wider than ever.
There remains discord on defence, with growing irritation in Washington over what is seen as the posturing of European countries over their European Defence Initiative. The US sees falling European defence budgets, accompanied by new and unnecessary command structures that involve needless duplications of the command structure that already exists within NATO.
On the Middle East, the difference in emphasis has become a yawning gulf. Trade disputes fester.
In truth, transatlantic differences of one kind or another have existed for a long time; some argue that they are now more visible due to the end of the Cold War. However, there is a long history between the two largest economies of the world. Forty per cent of world trade is between the EU and the US, so there is much at stake economically. We should never forget the past sacrifices that the US made for Europe.
The US and the EU—and its forerunners—have maintained diplomatic relations since 1953. There are various significant transatlantic co-operation treaties, which have important international agendas in which we all share—what the report describes as,
"deep, common and practical interests".
Europe and America retain a fundamental common outlook. Despite disagreements over certain issues, the wider relationship generally continues to work well. The report makes clear that the relationship is not doomed but that work is required, on both sides, to ensure that the future relationship is viable and productive. Future interaction should,
"accentuate the positive, look to the future, and not focus on blaming or punishing for the past".
The US relationship with the EU works best where the EU has clearly defined competencies; for example, terrorism, money-laundering, measures to combat poverty and spreading democracy and human rights. If they continue to work together more progress can be made in tackling the world's problems. The Atlantic partnership is of great value, not only to the partners, but to the world as a whole. If that partnership disintegrates into rivalry or hostility, the world will become a more dangerous place.
The strains that we are experiencing are not aided by the negative thinking on both sides of the Atlantic. There is a danger of heralding every new event in either part of the world as a possible new strain on the relationship rather than in a positive light. There

1041
sometimes seems to be a curious lack of diplomacy at the heart of diplomacy. There is too much at stake to allow that to go on.
Much has been written about how the enlargement of the EU might accentuate the divide between Europe and the US. However, little is said about the positive effects. Just a decade ago, half of Europe was run from Moscow, but the values that America and Europe hold dear— liberty, freedom and democracy—were anathema to them. We need a determination to manage the differences that have arisen, and will continue to arise, in such a way as to minimise their impact on the relationship as a whole. We need to identify potential problems before they become a serious source of difficulty.
Compromise is needed on both sides of the Atlantic to ensure that the partnership, which has been of great value to Europe and America—and the world as a whole—for 60 years or more, continues to enhance it for the next 60.
9.17 p.m.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, for initiating the debate this evening. I thank him and my noble friend Lord Harrison, who is also retiring from the committee, for all their excellent work, and congratulate them on the report. As the noble Lord, Lord Powell of Bayswater, said, it is short and to the point, and goes to the heart of the issues surrounding the complex relationship between the European Union and the United States. It identifies the key to establishing and maintaining a healthy transatlantic relationship—to seek an effective partnership. I also congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, and his committee on the timing of this debate, coming immediately after the weekend's events in Brussels in the European Council and the IGC and, of course, in the wake of the remarkable and very welcome events in Iraq.
As several of your Lordships have mentioned, events can move very quickly in international relationships—they certainly did this weekend. The capture of Saddam Hussein is both extraordinary and welcome. As the Prime Minister pointed out at the weekend, the shadow of Saddam is finally lifted from the Iraqi people. Where once his rule meant terror, division and brutality, his capture can now bring about a real opportunity for unity, reconciliation and peace between the people of Iraq. As the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, said, it is an opportunity for a return to normality.
Following a meeting of the European Council and the IGC in Brussels over the weekend, we could all be forgiven for believing—or even for hoping—that the EU has suffered a massive calamity. We would believe that if we took some of media headlines at face value. However, the truth is rather different. Although in formal terms nothing is agreed until everything is agreed in the draft treaty, there were some 82 points where consensus was very close. They included the fact
1042
that very important issues for United Kingdom such as defence, foreign policy, tax, EU finance, social security and criminal law will remain the province of the nation state—subject to decision making by unanimity.
Moreover, the European Council welcomed the agreement that we were able to reach with France and Germany on the future of European defence. It will strengthen the European Union's collective planning capacity while in no way duplicating or conflicting with Nato, which of course remains responsible for Europe's territorial defence. International events have moved on since this excellent report was drafted.
I also remind your Lordships, including the noble Lord, Lord Bowness, that all 25 heads of government agreed a transatlantic declaration on the importance of the transatlantic relationship in dealing with the global issues that face us all—an important declaration. This relationship underpins another crucial agreement at the weekend—the European Security Strategy. I assure the noble Lord, Lord Powell of Bayswater, that it was agreed. It was welcomed by the United States and sets out the EU's approach to dealing with the security threats that confront us in the 21st century. Only last week, with the publication of the new FCO strategy, the Foreign Secretary reaffirmed the critical importance of the relationship between Europe and the US for the United Kingdom. It is important for the world's security and prosperity.
I strongly agreed with a great deal of what the noble Lord, Lord Astor of Hever, said. The relationship between the EU and the US is rooted in economic interdependence and in shared values and our many common interests. We confront great challenges in the 21st century: global terrorism; the spread of weapons of mass destruction; poverty and disease; and hostile dictators who oppress their own people and threaten peace. Together, the allies among the world's democracies have a special responsibility to take action and mobilise international institutions to meet those challenges and build a more secure, just and prosperous world. Despite the noble Lord's well argued list of differences, I think that the transatlantic partnership sits at the centre of this enormous effort. Britain's place in the world today is based on the twin pillars of our alliance with the United States of America and our membership of the European Union.
I was pleased that much of the committee's report expressed that view clearly. Specifically, the report says that, first, the terrible events of 9/11 thrust international security to the top of the US agenda, overshadowing the great bulk of transatlantic business that is done quietly and well. Secondly, the report correctly asserts that EU member states agree on the key security objectives but there are differences about how to achieve them. Iraq, of course, highlighted many of those divergences. Thirdly—this is something that should stick firmly in all our minds—both sides, the United States and the EU, will lose out if the relationship is a poor one. Fourthly, I can do no better than to quote directly from the report:
"Both sides should … avoid either accepting or reinforcing the 'Europe as counterweight' perception. Europe should be seen … to be a more effective partner".

1043
The noble Lord, Lord Hannay of Chiswick, was right to differentiate between aspects of the transatlantic relationship. For example, he contrasted the difference in the balance of power in, on the one hand, trade and, on the other, military power. We have seen the divisions over Iraq and, perhaps, the lesser divisions over the Middle East peace process. In recent weeks, we have seen a renewed interest on both sides of the Atlantic in creating a better climate for the international relationship. That point was effectively made by the noble Lord, Lord Powell of Bayswater.
It was on the theme of effectiveness that the Prime Minister and President Bush focused during Mr Bush's recent state visit. As Tony Blair and George Bush said together:
"Effective multilateralism, and neither unilateralism nor international paralysis, will guide our approach".
That approach was echoed in the contributions made by the noble Lords, Lord Hannay of Chiswick and Lord Powell of Bayswater.
It is also the underlying approach taken by the committee chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Jopling. It set out the key areas in which the EU should act and how it should behave in pursuit of an effective transatlantic partnership. The report rightly identifies the reconstruction of Iraq and the search for peace in the Middle East as two key areas in which the EU should continue to strive to make a difference. It also asks that the EU examine its own military capability and improve its means of communicating and explaining itself to the US. Those points were ably emphasised by the noble Lord, Lord Bowness. Finally, the report focuses on NATO as the best forum for transatlantic dialogue in defence and security.
The issue of the ESDP, NATO and the IGC was taken up by my noble friends Lord Harrison and Lord Williams of Elvel and by the noble Lords, Lord Bowness, Lord Powell of Bayswater and Lord Wallace of Saltaire. Of course, NATO remains the cornerstone of our defence. But it makes sense in circumstances where NATO is not engaged for Europe to have the capability and power to act in the interests of Europe and the wider world. It is in that spirit that we have approached the recent discussion on ESDP in the IGC and the separate debate on how to enhance the planning capacity of the EU. On both we have made enormous progress, but, on planning, agreement on a paper setting out the way forward was reached by the European Council over the weekend.
We believe that this agreement addresses the needs identified for the closer links that the EU should be forging with NATO and for better co-ordination between civilian and military aspects of ESDP. On one point, which I know is of vital interest to your Lordships, it does not provide for a standing EU operational headquarters. I agreed with much of what the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Guthrie, said about improving EU capability.
As regards the ESDP, the package was on the table at the IGC. We believed that it provided the basis for consensus. It contained important elements, including the creation of a defence capability development agency,
1044
a solidarity clause to help manage the consequences of terrorist attacks and other disasters, and the updating of the Petersberg tasks. We supported the package because we believed that it would contribute to the development and strengthening of the open, flexible, militarily robust ESDP that the United Kingdom for long has championed. We also thought that much of it tuned in with what we said in the White Paper earlier this year.
Therefore, the partnership between NATO and the EU has significant potential that so far has not been recognised. It is a fact which, I believe, many in NATO already acknowledge. At the NATO foreign ministerial meetings in Brussels on 4th December, many allies supported a move for more effective co-operation between NATO and the EU. Various ideas were floated, including a United Kingdom proposal for a joint declaration at the Istanbul Summit in June next year as a response to the terrorist threat. We will keep those matters at the forefront of our continuing relationship and development.
I draw to your Lordships' attention the fact that the European Security Strategy this weekend described the transatlantic relationship as irreplaceable. I was much taken with the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire. I assure him that, of course, the new strategy is warmly supported by Her Majesty's Government.
Perhaps I may turn now to Iraq. I believe that my noble friend Lord Williams described the current position as "in suspense". As I said, the capture of Saddam Hussein is welcome news—nowhere more so perhaps than in Iraq. Possibly understandably, some commentators have focused on the difficulties in the current position, but the position is more positive than that. The European Council leaders have restated their commitment to the political and economic reconstruction of Iraq. The attacks that we have seen on Iraqis and the multinational force, and the international presence generally in Iraq, are attempts to undermine Iraq's future. The EU presidency has welcomed the 15th November announcement by the Governing Council. It has welcomed, too. the accelerated handover of authority to an Iraqi transitional government by the middle of next year. The EU is committed to supporting that process.
Perhaps it is true to say that the European pledge at the Madrid donors conference last October was a little on the disappointing side. But it should be remembered that in the EU a number of member nations have troops on the ground in Iraq, as well as police trainers, and shortly will be preparing a medium-term strategy for Iraq. That strategy will reflect Iraq's needs and complement the efforts of the UN and the coalition.
I would argue that the EU is becoming increasingly engaged in helping Iraq to achieve the goal of a stable, free and prosperous future. The noble Lord, Lord Jopling, raised the issue of the United States' decision to award contracts only to those who supported the action in Iraq, a point also touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Astor of Hever. That point was challenged by the noble Lord, Lord Gilbert. I am

1045
sorry that he is not in his place because he was quite vocal on the subject. The noble Lord made the point about why should the US not spend US taxpayers' money on those who supported them.
My point would be slightly different. We must acknowledge that the United Kingdom is among a very small minority of countries that does not attach trade conditions to development assistance that we give. For instance, it is not only the United States that attaches such conditions, but France and other countries also tie their aid to their trade. We do not believe that that is the right approach, but it is important to put that decision in the context of the practice of most countries around the world.
A number of noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, raised the issues around the Middle East peace process. The European Union and the United States have together been the motor of international engagement in that process. Together we have been at the forefront of the Quartet, leading the work of producing a plan for progress towards a lasting and peaceful settlement. This plan, the road map, builds on our vision, shared in many parts of the world, including the Arab world, of a viable Palestinian state and an Israeli state secure and with internationally recognised borders. Of course there are differences in the nuances of approach on each side of the Atlantic, but the important point is that both the European Union and the United States share the determination to carry that vision forward.
In the conclusions agreed over the weekend by the European Council and in the statements made by President Bush when he was in London in November, the message is the same: the road map is the only credible path to peace and that both the Palestinians and the Israelis must fulfil their commitments under it. We must recognise that the parties cannot take those steps alone. The international community has a great stake in the process and it must play its part. So maintaining a high level of engagement on the part of the members of the Quartet and, perhaps I may say, in particular on the part of the European Union and the United States, will be essential.
The noble Lord, Lord Jopling, reflected that at present the Middle East is something of a virus infecting much of the international agenda. To a certain extent he is right. There are enormous differences on this issue, in particular in public opinion on either side of the Atlantic. But it is important to remember that the United States has recently made commitments not made before by a US government. The US has also challenged the Israeli Government on points where they have not been challenged before, in particular on the building of the security fence, but also—and probably of more importance because of its historical perspective—on the issue of targeted assassinations.
The European Security Strategy also deals with two of the great global threats of today: terrorism and weapons of mass destruction. Given the events of recent weeks, we have a real reason to take an interest in this matter. The threat of terrorism is global. Every
1046
time I go overseas, whether to EU or NATO meetings or to individual countries, terrorism is very much at the top of the agenda. The EU and the US remain strong partners in the international coalition against terrorism. That co-operation encompasses policy and operational issues.
On the issue of weapons of mass destruction, we also have an important dialogue between the EU and the US. Only last week the EU's WMD strategy was endorsed at the European Council, and the Union recognises that co-operation with the United States and other key partners is absolutely vital to ensure a successful outcome to the global fight against proliferation.
Perhaps I may turn to the point made by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Guthrie, about Syria. Last week I spent two days in that country and I agree that we have an enormous amount of work to do. The real dilemma is whether the right strategy is one of disengagement, as the United States would prefer— the noble and gallant Lord cited the instance of the SAA—or is it one of trying to build up the relationship in the way being pursued by the European Union through the association agreement. The noble and gallant Lord was also right to draw our attention to the virulent anti-Semitism in Syria, as well as to the issues around terrorism. I dealt with that subject at some length in my meeting with the Syrian President. I believe that the right strategy at the moment is to offer the opportunity of serious engagement with Syria in order to put right some of what has been going wrong in its international relationships.
The noble Lord, Lord Jopling, my noble friend Lord Williams of Elvel and other noble Lords raised the issue of trade disputes with the United States. Yes, we have had a difficult and damaging trade dispute on steel. I am sure that we shall see more of that. Of course the foreign sales corporations will be coming up the agenda this year and I am sure that there will be those who wish to see retaliation and a strong stance taken in the European Union. But let us put this in the right context. The transatlantic trade relationship is fundamentally very good and enormously important. It is worth thousands of billions of pounds a year in trade and that means jobs and prosperity on both sides of the Atlantic. And, of course, we have the ability to resolve our disputes through the WTO when they occur.
In a wider context, both the United States of America and the European Union can engage in the Doha development round. It is vital that these two huge trading blocs of the world understand the importance of a new trade agreement in terms of the prosperity of those parts of the world that desperately need one. For the European Union and the United States that means a better approach to the key issue of agriculture in trade. We know that that is the position and we have to have the courage on both sides of the Atlantic to address that important issue.
The range of issues on which both sides have to work will continue to grow. Without an effective partnership between the EU and the United States an

1047
awful lot of the issues will remain unresolved. We cannot pretend that we do not have differences—of course we do—but the only sensible path is to work together to tackle the problems that confront us.
The committee's report referred to a "fractured relationship". It concluded that the relationship had been damaged and was in need of repair. The committee also readily recognised that the condition is not terminal and, as I have suggested, much has changed since the committee published its report. To use the words of the European security agreement which was agreed this last weekend, the transatlantic relationship is indeed an irreplaceable relationship. As was said at the European Council:
"Working together bilaterally and within the framework of multilateral institutions, the transatlantic partners will combine the vision and capabilities needed to address the challenges of our time. Now more than ever, the transatlantic link is essential if we want to create a better world".
9.37 p.m.
Lord Jopling: My Lords, I shall be very brief. I thank those noble Lords who were members of the committee for allowing us to produce a unanimous report—a point which has not been mentioned—and I thank noble Lords who have spoken in the debate for the warm reception they have given it. As I said earlier, we have not heard any serious criticisms of the report.
1048
I wish to make only one substantial point to the Minister. I hope that she will ponder on the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Powell, about the dangers inherent in the 40-strong planning cell which it is proposed should be established for ESDP. He quite rightly made the point that, unless one is very careful, that 40-strong planning cell could turn into a Trojan horse in the future and could turn out to be a threat to NATO. The Government have made the deal but I hope that they have made absolutely certain that that agreement does not lead to this now very small planning cell becoming something very much larger in the end.
The only other criticism raised during the debate concerned the length of time between the publication of the report and the debate. I am grateful that the Government Chief Whip is in his place. I know that he is aware of the great dissatisfaction there is at the log-jam of these reports, into which a great deal of effort, care and time is put by noble Lords. They deserve a more prompt and thorough examination by the House.
The message is clear: the present rift between the EU and the US is very dangerous. There is an urgent need for both sides to renew their efforts to move back as soon as possible to the kind of meaningful partnership we have enjoyed in the past.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at twenty minutes before ten o'clock.

  North/South Implementation Bodies: Funding
  North/South Implementation Bodies: Funding
  North/South Implementation Bodies: Job Advertisements
  North/South Implementation Bodies: Job Advertisements
  Northern Ireland: Historic Buildings
  Northern Ireland: Historic Buildings
  Northern Ireland: Police Recruitment
  Northern Ireland: Police Recruitment
  Northern Ireland: Public Audit Arrangements
  Northern Ireland: Public Audit Arrangements
  House of Lords: Disqualification from Membership
  House of Lords: Disqualification from Membership
  House of Lords: Lords of Appeal
  House of Lords: Lords of Appeal
  China: BBC World Service and News Website
  China: BBC World Service and News Website
  Jamaican Constabulary Force
  Jamaican Constabulary Force
  International Criminal Court: Israel
  International Criminal Court: Israel
  Moldova: EU Policy
  Moldova: EU Policy
  Moldova and Transdneistria: Removal of Russian Arms and Ammunition
  Moldova and Transdneistria: Removal of Russian Arms and Ammunition
  Immigration
  Immigration
  President Bush's State Visit: Costs to UK
  President Bush's State Visit: Costs to UK
  Failed Asylum Seekers: Assisted Voluntary Return
  Failed Asylum Seekers: Assisted Voluntary Return
  Asylum: Presumption of Unfounded Claim
  Asylum: Presumption of Unfounded Claim
  Alcohol
  Alcohol
  Work Permits
  Work Permits
  Public Order: Late-night Entertainment Venues
  Public Order: Late-night Entertainment Venues
  Alcohol Harm Reduction Strategy
  Alcohol Harm Reduction Strategy
  Regional Assemblies
  Regional Assemblies
  Community Amateur Sports Clubs
  Community Amateur Sports Clubs
  Local Government: Inspections
  Local Government: Inspections
  Domestic Violence: National Helpline
  Domestic Violence: National Helpline
  Land Use Planning Policy
  Land Use Planning Policy
  Civil Service
  Civil Service
  Cyprus United Kingdom Sovereign Bases: Turkish Cypriots
  Cyprus United Kingdom Sovereign Bases: Turkish Cypriots
  Independent Schools: Commerically Sensitive Information
  Independent Schools: Commerically Sensitive Information
  Schools: Spending
  Schools: Spending
  Tax Credits: 50-plus Elements
  Tax Credits: 50-plus Elements
  Pesticides: Vapona Strips
  Pesticides: Vapona Strips
  Working Tax Credit
  Working Tax Credit
  Sport: Priority Funding
  Sport: Priority Funding
  Sport England: Staff Costs
  Sport England: Staff Costs
  Sport England: National Sports Strategy
  Sport England: National Sports Strategy
  Sport: Community and Voluntary Groups
  Sport: Community and Voluntary Groups
  Inland Revenue: ASPIRE Procurement
  Inland Revenue: ASPIRE Procurement
  Blind and Partially Sighted People: Accessibility of Broadcasts
  Blind and Partially Sighted People: Accessibility of Broadcasts
  Minister for Sport: Attendance at Rugby Union Matches
  Minister for Sport: Attendance at Rugby Union Matches
  Sport: Anti-doping Measures
  Sport: Anti-doping Measures
  Security Equipment: Export Licences to Jamaica
  Security Equipment: Export Licences to Jamaica
  Offshore Wind Farm Orders
  Offshore Wind Farm Orders
  Radio Frequency Identification Tags
  Radio Frequency Identification Tags
  Fuel and Power Imports
  Fuel and Power Imports
  Botulinum Toxin: Testing
  Botulinum Toxin: Testing
  Bioterrorism: Contingency Plans
  Bioterrorism: Contingency Plans
  Civil Service: Training about Parliament
  Civil Service: Training about Parliament