Sitting of 17 December 2003

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

    QUEEN'S SPEECH (ANSWER To ADDRESS)
    THE VICE-CHAMBERLAIN OF THE HOUSEHOLD reported Her Majesty's Answer to the Address, as follows:
    I have received with great satisfaction the dutiful and loyal expression of your thanks for the Speech with which I opened the present Session of Parliament.

    ASSOCIATION AGREEMENTS
    THE VICE-CHAMBERLAIN OF THE HOUSEHOLD reported Her Majesty's Answer to the Address, as follows:
    I have received your Addresses praying that the (1) European Communities (Definition of Treaties) (Euro-Mediterranean Agreement Establishing an Association Between the European Communities and their Member States and the People's Democratic Republic of Algeria) Order 2003, and that the (2) 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 your House on 4th November, in the last Session of Parliament.
    I will comply with your request

Oral Answers to Questions
  INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT
  The Secretary of State was asked—
  INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

    EU Aid Programmes
    1. Sir Michael Spicer: What measures his Department has proposed for tackling fraud in EU aid programmes. [144406]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development (Mr. Gareth Thomas): We take very seriously any accusations of fraud in EU aid programmes. My Department has therefore supported the reform of the EC's aid programmes and policies, in particular the establishment of the EuropeAid office, progress with de-concentration, reduction in the backlog of unspent Commission funds and the reform of
    1554
    the financial management of the Commission's external assistance. Those measures should continue to improve the transparency and accountability standards of the EC aid programme financial management through better scrutiny.
    Sir Michael Spicer: Why give the money to the EU at all? Why not give it to the countries direct
    Mr. Thomas: Many countries already have extensive bilateral development programmes. The advantage that the European Commission offers is that it is able to lever in development money that might otherwise not be spent by member states. The hon. Gentleman might want to consider that especially pertinent point while bearing in mind the huge cuts in development spending as a proportion of gross national income over which his party presided.
    David Taylor: Among the countries and groups given aid by the EU is the Palestinian Authority. Only two weeks ago strong evidence showed that some of that aid is being fraudulently channelled to militant groups that are behind some of the suicide bombings in Palestine. Will the Minister comment on that and tell us what help his Department has given to root out such corruption and fraud?
    Mr. Thomas: I hope that I can reassure the House that the European Commission's investigations have found no evidence to corroborate allegations that EC funds have been misused to finance terrorist activities or used for anything other than their original purpose. We are satisfied that the Commission, with the assistance of the International Monetary Fund, has ensured that all the terms of the conditionality on which it insists when giving aid to the Palestinian Authority have been met. Israeli concerns, which prompted some of the allegations, have receded in the light of further recent reforms in the Palestinian Ministry of Finance, and Israel has resumed the transfer of tax revenues due to the Palestinian Authority. I hope that that reassures my hon. Friend.
    Mr. John Bercow: Given that roughly one quarter of British aid spending supports European Union programmes and that fraud in the EU aid budget is currently running at approximately £14 million a year—for the ninth successive year, the European Court of Auditors has refused to give a clean bill of health to the European Union accounts—can the hon. Gentleman explain to the House why in the Department's 2003 annual report, neither the section on the European Community, nor the list of 2003 to 2006 public service agreement targets, makes any mention of the fight against fraud in EU aid?
    Mr. Thomas: The 2002 European Court of Auditors report actually suggests that while there are some continuing concerns, about which we continue to press for serious improvements, over supervisory systems and controls and standards, a sample audit of the transactions undertaken by the Commission in development spending threw up only a number of relatively marginal errors. Clearly we need to continue

    1555
    to investigate those errors, but the programme of reform that the Commission has implemented in our development spending has produced fewer examples of irregularity and fewer accusations of fraud—far fewer than before 1999 when the current reform programme began. There is thus considerable evidence that the reform programme continues to work. Clearly more reforms may be necessary and we shall continue to support them.

    Migrant Remittances
    Mrs. Betty Williams: What assessment he has made of the benefit to developing countries of their nationals working in the United Kingdom and sending remittances home. [1144407]
    The Secretary of State for International Development (Hilary Benn): In October. DFID, together with the World Bank, hosted the first international conference on migrant remittances, which are estimated by the World Bank to be worth $88 billion a year. Research, including that funded by DFID, shows that both migration and remittances help to reduce poverty in developing countries, with remittance transfers making up as much as 40 per cent. of the household budget for receiving families.
    Mrs. Williams: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Remittances are clearly a very effective way of getting cash help through to developing countries. However, in view of the fact that much of that money goes through banks and significant costs are therefore involved, can my right hon. Friend tell the House how he hopes to bring down the cost of remittance transactions?
    Hilary Benn: My hon. Friend raises an important point about high costs, but the market is changing —and changing fast —so increased competition and new technology are helping to lower those costs. For example, the cost of sending remittances from the United States to Mexico has halved over the past four years; in Ecuador a bank has issued ATM cards to people who have no bank account, to enable them to access remittance funds from Spain; and similar developments are being considered in other countries. Lloyds bank has a pilot scheme that allows customers to send remittances to India cost-free. There is also the traditional hawala system, of which my hon. Friend will be aware. I hope that all those developments will help to address the question and will reduce the cost of that important support to developing countries.
    Mr. Quentin Davies: Is not that response a little complacent? Is the Secretary of State aware that only the other day his Department gave evidence to the Select Committee that the individual transaction costs—the amount abstracted by banks and intermediaries—were between 13 and 20 per cent. of the money earned by hard-working, often poor people who are generously trying to support their families in poor countries? That 13 to 20 per cent. on total remittances of $80 billion amounts to more than twice the right hon. Gentleman's total aid programme. Would it not be a good idea to focus a bit more attention
    1556
    on the matter, and will he give the House a considered report about the overall position on the cost of remittances—the extent to which the costs are falling or rising and what can be done about them?
    Hilary Benn: I do not accept that my answer was complacent. Indeed, I recognised that the issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Conwy (Mrs. Williams) and the hon. Gentleman is a real problem and that it needs to be addressed. I gave some examples of practical steps that are being taken, because the market is changing, to bring the costs down. If the hon. Gentleman is looking for a practical contribution, however, I can tell him that one of the things that the Department is doing is establishing a remittance taskforce with 15 donors in international agencies to look at what more we can do in the international community to bring those costs down because, as the hon. Gentleman is only too well aware, the benefit of that money to the recipients is enormous, not least, as he pointed out, because the amount is larger than all the aid that the rich world currently gives the poor world.

    Departmental Contracts
    Hugh Bayley: What steps his Department is taking towards spending a greater proportion of its budget on goods and services supplied by companies based in developing countries. [144408]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development (Mr. Gareth Thomas): DFID contracts are open to international competition from all sources. Suppliers must compete on price and quality and we do not give preferential access. The number of high-value contracts won by developing country firms against international competition rose from two in 2001–02—the first year in which we untied our aid—to 24 last year.
    We have also given delegated authority to DFID's overseas offices to make lower-value purchases in local and international markets, which resulted in about 1,500 low-value contracts worth a total of £20 million last year. We do not record company origin for those services but many of those contracts will have been awarded to developing country firms.
    Hugh Bayley: According to the Department's answer to my question in May, last year DFID headquarters awarded only eight contracts to African-based businesses, worth a total of £10.6 million, and DFID missions in Africa awarded additional contracts of about £9.5 million. Given that the Government have almost doubled aid to Africa— to £1 billion a year— does my hon. Friend agree that there is scope for awarding many more contracts to African countries? What will the Department do, consistent with the good management of public money, to enable more African businesses to bid for contracts from DFID?
    Mr. Thomas: My hon. Friend alludes to the fact that African-based companies are showing increasing interest in bidding for DFID business. There have been a number of notable recent successes, including the awarding of contracts to companies from Uganda, Tanzania and South Africa. My hon. Friend will be

    1557
    aware that since 1998 about £160 million has been allocated to developing trade-related capacity in developing countries, including countries in Africa. Included in that help is support to assist countries to develop their business sectors by supporting small business development and access to credit, and by increasing understanding of the standards that are necessary to win contracts from DFID and from other European countries. That process is under way. I would expect to see more African companies bidding—and I hope being successful, and winning contracts from DFID.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: Does the Minister agree, however, that sometimes purchasing officers are not imaginative enough in considering new bidders, and continue on old pathways rather than giving people an opportunity to sell their goods and develop properly?
    Mr. Thomas: We need to do two things: first, to develop the capacity of countries themselves to support their own businesses to enable them to grow and develop and to exploit the opportunities that are available; secondly, to ensure that the staff that we have in-country are fully trained in recognising the opportunities and the potential for particular companies. With that in mind. we have given our staff appointed in-country training courses in procurement work so that they can exploit opportunities in terms of the local companies that could possibly do work for us.

    Iraq
    Mrs. Cheryl Gillan: What recent representations he has received about aid to Iraq; and if he will make a statement. [144409]
    The Secretary of State for International Development (Hilary Benn): I continue to receive many representations about aid to Iraq. DFID has now committed £216 million towards humanitarian and reconstruction assistance in Iraq, and at the Madrid donors conference in October, I announced that the Government would commit a total of £544 million for the three years from April 2003.
    Mrs. Gillan: I thank the Secretary of State for that reply. The Iraqi Red Crescent is doing a fantastic job—especially because it took on some of the work of the International Committee of the Red Cross when it withdrew—particularly in delivering food, although it is stretched so badly that it is suffering from lack of resources. The worst problem that it faces is the lack of medical supplies and the lack of treatment for children. It has been sending children for treatment outside Iraq to Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Greece, and it is now appealing to European and Arab countries for help. We have had some highly publicised cases of children being treated in the UK. Could we do something to help and support this organisation and to help those children who are desperately in need?
    Hilary Benn: I join the hon. Lady in paying tribute to the work that the Iraqi Red Crescent is doing. As for the treatment of children and the health care system in Iraq,
    1558
    the most important contribution that we can make, which we are seeking to do alongside others, is to work with the Ministry of Health to build and develop capacity within Iraq. There are many able and highly trained doctors in a health service that suffered considerably during the course of Saddam's regime. We have been trying to improve the distribution system for drugs and medicines to ensure that there is support and help available to treat children where they should be treated, which is close to their homes in their own country.
    Mr. Harry Barnes: Saddam Hussein had his people dragooned and controlled within three massive state organisations: one for youth, one for women, and one for workers. Are there means by which the Government could seek to facilitate the newly emergent free bodies that represent these people, such as the Iraqi Federation of Trade Unions, so that they can get off the ground and be active in various areas? They might be reluctant to be seen to be clients of coalition forces, but there might be means through connections with the TUC and other bodies to facilitate a suitable arrangement.
    Hilary Benn: I know that my hon. Friend takes a great interest in this issue and he is right that the establishment of free institutions is an essential part of building a democratic state. The oppression that the people of Iraq suffered under Saddam's regime meant that that was difficult, if not impossible, to achieve. I have discussed the issue with representatives of the TUC and I am happy to look further at such support as we are able to give to back those within Iraq who are trying to establish a free trade union movement, which is an essential part of a democratic society.
    Tom Brake: Both the Prime Minister and President Bush have confirmed that the coalition provisional authority is a coalition body and not an agency of the US Government. Given that fact, and the fact that £30 million worth of DIFD aid to Iraq is either given to the CPA or is channelled through it, what efforts is the right hon. Gentleman making to ensure that the CPA is accountable to the House? When will quarterly statements of the CPA's income and expenditure be given in the House? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that we share a responsibility with the US Congress to ensure that the CPA is accountable?
    Hilary Benn: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. International development questions provide one opportunity for the House to call the CPA to account. The CPA publishes a great deal of information, as the hon. Gentleman will be aware, on its website. The development fund for Iraq, which is honouring our pledge that all the oil resources would be used only for the benefit of the people of Iraq, is paying in very large measure for the salaries of the teachers, doctors, nurses and police officers who are now helping to reconstruct the country. The International Advisory and Monitoring Board, which was set up under the UN resolution to demonstrate to the world that the money was being used for the purposes for which it was intended, has just had its first meeting, and will, I hope,

    1559
    provide the assurance that the hon. Gentleman and the House are seeking that the money is being used for its intended purpose
    Mr. Colin Challen: First, I pay tribute to the work of my right hon. Friend's Department in the reconstruction of Iraq. As he will know, the Environment Ministry in Iraq is brand new and is a rather novel concept. What aid and support can his Department give that Ministry to ensure that it is not on the margins in the new Iraqi Administration?
    Hilary Benn: I acknowledge the important role that the new department to which my hon. Friend referred will play alongside other Ministries in the establishment of the new country. One of the big tasks between now and next June or July, when the coalition provisional authority will cease to exist and power will be provisionally transferred to the new transitional administration, will involve the international community considering how best it can support those new Ministers and Ministries in advancing that work. I undertake to reflect on the point made by my hon. Friend. We cannot do everything in respect of all the departments, and need to focus our energy on those areas where we can make the biggest difference. However, I undertake to respond to the specific point made by my hon. Friend.
    Mr. Simon Thomas: Would the Secretary of State confirm that an increasing amount of his Department's budget in Iraq is being used to improve the security situation for humanitarian relief workers? While that is obviously a necessary task—the recent £3 million towards security co-ordination for the UN is much needed—does it not raise the question that there may be an impact on the aid delivered on the ground to the people of Iraq? Can the Secretary of State therefore give the House an assurance that the security situation in Iraq, whether it improves or gets worse, will not impact directly on the aid that the Iraqi people themselves receive?
    Hilary Benn: My first responsibility as Secretary of State is to secure as far as possible the safety of the people whom Cabinet colleagues and I have asked to work in Iraq. Without security they cannot do the job of aiding the reconstruction of that country. The two are not in competition with each other—they need to complement one another. The British Government, as the hon. Gentleman will be aware, have made a considerable financial commitment to support reconstruction. In the end, improving the lives of ordinary Iraqis, which is now beginning to happen, and establishing a clear political process that demonstrates that the Iraqi people have the right to make their own decisions about their own future, are the best contribution that we can make to security. After that, we should support reconstruction, which all hon. Members want.
    Ann Clwyd: As my right hon. Friend knows, a week ago I was in Iraq, where I met members of his Department, who are doing a very good job in very difficult circumstances. However, to pick up the question asked by the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan), the International
    1560
    Committee of the Red Cross was doing valuable work, particularly helping detainees—there are nearly 11,000 detainees in custody, and the ICRC provided a bridge between them and their families—and it is a tragedy that it had to withdraw many of its staff. Will my right hon. Friend give every support to the Iraqi Red Crescent, so that it can carry out a similar function for detainees and their families?
    Hilary Benn: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who has just returned from a visit to Iraq, for her kind words about the contribution that DFID staff and those with whom we have contracted are making to reconstruction of the country. She is right that the ICRC has been doing an important job, which makes the targeting of it in the bombing a cynical move by those who do not want the reconstruction of Iraq to succeed.
    I will undertake to look into the specific issue that she raised about the extent to which the Iraqi Red Crescent might be able to support that work, but as she knows, while a number of international agencies have withdrawn their international staff, they still have a considerable number of Iraqi-based staff who are carrying on that very good and important work.
    Mr. John Bercow: In the light of the recent UN news agency report that the teaching hospital in Basra and the nuclear medicine hospital still suffer acute shortages of equipment for radiotherapy, chemotherapy, endoscopy and anaesthetics, and that in some cases the equipment that exists has not been replaced in three decades, does the right hon. Gentleman accept that if the British Government take urgent steps to tackle those shortages, that help will be invaluable to long-suffering patients and will receive support from people of all political persuasions throughout the international community?
    Hilary Benn: I undertake to look into the two specific examples that the hon. Gentleman gave. As he may be aware, there has been a team of four staff seconded from the Department of Health working in the CPA headquarters in Basra, whom I met when I was there at the end of September. They have been working hard on a number of projects to support the re-establishment of the health service in the south of the country, not least the distribution of medicines, which is fundamental to enabling the Iraqi health service to care for its people.

    EU International Development Policy
    Mr. Bob Blizzard: What assessment he has made of the effect of the provisions of the draft treaty on the EU constitution on EU policy on international development. [144410]
    The Secretary of State for International Development (Hilary Benn): The current draft treaty for EU policy on international development provides for separate chapters for development co-operation and humanitarian aid, establishes poverty reduction as the main objective for development co-operation, makes it clear that member states and the EU will both continue to provide development and humanitarian aid, and gives distinct and equal prominence to development policy within the external policies of the EU.
    Mr. Blizzard: Can my right hon. Friend assure the House that there is nothing in the draft treaty that would

    1561
    in any way constrain or diminish the excellent work carried out by the Government in international development through their own programmes? Does he think that the provisions in the treaty will bring about an improvement in the hitherto less impressive performance of the EU in that domain?
    Hilary Benn: I am happy to give my hon. Friend the assurance that he is looking for. The outcome in respect of development has been extremely successful. We are engaged, as my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary indicated in answer to an earlier question, in a programme of encouraging reform of the European Union, as it spends a considerable part of our money on development. We are concerned that it be spent in the most effective way possible, and I am glad to be able to report to the House that the proportion of EU spending that goes on the poorest countries is gradually increasing. It was 38 per cent. two years ago and 52 per cent. last year. but we want to see that figure go much higher.
    Mr. Julian Brazier: The earlier, rather complacent answer to my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire (Sir Michael Spicer) on waste and corruption in the EU budget was in sharp contrast to the words of the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Clare Short) last year. She said:
    "It's an outrage and a disgrace and we need enormous pressure on the Commission to focus its money on poor countries."
    What steps is the Secretary of State taking to ensure that the EU overseas aid budget does not become a tool of the emerging European diplomatic identity?
    Hilary Benn: The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the steps that we have taken, including making the points that my predecessor but one made in saying that it was an urgent task for the EU to make sure that it used its money more effectively. That is what the reform programme is about, and that is the aim of the devolution of power and responsibility to EU country offices. Decisions taken closer to developing countries will lead to much more effective aid programmes than decisions taken in Brussels. The figures that I have just reported to the House demonstrate that that is having an effect. The proportion of aid going to the poorest countries of the world is gradually increasing, but I want to see much better progress to match the proportion of our aid budget that goes to the poorest countries of the world.

    African Conflicts
    Jim Sheridan: If he will make a statement on the effect on his Department's work of the current conflicts in Africa. [144411]
    The Secretary of State for International Development (Hilary Benn): Violent conflict has greatly affected Africa. More than 20 million people have been displaced owing to war and more than 3 million have died in the Great Lakes region since 1997. It also damages development. However, there has been a substantial
    1562
    reduction in the number of conflicts in Africa, with significant progress in tackling the conflicts in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Sudan, Sierra Leone, Liberia and Angola.
    Jim Sheridan: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his work and that of his staff and the voluntary organisations that are working in Africa in extremely difficult and dangerous circumstances. Can he assure the House that, taking safety factors into consideration, the work that he and his Department are carrying out will not be undermined or disrupted and will continue, particularly in the area of the Great Lakes and in Sudan?
    Hilary Benn: I had the opportunity to visit both the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Sudan last week, and in both those countries we are looking to increase the Department's support to back success in establishing peace, because those two countries now have a real opportunity to improve the lives of their own people, and we intend to help them in that task.

  The Prime Minister was asked—
  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Andy King: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 17 December.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair): This morning I met the President and members of the Iraqi governing council and congratulated them on the measures that they are taking to improve the lives and prosperity of the people in Iraq. I also had meetings with ministerial colleagues and, in addition to my duties in the House, I will have further such meetings later today.
    Andy King: Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating Warwickshire secondary schools on their excellent results in the key stage 3 tests and their year-on-year improvements—particularly Ashlawn school, up 13 per cent. in English, Bishop Wulstan and Harris schools, up 9 per cent. and 13 per cent. respectively in science, and Kenilworth school, up 10 per cent. in maths?
    The Prime Minister: I am very happy to congratulate Warwickshire schools. The point that my hon. Friend makes is absolutely right—the tables today show an enormous improvement in results at 14 across the country: 12 per cent. up in English since 1997; 11 per cent. up in maths; 8 per cent. up in science. A £500 million programme of investment, every penny piece of which, of course, was opposed by the Conservatives, has improved results dramatically.
    Mr. Michael Howard: Can the Prime Minister tell us how much the cost of running central Government has increased since 1997?
    The Prime Minister: The percentage of administration costs in central Government is actually lower than it was in 1997.
    Mr. Howard: So the Prime Minister does not know how much it costs to run his Government. It is

    1563
    £20 billion. That is nearly £7 billion more than in 1997. I am surprised that he does not know, because I gave him the figures five weeks ago. Can he tell us now how many more civil servants are employed by central Government compared with 1997?
    The Prime Minister: There are fewer civil servants than there were, for example, 10 years ago, but it is correct that recently numbers have increased—in the Prison Service and to deal with pensions and immigration issues. But overall, as I said a moment ago, the actual percentage costs of administration are lower now than they were in 1997.
    Mr. Howard: The answer is that there are 47,000 more civil servants in central Government compared not with 10 years ago, but with 1997. It is as many people as HSBC employs in the whole of the United Kingdom. So the Prime Minister does not know how much his Government cost or how many people they employ. Could he now give us the figure in the pre-Budget report—perhaps the Chancellor will help him—for Government spending on inspectors, regulators, paymasters and policy makers?
    The Prime Minister: First, I repeat that the cost of administration as a percentage of central Government spending has actually gone down, not up, under this Government. Secondly, perhaps the right hon. and learned Gentleman will tell us how many of the additional prison officers, for example, he would cut, given the need to increase prison numbers —remembering, of course, that when he was Home Secretary he cut the numbers of police officers on Britain's streets. With regard to the Gershon report, yes there is £9 billion for central Government, but that includes the primary care trusts, the Food Standards Agency, Ofsted and the Prison Service. If he disagrees with that, how many jobs in such bodies would he would cut?
    Mr. Howard: Let me remind the Prime Minister that this is Prime Minister's questions. I will make the Prime Minister an offer. If he wants me to answer the questions, let him give me a slot every week for Leader of the Opposition's questions. I would be very pleased to do that. He can choose the day—any day of the week—and I will be very pleased to answer his questions. But, just for the moment, he is still Prime Minister: it is my job to ask him questions and it is his duty to answer them.
    If the Prime Minister had got as far as page 140 of the pre-Budget report—he may not have done that, but if he had—he would have come to paragraph 6.47 and he would have been told that the answer to my question is £12 billion: more than the entire budget of the Department for Transport. Is it any wonder that the Cabinet Secretary said last week that bureaucracy and paperwork are now the main concern of civil servants? Does the Prime Minister agree with him?
    The Prime Minister: Let me again correct the right hon. and learned Gentleman on his figures. He is giving figures for the entirety of what central Government and local government do. The reason why there is a figure in the pre-Budget report is that for the first time this
    1564
    Government have actually put together the figures that are available. Again, let us be clear. Those are not the only numbers of people employed that have gone up—we have also got 55,000 extra nurses, 25,000 extra teachers, 14,000 extra doctors, 9,000 extra police, and 80,000 extra classroom assistants. Those people are the reason why the results in the health service, education and law and order are going up under this Government.
    Mr. Howard: I am afraid that the Prime Minister has not read the pre-Budget report. The Cabinet Secretary said that bureaucracy and paperwork are out of control because of the Government's target culture. That is where the money has gone. Can the Prime Minister confirm that according to the pre-Budget report—again, I will give him the reference: it is table B24 on page 237—public sector investment has almost halved under this Government?
    The Prime Minister: Actually, public service investment is rising under this Government, literally day in, day out. When we came to office, we were spending £30 per family in the health service; it is now £80 per family in the health service. That is the result of the extra investment. There is a reason why the school results are better today at key stage 3—when we came to office, only half the children were passing their tests at 11; now, three quarters do so. There is a reason why every single indicator on heart disease, cancer and national inpatient and out-patient waiting lists is better than in 1997—it is the extra investment, and the truth of the matter is that every single penny piece of it was opposed by the right hon. and learned Gentleman and the Conservative party.
    Mr. Howard: It is a very great pity that the Prime Minister has not read the pre-Budget report. because the truth is that he has been rumbled. The Government's own figures show that public sector investment—that is, hospitals, schools and roads—has almost halved since he became Prime Minister, while spending on bureaucracy, regulators and red tape has rocketed. Does not that prove that this is a Government who are taxing and spending and failing; that people are faced with ever-higher taxes and ever-failing services; and that after six and half years, this is a Prime Minister who has lost his grip and a Government who have lost their way?
    The Prime Minister: Let us just look at the national health service. As a result of extra investment, it is in a better position than it ever was when the right hon. and learned Gentleman was in power. We know why the Conservatives want to run down the NHS: they want to get rid of it.
    The right hon. and learned Gentleman talks about the pre-Budget report, which I have read. It shows that, as opposed to 3 million unemployed under the Conservatives, 1.5 million extra jobs have been created under Labour; as opposed to interest rates of 10 per cent. and 15 per cent., they are now at their lowest for decades; and as opposed to double-digit inflation, we have the lowest inflation for ages. Let us look at—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The Leader of the Opposition is out of order.
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. and learned Gentleman wants to compare the past with the present.

    1565
    He has apologised for the poll tax, but is he sorry about his opposition to the minimum wage? Is he sorry that he increased unemployment by 1 million? Is he sorry that he cut police numbers when in power? He is not sorry— [Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Mackay, do not tell me how to do my job. You would not know where to start.
    Mr. Gordon Marsden: Does the Prime Minister share my concern that in all the focus on and debate about tuition fees, there is a danger of losing sight of the genuine benefits that the Government promise part-time and continuing students in their higher education proposals? Will he ensure that, in discussions with the Secretary of State for Education and Skills, the needs of those students and others in the further education sector are not neglected in the funding, whatever the outcome of the top-up fees debate?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is right; we must remember that many students are part-time. Many have to find much of the money for their courses themselves. It is therefore important to have a proper, balanced system of funding for pre-school, at-school and after-school education, not only for those who go to university but for the literally hundreds of thousands of people who want to get better adult skills and the 200,000 people who are on the modern apprenticeship scheme. I assure him that the interests of part-time students will be taken fully into account.
    Mr. Charles Kennedy: I return to the issue that I raised with the Prime Minister this time last week, when I asked him whether he believed it fair for graduates who earn around £35,000 a year to contribute 50 per cent. of their income to the state, yet unfair—his word, not mine—for those who earn more than £100,000 to pay 50 per cent. of their income to the state under our proposals. How can he justify one and not the other?
    The Prime Minister: First, on graduates making a fair repayment for the investment in their education, it is not unfair to tell people that they should make some contribution. I should have thought that most people would accept that. As was just pointed out, the interests of other people must be taken into account—education for under-fives and provision for those who need adult skills and those on apprenticeships. We propose a fair system of repayment whereby, for example, graduates who earn £18,000 a year pay £5 a week—that is much better than the current system, even with maintenance loans.
    The right hon. Gentleman's proposal is unfair because it is unrealistic, given the Liberals' huge list of spending commitments, to say that they will get all the money from a 50 per cent. top rate of tax. We went through that with the Liberals when they had a commitment to fund everything out of 1p on the standard rate of income tax. We all remember that, and also that whenever the figures were examined they were incredible.
    Mr. Kennedy: Oh, Mr. Speaker, there he goes again. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, last week his party
    1566
    produced a document that cited 70 Liberal Democrat spending commitments. We had a look at that document—I have written to the Prime Minister about it—and some of them are spending cut pledges. So much for the economic literacy of the Labour party.
    Returning to the substance and detail of the Prime Minister's proposals, he will not say why it is fair that a graduate earning £35,000 is expected to make a 50 per cent. contribution to the state under his proposals, when he would consider it unfair for someone earning more than £100,000 to be hit with a similar level of debt. And what about those people who are earning only £15,000 a year? The Prime Minister is proposing that they should pay an effective tax rate of 42 per cent. Is that fair?
    The Prime Minister: I have already said why I think it is fair to have a graduate repayment system. In relation to the 70 spending commitments that the right hon. Gentleman has made, I shall be happy to return to the House on the next occasion with the details of those commitments. I shall give the House a few examples now, however. There is a commitment to spend £2 billion on the railways— [Interruption.] Well, there is. It will either come out of the 50 per cent. or from somewhere else. There is a £400 million commitment for village halls. There is also a pledge to increase, either significantly or dramatically —I cannot remember the exact word—the amount spent on doctors and nurses in the health service. Will that all come out of the 50 per cent? The best thing would be if we both had a look at the right hon. Gentleman's spending proposals when we are not doing other things over the Christmas break, so that we can discuss them again when we come back.
    Judy Mallaber: Will my right hon. Friend welcome the launch of the national 24-hour helpline on domestic violence on Monday, the day of the Second Reading of the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Bill in another place? Will he also ensure that adequate resources are put in to back up that hotline by providing refuges all round the country for victims of domestic violence?
    The Prime Minister: The helpline is going to be extremely important. It will provide 24-hour access to emergency refuge accommodation and an information service that will benefit thousands of women and children. I agree with my hon. Friend that we must ensure that the coverage is as extensive as we want it to be. According to the latest figures, domestic violence now accounts for almost a quarter of all violent crime. We are introducing new measures and putting more money into tackling this issue, but the most important thing—besides the money and the measures —is for Parliament to make it clear by voting unanimously, I hope, on the Bill that domestic violence has absolutely no place in our society and that we are prepared to do whatever it takes to root it out.
    Sandra Gidley: The Prime Minister wants 50 per cent. of young people to go to university. He also claims that graduates will attract premium salaries. Will he admit that his aim and his claim are incompatible?
    The Prime Minister: No, I will not. It is surely important that we increase the number of young people

    1567
    going to university. When I went to university, about 7 per cent. of school leavers went; the figure is now well over 35 per cent. It is important that we carry on increasing young people's access to university, but that has to be funded in a fair way. There will be an end to all up-front fees, so that families and parents will not have to pay anything up front. It is not unfair to ask graduates to make a fair repayment once they have graduated, rather than take all the funding out of general taxation. The more people look at this, the more they will see that that is a fair way to do it.
    Jim Knight: The Prime Minister will be aware that CITES—the convention on international trade in endangered species—is to meet in Thailand in October next year. He might not be aware, however, that it appears that more endangered species are smuggled through Thailand than anywhere else in the world. Only this month, more than 100 tigers and 116 orang-utans have been discovered in police raids on two establishments in Bangkok. This followed an investigation by Jim and Alison Cronin of Monkeyworld in my constituency, who are campaigning to rescue Naree, a chimp performing in a Bangkok zoo, who will die from infections if she does not receive urgent specialist treatment in my constituency. Does the Prime Minister—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I think the Prime Minister understands the hon. Gentleman's concern.
    The Prime Minister: Right! The United Kingdom is a leading player in the convention on international trade in endangered species, and was one of the first countries to sign up to the convention. I understand that the Thai Government are making a major effort to improve enforcement of the convention in Thailand. We have provided in the region of £1.4 million in financial support for convention initiatives on species protection. There is a wildlife crime intelligence unit with the aim of targeting and disrupting wildlife crime and the major criminals involved. People may laugh at this, but it is a serious issue and involves a lot of organised criminality. It is important that we ensure that the convention is adhered to in all countries.
    Bob Russell: Over the Christmas recess, will the Prime Minister contrast the performance of his Government with the achievements of the Attlee Government—real achievements by a real Labour Government? The Attlee Government built 1,000 council houses a week, whereas new Labour has achieved only 3,000 in six years. As a result of a quarter of a century of Tory policies, we are now suffering the worst housing crisis for three or four generations. Hundreds of thousands of children will be living in inadequate accommodation this Christmas. What do a real Labour Government intend to do about that?
    The Prime Minister: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his early career move to join the Liberal Democrats rather than the Labour party. Frankly, we need no lessons about our pride in the Attlee Government. I believe that the Attlee Government would be immensely proud of 1.5 million extra jobs, of
    1568
    the 500,000 children lifted out of poverty, and of the record investment in health and education, which is a lot more than the Liberals ever did.
    Mr. Mark Lazarowicz: For more than 3,000 families, Christmas celebrations this year will be turned into tragedy because one of their family members will be killed or seriously injured on Britain's roads. Does my right hon. Friend welcome the work being done by safety camera partnerships, which, with the sensible use of speed cameras, have capped accidents by more than 35 per cent? Will he consider implementing the proposals for tougher speeding and drink-driving penalties that have been under consideration since December 2000?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend makes an important point about safety camera partnerships. The eight pilots have shown a 35 per cent. reduction, which represents a reduction of about 280 people in the number of people killed or seriously injured. As a result of those partnerships, many families whose lives would otherwise have been blighted have not suffered such tragedy. There are 42 police force areas involved in the partnership programme. We will publish a report of the programme's operation of the scheme in the new year, and then we will take the decisions on how to roll it out across the rest of the country.
    Mr. Elfyn Llwyd(PC): We read this week that all potential candidates for honours will be vetted for anti-Government and anti-Blairite sympathies. Does not that rather narrow the pool unrealistically?
    The Prime Minister: Like many reports, that one was complete nonsense. I gather that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales has written to all the Welsh MPs offering them the chance to make nominations, so there is an opportunity for the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Derek Wyatt: Would my right hon. Friend be prepared to host a meeting at No. 10 for the executives of the Rugby League and the Rugby Football Union, the Super League clubs and Premiere Rugby to establish a rugby foundation that would do for rugby$both union and league—what the Football Foundation has done for football?
    The Prime Minister: I would certainly be happy for the Government or myself to be involved in such a programme. My hon. Friend has done an immense amount to forward the cause of rugby. In the past few years, rugby union has received about £45 million in lottery awards, which is part of a El billion investment in school sport, including almost £700 million to enhance school sports facilities. I agree that there is a case for having a rugby foundation to do the same for rugby as the Football Foundation does for football. I would be very happy to he involved in that in any way.
    Mr. David Heath(LD): The Prime Minister mentioned his time at

    1569
    university. He was at the same college as me at the same time, as he may remember. The Prime Minister is not very good at answering this question—but how is it fair that neither he nor I will pay back a single penny of the cost of our expensively acquired Oxford education, while he wants graduates to pay a higher rate of marginal tax than millionaires?
    The Prime Minister: I think we should both draw a veil over our time at university together. I think that would be wise in both our cases, if I remember rightly—but we will leave that for another time.
    The point, surely, is that, as I said a moment ago, when we were at university very few people left school and went on to university. Now, there are five, six or seven times as many. We want people to be able to go to university, if they have the requisite ability.
    After the big expansion of the 1990s, funding per pupil has dropped by some 35 per cent. If we want to expand opportunity for people, it is important for us to get more money into universities. Everyone agrees on that. The question is: what is the fair way in which to do it? I say that rather than taking the money from the general taxpayer—the vast hulk of taxpayers have never been to university—it is surely fair to ask the graduate, on graduation, to make a reasonable and fair payment back into the system.
    I do not think that that is unfair. It is part of a change that is taking place in universities in this country and around the world. What we do not want in this country is to be left behind, either in providing access for students or in the excellence of our universities.
    Ms Dari Taylor: Like every other Member, I am delighted that Saddam Hussein has been captured, and I am pleased that we are making a commitment to a fair trial. Will my right hon. Friend help to secure fair treatment for a 22-year-old from my constituency, Urslaan Khan, who has been in prison in Iraq for the past six weeks? No evidence of misdeed has been tabled, and no legal representation has been obtained. The young man's parents are positively distraught, as any parent would be. I ask my right hon. Friend to help secure fair treatment for him.
    The Prime Minister: I gather from my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary that he wrote to my hon. Friend last night, and I know that the British office in Baghdad has taken a close interest in the case. I cannot comment on the facts other than to say that we will of course lodge our interest—indeed, we have already done so—and that I know my right hon. Friend will be in touch with my hon. Friend again about the case.
    Chris Grayling: Does the Prime Minister still rule out a referendum on the European constitution in all circumstances?
    The Prime Minister: I have been over that ground many times. As I have said before, if the constitution altered the fundamental nature of the relationship between the member state and the European Union there would be a case for it, but it does not and it will not. We have set down lines so that we preserve the nation state in all its attributes—in relation to tax, social
    1570
    security, foreign policy, defence and treaty change. In respect of all those, and in respect of financial resources, the attributes of the nation state remain. Indeed, an all-party House of Lords Select Committee has said that, if anything, the constitution transfers powers from the Commission to member states. That is why I say that it is not necessary to hold a referendum.
    Tony Lloyd: At this time of year, pensioners in my still deprived inner-city constituency know very well why they voted Labour when they receive the winter fuel allowance. Nevertheless, for many of those same pensioners transport in inner-urban areas is not good, and access to the private car does not exist. The Department of Transport has introduced the urban bus challenge in parts of Manchester, giving those deprived groups access to public transport where the Tories' deregulation has failed them so badly. Will my right hon. Friend try to roll out that programme, so that pensioners can have access not just to the money that the Government have given them but to hospitals and shops, and enjoy a normal way of life?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is right to mention the additional help given to pensioners, particularly some of the poorest, who are many pounds a week better off as a result of the Government's policies; but I entirely understand his point about the urban bus challenge. We are supporting some four projects in Greater Manchester, and I gather that a further £20 million will be allocated as a result of this year's competition, which is nationwide. That is in addition to fare concessions. However, it is important for us to go on looking at ways to enhance the mobility of pensioners who, as my hon. Friend said, have enjoyed a better standard of living under this Government, but need to be helped still further.
    Mr. Andrew Mitchell: Given that the Government have told every further education college in England that it will receive an increase of not less than 2.5 per cent. in its funding next year, rising to 5 per cent., how can it be that Sutton Coldfield college was told last week that it faces a cut of £1.3 million and up to 75 redundancies? In view of this apparent act of bad faith, will the Prime Minister look into the matter personally and agree to receive a delegation from the college? If he can help us on this one point at this time of year, we in Sutton Cold field will regard him as Father Christmas rather than as Scrooge.
    The Prime Minister: I obviously do not know about the situation in respect of that particular further education college; I am very happy to look into it, and to write to the hon. Gentleman. However, I hope that he will be so good as to accept that overall—I know that this is no consolation if there are indeed problems at the Sutton Coldfield further education college—this Government are putting a massive amount of money into further education and education generally. If he will forgive me, I have to point out that this Government brought all that additional money before this House, but he and his colleagues voted against it.

Developments in Variant CJD
12.31 pm
The Secretary of State for Health(Dr. John Reid): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement about a blood transfusion incident involving variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease, better known as vCJD. It might assist the House if I begin by setting out the basic facts, before coming on to discuss the implications of the incident that I shall describe.
In March 1996, a blood donor, who was at the time free of signs of vCJD, donated blood to the National Blood Service. Shortly after this, the donated blood was transfused into a patient who underwent surgery for a serious illness. In continuing my description of these events, I will refer to the individuals as the donor and the recipient. The donor showed no signs of vCJD at the time when blood was given, but developed the disease three years later—in 1999 —and died from it. The recipient died in the autumn of this year. Initial post-mortem examination of the recipient showed changes in the brain indicative of CJD. Further examinations and tests of the patient's brain confirmed the diagnosis of variant CJD. The link between the donor and the recipient was first reported to officials in my Department on 9 December 2003, at which time the diagnosis of vCJD in the recipient was still being confirmed.
I was first alerted to the developments on Friday 12 December, and was briefed by the chief medical officer on Monday and Tuesday of this week. Today, I am bringing this information to the House at the earliest opportunity. I have given, and will give, minimal personal and clinical details of the recipient, because the family concerned wish to have their privacy respected.
In the light of the facts that I have outlined, it is therefore possible that the disease was transmitted from donor to recipient by blood transfusion, that the blood of the donor was infectious three years before the donor developed vCJD, and that the recipient developed vCJD after a six-and-a-half-year incubation period. This is a possibility, not a proven causal connection, because it is also possible that both individuals separately acquired vCJD by eating bovine spongiform encephalopathy-infected meat or meat products. This is a single incident, so the possibility of the infection being transfusion-related cannot be discounted, although it is impossible to be sure what the exact route of infection was. That is the conclusion of the chief medical officer and the experts who report to me.
It is because this is the first report from anywhere in the world of the possible transmission of variant CJD from person to person via blood that I thought it right to come to the Dispatch Box and inform the House, even if only on a precautionary basis.
The incident was discovered by good surveillance. In 1997 the Department of Health funded a research study, the transfusion medicine epidemiology review TM ER—study, to examine links between all the variant CJD cases and any form of blood transfusion. It is through that research study that the association between those two patients was identified. I should also point out that this emphasises the importance of post-mortem examination. Without it we would never have
1572
known about those matters, and I would like to thank our national health service pathologists for their expertise and constant vigilance.
I can inform the House that, as some will already know, there is as yet no blood test for variant CJD—or, for that matter, for BSE—let alone one that could detect the disease years before symptoms develop, so there is no way of screening blood donations for the presence of the CJD group of diseases. Fortunately, however, a range of precautionary measures have been put in place by the Government since 1997, even though there was at that time no evidence of the risk of person-to-person transmission of the disease via blood. For the benefit and reassurance of the House, I think it right to set out the action that has been taken to date and the further action that we now propose.
First, since 1997 all cases of variant CJD reported to the national CJD surveillance unit and diagnosed as having "probable" variant CJD result in a search of the National Blood Service blood donor records. If the patient has given blood, any stocks of that blood are immediately destroyed.
Secondly, on 17 July 1998, acting on expert advice, the Government announced a £70 million programme to remove most of the white cells from blood destined for transfusion. White cells were considered by experts to be a potential source of infection. This process of so-called leuco-depletion was then a highly precautionary measure to reduce what was then a hypothetical source of infectivity. The process of leuco-depletion—the removal of the white blood cells—was implemented by the National Blood Service over time, and completed by October 1999.
Thirdly, in November 1998, again acting on expert committee advice, the Government announced a £30 million programme to phase out the use of United Kingdom-sourced plasma in the manufacture of blood products. At the time, in the absence of any defined risks, that was another highly precautionary measure. From the end of 1999, therefore, all blood products have been made using plasma sourced from the United States of America. To ensure continuity of supply, the Department of Health purchased on 17 December 2002 the largest remaining independent US plasma collector, Life Resources Incorporated. as part of our attempt to ensure that plasma and plasma-related products were derived from sources outside the United Kingdom.
Fourthly, the National Blood Service has informed us that 15 people received donations of blood from donors who subsequently developed variant CJD. Of the 15 individuals, we have been informed that five received blood after leuco-depletion had been implemented, and the remainder before. The earliest of those 15 transfusions was in 1993 and the latest in 2001. Working with the National Blood Service, the Health Protection Agency is in the process of contacting those individuals. All will be told about the circumstances of their case and have the opportunity to discuss the risks with an expert counsellor.
Many more patients, of course, including haemophiliacs, will have received plasma products before plasma was sourced from the USA. They will have received products derived from large pools of

1573
plasma donated from many thousands of people and thus heavily diluted. The UK-wide CJD incidents panel considers the risks for that group to be even lower than for those who received whole blood. It is very difficult to trace all individual recipients of such products made from these plasma pools. However, the panel will be advising, on a case-by-case basis, which recipients will need to be contacted as the necessary information becomes available. That group of patients will also have the opportunity for a discussion with an expert on an individual basis. Any person with any concerns may ring NHS Direct on 0845 4647.
Fifthly, before these events, expert groups were already deliberating on whether further measures were required in relation to vCJD and blood. In October this year our expert Advisory Committee on the Microbiological Safety of Blood and Tissues for Transplantation advised, on the basis of a risk assessment, that further action, such as stopping people who have received a blood transfusion giving blood, was not necessary. However, in the light of today's statement, we have asked that committee to look comprehensively at whether further precautionary measures could be taken that would not adversely impact on the safety or availability of blood.
Sixthly, it is apparent that much more blood and blood products are used clinically than need to be used. There have been many past attempts to reduce the use of blood to situations where it is absolutely needed medically, but these have been only partially successful. I will therefore be asking the National Blood Service to have urgent discussions with the medical royal colleges and NHS hospitals to address that area of clinical practice. More appropriate blood usage will reduce all the risks associated with blood and will make more effective use of our precious blood supplies.
A finding of this kind, albeit one whose full medical significance is still far from clear, will inevitably give rise to concern. It is therefore important to take account of the wider context in two respects. First, since the events in 1996, approximately 24 million units of blood or blood components have been given to patients in the United Kingdom. Blood transfusion can be a life-saving treatment, but no medical treatment is free from all risks. Indeed, it is an unfortunate fact that already approximately 12 people die each year from complications of blood transfusion. Many people receiving blood transfusion are already very ill, some in life and death situations. A wide range of measures are routinely used to reduce the risks of transfusion by screening for HIV/AIDS, hepatitis B and C and other infections. For specific high-risk patients, even more detailed screening takes place.
Those wider measures should be seen in the context of the precautionary action already taken on vCJD and the recognition that so far we have only one single report of a possible link between a single donor and a single recipient. We are generally regarded internationally as having a very safe blood service, especially because of our precautionary approach to screening for infection, careful donor selection and the tradition of volunteering in this country, which means that our donors generally have a lower incidence of many viral diseases compared with those in other countries who are paid for their donations.
1574
Finally, as to the wider situation for vCJD, we have thankfully not so far seen the thousands of cases of vCJD that some projections suggested. As of 1 December 2003, there had been a cumulative total of 143 cases of vCJD in the United Kingdom. Over the past three years, the annual number of new cases has fallen each year. However, there should be no complacency, as it remains premature to conclude that the epidemic has peaked, and in any case, any single case of vCJD is tragic for the patients and families concerned.
I hope that my statement has given the House a clear and accurate account of the finding in the full context in which it needs to be seen. I have asked the chief medical officer to oversee the further work and investigation required, and to keep me closely informed. I will, of course, also keep the House informed of any major developments in this area.
Mr. Andrew Lansley: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for his having given me the opportunity to see the statement in advance, and I am sure the whole House is grateful to him for his openness and for the speed with which he has given us details of what is, as he said, a tragic event. We understand and respect entirely the privacy of the family concerned, but I am sure that they will receive from us our sincere condolences. I am also sure that the Secretary of State will be able to confirm that they, like other families affected by variant CJD, will be beneficiaries of the compensation scheme.
It is important to identify what we do not know. The Secretary of State was right to illustrate the limits of our knowledge about this tragic event. We do not know what, if any, means of transmission exists between blood and infection with variant CJD—we do not know whether blood is the source of the infection. He will be aware that, because there have so far been so few identified cases of variant CJD in a large population who were exposed to BSE-contaminated beef, the chances of the recipient contracting variant CJD other than by exposure to blood transfusion must be regarded as less likely than by some means connected with the blood transfusion, although I freely accept that we cannot quantify either risk, given the nature of the two populations involved. Equally, having been unable to establish the risks, we cannot go on to screen blood donations—the technology to enable us to do so does not exist—or to test for variant CJD.
Nevertheless, I hope that the Secretary of State can answer some questions. Although precautionary measures are being taken in relation to blood transfusions both of whole blood donations and of blood products and plasma, will he confirm that the transfusion in the case in question was a transfusion of whole blood and, therefore, of red cells? The transfusion occurred in 1996, and therefore before the implementation of precautionary measures in relation to leuco-depletion. If in this case there is a connection to blood donation, it may well be that the risk has been substantially reduced by the introduction of the precautionary measure adopted in 1998. What research is continuing into the impact and the benefits of leuco-depletion in relation to blood transfusions of whole blood donations?
I have a few detailed questions to ask. The Secretary of State said that the Advisory Committee on the Microbiological Safety of Blood and Tissues for

1575
Transplantation is to advise him on whether blood donations should be accepted from people who have themselves received blood transfusions. In 1998, when the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) told the House of other precautionary measures, he had sought and received advice from the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee. Time will not have allowed both committees to have given advice to the current Health Secretary, but will he confirm that he will also be taking advice from SEAC? Clearly, advice must come from those who have expert knowledge of the characteristics of BSE and variant CJD; the issue should not be seen only from the viewpoint of the National Blood Service.
The Secretary of State said that thus far there had been 15 cases of blood donors subsequently contracting variant CJD, and he will recall that at least one of those cases occurred in Scotland. Questions regarding the ability to follow up patients who were potentially recipients of blood donations arose at that time.
Can he confirm that the different Administrations are now able to deal with people who have dispersed across the UK or the world? Are patients who might have received such blood donations being contacted and followed up?
What conclusions has the Secretary of State reached in response to the advice given by the CJD incidents panel on the risk of exposure to variant CJD from surgical instruments? What action will he take in that respect? It is a matter that has been under consideration for a long time.
In the wider context of blood transfusions generally, I turn now to children born since 1 January 1996. They could not have been exposed to BSE-contaminated beef, and to reduce the risk to that vulnerable population group it is intended to secure for them in early 2004 what is described as single-unit—that is, not pooled—virally inactivated donations from non-UK—in this case American—untransfused males. What consideration will the Secretary of State give to the availability of that form of blood product—plasma—for a wider group of vulnerable patients? Those patients include people who require regular transfusions, such as haemophiliacs, or those who need large-scale transfusions or blood products on a regular basis. What difference has the purchase of the plasmaphoresis centres in the US from Life Resources Incorporated made to the availability here of blood products for that purpose?
It is important for the House to recognise that 2 million people donate blood each year in the UK. They provide a vital, life-saving resource. The number of lives that are saved and the number of incidences of disease prevented by those donations far outweigh any risks associated with them. At the same time, the reporting structure on the serious hazards of transfusion needs greater compliance from NHS hospitals. More hospitals must act on the recommendations, make them part of their clinical governance and report back in full. In that way, the openness of the reporting structure will mean that we learn from mistakes and thus reduce risks overall. Will the Secretary of State ensure that the responses in the NHS to the transfusion hazard recommendations are acted on as fully as possible?
1576
The Secretary of State made a welcome statement in August about hepatitis C compensation, and we are awaiting the details of the scheme. Now is not the time for a detailed debate on that, but will he confirm that those who contracted hepatitis C through blood donations, and their families, will get some news soon about the compensation scheme?
The Secretary of State said that he would be considering advice in relation to people who have received transfusions. Will that extend to people who have had transplants? There has been speculation about the measures that he might take. He referred to the availability of blood donations, which it is important to bear in mind. What has been the reduction in the number of blood donations in recent years? If there were to be a substantial and adverse impact on blood donations, the health consequences could be very serious.
Finally, I strongly endorse what the Secretary of State said about seeking alternatives to blood donations in treatment. The UK does not adopt such measures as much as some other countries. He may be aware of the possibilities offered by erythropoietin, known in short as EPO, as an alternative to large-scale transfusions for cancer patients suffering from anaemia. Will he update the House on the extent to which clinical trials and consideration of the costs and benefits offered by EPO are making progress? The use of EPO may help to reduce the need for blood donations to a minimum, and allow us to use the blood that is donated as well as we can.
Dr. Reid: I begin by thanking the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) for his remarks, and especially for the condolences that he expressed to the families of anyone afflicted by variant CJD. We all share those sentiments. He also asked a number of perfectly legitimate questions, which I shall try to answer.
The hon. Gentleman ended his remarks by talking about EPO. The National Institute for Clinical Excellence is considering the matter very seriously, and I hope to have the result of that work not too far into next year.
The hon. Gentleman asked about compensation for CJD victims and their families. Those people are entitled to compensation from the CJD compensation fund, which is run by independent trustees. I cannot make a statement that might pre-empt the fund's decision on such matters, but I am sure that it will consider all cases—including the latest one—sympathetically.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the route of infection. He is right to be cautious and to weigh the matter in the balance. Although we cannot rule out the possibility that a person might be infected by receiving blood from a donor who subsequently dies from CJD, we cannot prove that it happens. However, I thought it appropriate to come to the House today, as for the first time we have evidence that it is possible. As he said, the incidence has been very low in the past; as far as we know, this case is the first of its kind. Intuitively, we might feel that the case could suggest that the pattern might be much more widespread if blood were truly the source of CJD transmission. However, intuition is not

1577
always reliable in these circumstances. We need empirical evidence, and that is why I have asked the chief medical officer and various expert advisers to investigate the matter. I confirm that they will include at least two of the people to whom the hon. Gentleman referred.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the transfusion of whole blood rather than plasma. To the best of my knowledge, the transfusion involved in this case was of blood, not plasma. The blood was donated in 1996, before the precautionary measures, including leuco-depletion, were introduced towards the end of the 1990s. The donor died about three years later from variant CJD, and the recipient has now died more than six years later. I shall not go into the range of causes behind the recipient's death, but the discovery that the recipient was suffering from variant CJD was made at the postmortem examination.
It is important that we adopt a cross-border approach to this matter, and that we co-ordinate our actions. My Ministers have spoken this morning to the other Administrations in the UK to inform them that I was to make a statement. However, medical experts around the country were in touch with one another last Friday, by teleconferencing and other means. It was at that stage that the matter was brought to my attention. I can therefore confirm that we work as closely and in as coordinated a way as possible with the devolved Administrations.
Two other questions arise in connection with the 15 identified recipients to which the hon. Gentleman referred. The first has to do with tracing and tracking them. Quite apart from the difficulties caused by cross-border movements, people can also move around inside England, for instance. That is not always easy to deal with. Secondly, before we contact them, we must weigh the risk factor involved. Some of the cases have been known for a considerable time, but experts have considered that the balance of risk meant that more distress would have been caused if the people involved had been contacted and informed. I hope that further distress will not have been caused by today's statement. Obviously, the fact that the single new piece of evidence has arisen means that an immediate contact process has been put in place, but there will be difficulties with tracing and movement, which the hon. Gentleman mentioned.
On transplants, all the work that we are doing extends to tissues as well as blood. The hon. Gentleman asked about leuco-depletion and I can tell him that a whole range of research is being conducted, in academia as well as by the research councils. The Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee, which is an expert committee, will consider its activity on a range of issues at its forthcoming meeting early next year.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned surgical instruments. He will be aware, as will many hon. Members, that we have been examining that matter for some time. Such consideration is not easy because the various possible substitutes and methods to diminish potential opportunities for cross-infection, such as the use of disposable surgical implements, have potential risks. Many surgeons in England have indicated that they would be unhappy with using such disposable implements when operating. We are investing some £200 million in improving decontamination standards
1578
precisely because we are committed to minimising the risk of the transmission of vCJD via surgical procedures, as the hon. Gentleman would expect. The NHS Purchasing and Supply Agency is working with manufacturers to improve the quality and reliability of single-use instruments.
I confirm to the hon. Gentleman that we are taking advice from a range of committees, including SEAC, which he mentioned, the Advisory Committee on Dangerous Pathogens, the Committee on Safety of Medicine and the Advisory Committee on the Microbiological Safety of Blood and Tissues for Transplantation. I suspect that other independent agencies will immediately try—without instruction or the need for persuasion—to examine their own procedures and determine whether there are implications for them. We are also examining with the National Blood Service the practicality and cost of making fresh frozen plasma available to higher-risk groups. As I said earlier, the purchase of an American blood plasma company has ensured an adequate supply of plasma products from a BSE-free country.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the state and volume of stocks in the health service and levels of donations to it. We keep them at an optimum level—I can confirm that they are at an optimum level—and if there were a reduction beneath that level, we would obviously take emergency action.
Mr. Paul Burstow: May I, too, thank the Secretary of State for his statement, his courtesy in allowing us to see it in advance and the open way in which he has dealt with the matter by coming to the House only a short time after learning of the situation? I also associate myself with the condolences that have been expressed throughout the Chamber to the families involved.
Will the Secretary of State say a little more about the time line behind the diagnosis? Given that the donation of blood occurred in 1996 and the death of the donor occurred in 1999, what steps were taken to trace those who had received blood from the donor, and how many of the 15 people to whom the Secretary of State referred received blood from that donor?
The company Life Resources Incorporated was purchased in 2002. Can the Secretary of State tell us what assessment was made before and since the purchase of the risk to US supplies from the sources from which it acquires its blood? Concerns have been raised about indications that drug addicts and prisoners in the US could be used as potential sources of blood, so I should be grateful if he would indicate what assessment of that has been made.
Can the Secretary of State clear up a little confusion that I have as a result of reading both his statement and material from the National Blood Service? I understand that the first consignments of fresh frozen plasma from the United States are due to arrive in the UK in January 2004 and that components of it will be issued from the spring. When will all children born on or after I January 1996 have access to US-sourced plasma? Do they have such access now and, if they do not, when will they have it?
The Secretary of State's statement referred to the fact that no blood test is currently available for vCJD. What advice has he received from his experts about the likely

1579
time scale in which we could expect such a test to become available? I understand that the National Blood Service has expressed concern that there could be as much as a 50 per cent. drop in supply if a test became available, so what contingency arrangements is he putting in place to avoid such a collapse in supply?
Haemophiliacs have been mentioned. When will they have access to recombinant factor 8? Reference has been made to the need to manage better and use more wisely the blood that people donate? What steps are the Government taking to allow people to store their own blood as one way of managing the use of, and demand for, blood?
With that, I thank the Secretary of State for his statement and look forward to his answers.
Dr. Reid: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his remarks about my bringing the matter to the House. There is always a fine balance between, on one hand, bringing a matter to the House and thus raising the status of the announcement that one is making and, on the other hand. retaining information that should be legitimately available to the House and the public. Although there was one single incident on this occasion, I decided that provided that the reports were accurately reflected and not over-dramatised, it would be a better path to bring the matter to the House as soon as possible.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether only one person had received blood from the donor. The best information that I have suggests that one other person received blood, although hon. Members will understand that we do not have every single fact and figure. He asked about the length of time that has passed since we knew about the 15 recipients. We have known about that for a considerable time—I do not necessarily mean my Department when I say, "we". The names have been known for a considerable time, but in the absence of evidence during that time, such as that which we have today, the decision was taken that on balance, it would be more beneficial to the patients who received the blood to carry out a full assessment of the risk. That process has been ongoing for some two years, during which expert panels have investigated the matter—although the hon. Gentleman will realise that such an assessment was pretty difficult. It was decided that it was better to do that rather than causing distress in the face of any evidence, but that situation has changed because of today's statement.
Consequently, action on risk assessment and risk communication, which is a complex matter, was already proceeding. Several expert committees were involved, but the risk assessment for individual patients who might have received plasma is not yet completed. I was told during briefings in the past two days that the UK-wide CJD incidents panel met in October this year and received a report showing that the complex risk calculations for blood and plasma products were nearing completion. The panel recommended at the meeting that following the completion of the process, a package of action should be designed with the Health Protection Agency to communicate the level of risk faced by individual patients to the patients themselves. Today's action initiates the first steps in that process, because we cannot reasonably wait any longer.
1580
I do not want to deceive the hon. Gentleman by implying that we have only just found out the names of those 15 people; the names were known but the risk assessment was such that it was decided, until we received this evidence, to make a far more complex assessment rather than cause them undue distress in the absence of that work. As I said, had those people been contacted earlier they would have been given a degree of reassurance that we should now have had to qualify—perhaps causing them more distress.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the sources of US blood supplies. We are satisfied about the blood supplies that we receive. My understanding is that a fair percentage of the blood comes not from the sources that he mentioned but from native Americans, for instance, and others to whom some of the points that he made would not apply. The American company, Life Resources Incorporated, which we have acquired, requires vigorous tests for assessing the blood products that it supplies us. Other appropriate quality assurance procedures are in place, as hon. Members would expect. As soon as the products become available in the new year, children will receive them.
The hon. Gentleman asked about factor 8 for haemophiliacs. That will be available shortly, and the programme is being rolled out at present.
The hon. Gentleman asked about tests. Tragically, the truth is that there is no diagnostic—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the Secretary of State, but perhaps he could write to the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow). I am obliged to call Back Benchers, as a statement must include them. Front-Bench speakers have taken 40 minutes, which is unfair to Back Benchers.
Mr. David Hinchliffe: Although I realise that we have had a long session of questions from the Front Benches, I am sure that everyone has noted the value of the questions. May I, too, express my appreciation to the Secretary of State for coming to the House with a thorough and detailed statement? I appreciate the precautions that are being taken in this difficult situation.
May I raise two wider points that were not touched on in the previous questions? First, my right hon. Friend will recall that not long ago there was publicity about the case of a vCJD sufferer who, according to the media, showed some response to a particular form of treatment. What is the Government's position on treatability? As my right hon. Friend knows, the issue is of concern to many people.
Secondly, may I press my right hon. Friend about the care packages available for people facing the problems of vCJD and their family carers? He will be aware of the concerns expressed by people close to some of the sufferers and their families that it has taken a considerable time to put the packages together, which has caused difficulties for patients and their families. Will he address that point? Is he satisfied that when a person is diagnosed every effort is made to ensure that a proper care package is put together as soon as possible?
Dr. Reid: On the last question, we are doing that, as far as I am aware; but as I know that my hon. Friend

1581
takes a great interest in these matters, especially given his position as Chairman of the Select Committee on Health, I shall reassure myself on that point. The problem is not so much treatment after diagnosis, but the diagnosis itself, because there is no diagnostic test for vCJD —there is no blood test—so, with reference to today's discussion, there is no test to screen potential blood donors.
My hon. Friend asked about possible treatments. He will know that the Department of Health agreed in principle to fund the trial of Quinacrine for the treatment of CJD. The trial will be undertaken through the Medical Research Council and is expected to commence in early 2004. A small number of patients with clinical symptoms were treated prior to the establishment of the clinical trial. We continue to seek out appropriate treatment wherever we can, but at present I cannot say that diagnosis or treatment are available on anything that we could describe as an effective scale.
Mr. John Greenway: The Secretary of State referred to the fact that some successful operations have been carried out. Recently, an 18-year-old girl in my constituency successfully underwent such an operation —by the intraventricular installation of Pentosan polysulphate. I welcome what the right hon. Gentleman said about the trials; the operation was carried out the day after that decision was made. However, despite the fact that the operation was sanctioned by the local hospital and primary care trusts, surgeons in the hospital refused to permit use of the necessary sterotactic frame equipment due to their concerns about contamination, so the equipment had to be purchased from Sweden at the eleventh hour at a cost of about £38,000. Although the operation was carried out by the national health service, the NHS executive has so far declined to sanction payment for the equipment from NHS funds.
I am sorry to spring that matter on the Secretary of State on this occasion, but I hope that he will understand my concern and the concern of the patient's parents —I was about to write to him about the case. I hope that I have been positive in showing that treatment is available and we celebrate the fact that the girl is alive and improving, but I hope that he will recognise the need to look into the matter in respect of the cost of the equipment.
Dr. Reid: Of course, I cannot respond on an individual case. Any family who found themselves in such a position would obviously seek out every possible avenue for relieving pain, removing symptoms or curing the disease itself —all of us would do that. That is perfectly understandable, but we have not yet found a medically verifiable way of diagnosing or treating this terrible disease.
The hon. Gentleman referred to Pentosan. It is not licensed in the United Kingdom—I do not think that he mentioned that —although it is licensed in the United States as a treatment for cystitis. There can be adverse side effects, such as bleeding, hypersensitivity and a number of others. The most recent advice from the Committee on Safety of Medicines is that there is some very limited evidence from animal studies that Pentosan may be an effective prophylactic agent, although the
1582
committee also advises that there is no rational basis for describing the drug as a prophylactic. It is not licensed for use in the UK and could thus be prescribed only under a doctor's personal responsibility as an unlicensed treatment.
I do not know about the case described by the hon. Gentleman, but I do not doubt what he says. However, matters are sometimes slightly more complex as we have to consider medical ethics and the advice that we are given, as well as the anguish of individual patients.
Dr. Ian Gibson: I, too, congratulate my right hon. Friend on the alacrity with which he has brought the situation to the attention of the House. More than anything, that will reassure the public that the matter is being looked at seriously. In the interests of that reassurance, has my right hon. Friend left open consideration of the possibility that there may have been separate infection of the two individuals? Will he ask the Food Standards Agency to make a statement about the current position in respect of meat and meat products in this country and their sources? That would further reassure the public that we have that aspect under control.
Dr. Reid: The answer is yes on both points. Although the donor and the recipient were obviously connected through the transfusion of blood, it is possible that each of them was independently infected through meat products rather than through blood. Yes, I shall certainly speak to the FSA to find out what it can do to bolster confidence in our approach in these difficult circumstances and to reduce any over-dramatisation of the evidence.
Mr. Douglas Hogg: The right hon. Gentleman will know that one of the problems of determining how large the incidence of CJD will be is uncertainty as to the incubation period. If there is a causal relationship between the donor and the recipient in this case—we know that, if there was such a relationship, there was a six-year incubation period —does not that give us a clearish indication of the incubation period and would not that give some modest encouragement to the belief that we shall not see a very large number of new vCJD cases?
Dr. Reid: There are a number of difficult words in the right hon. and learned Gentleman's question. The first and most difficult is the first word in his question, which was "if". It is true that we are not clear on the incubation period; it is also true that we do not have the method of diagnosis. Today will add further uncertainty to a number of those areas.
As I said earlier, it is also true that the number of incidents that are verifiable by post mortem and through obvious symptoms of vCJD is much lower than some projections at the beginning insisted. We must calmly reflect on today's evidence. I am not sure, within a few days of this being produced, whether we can draw any conclusions on the incubation period. I hear what the right hon. and learned Gentleman says on that matter.
Mr. Dai Havard: As my right hon. Friend will he aware, I have

1583
written to him recently about issues related to blood safety, and particularly its usage for cancer patients with anaemia. I have been trying for the past two years to organise initiatives in the House in that regard. There are known questions that need answers. I think that most of the questions that have been asked today relate to issues that have been previously identified. I welcome the idea that there will be changes in clinical practice, particularly in the use of alternatives for cancer patients who have anaemia. I received a letter from the National Institute for Clinical Excellence telling me that it does not know when such an initiative will be started.
A couple of weeks ago, the All Wales Medicines Strategy Group was saying that it was not prepared to advise that alternatives could be used for cancer patients with solid tumours. There are simple and immediate step changes that could be recognised and carried out. I would welcome the opportunity to support my right hon. Friend in dealing with some of the old boys and old girls clubs that stop good practices in the health service, that could be initiated on the back of this activity.
Dr. Reid: I understand both the substance of the problem to which my hon. Friend has referred and the level of commitment that he has brought to campaigning on the issue of EPO. I can only repeat what I said earlier. We referred the matter to the National Institute for Clinical Excellence. We instituted such a body so that we could take these decisions on priorities, and decisions on the availability of treatments as well as on the availability of drugs and equipment, independently of political decisions. I understood that NICE was looking at the matter and that there would be an outcome next year. I do not think that I can advance on that. If my hon. Friend has other information, I shall be prepared to speak to him about it. Both of us will be reassured that NICE will look at the matter expeditiously.
Hywel Williams: Will the Secretary of State ensure that there is the highest level of cooperation and information exchange on this difficult issue between NHS Direct in England and NHS Direct in Wales? Many Welsh people live some of the time in England but would normally access services in Wales. However, I have had direct evidence recently that the information held by NHS Direct in England about services in Wales is up to three years old in the written form and is considerably out of date in some respects.
Dr. Reid: We do try to update that information. We shall attempt to ensure that the information available on this subject is as up to date as possible throughout the United Kingdom.
Mr. Andrew Miller: Although this is obviously a tragedy for the families affected, and we are all sympathetic about that, it is important that the matter be kept in perspective. Will my right hon. Friend talk to the chief medical officer about ways of ensuring that the advice and support lines that he sets up are backed by expert help in putting these matters in perspective? We are
1584
thousands of times more likely to be killed on the roads than to contract vCJD. The matter needs to be put into perspective, especially for the media.
Dr. Reid: I agree with my hon. Friend. The information has been put into the public domain through the House so that everybody can be fully informed and reassured that we are approaching this matter in as open and transparent a fashion as possible. However, it is true that about 24 million units of blood have been made available over the course of recent years and that this is the first case that we have ever found where there is a link between a donor and a recipient as regards vCJD. However, there are other possible ways in which both of them could have been infected. It is not proof of a causal relationship, or that this has been transmitted through blood. I hope that we shall not be in the least complacent. On the other hand, we should not over-dramatise the situation, which could lead to widespread over-concern and panic.
Rev. Martin Smyth: The Secretary of State has put us all in his debt by coming so soon to the House with this information. I welcome it, but with a deal of caution, particularly in terms of incubation. May I press the right hon. Gentleman a little on his answers to the hon. Members for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) and for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley), who talked about a new treatment? Over a year ago, I was in touch with the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor about a new treatment, and finally the family had to go to the courts. They got that treatment. The doctor who looked after the patient said that if he were ever diagnosed with vCJD he would want that treatment to be started immediately. If the treatment is available, it is important that it be used immediately following diagnosis. Bearing in mind that many others may yet develop vCJD, I think that researchers should be working more positively. The young man concerned would have died before last Christmas, but he is now at home in the care of his family, showing decided improvement. As he was so far down the road, it is doubtful whether he will ever be completely cured.
Dr. Reid: I am obviously aware of the case that the hon. Gentleman raises. It was in Northern Ireland, as it happened, and there was a subsequent court case. We took cognisance of what was said in that case, and the experience of it, and we arranged for pilot schemes to be carried out. Following the initial success, or apparent success, in treating the patient, we decided last year that we would carry out tests.
I do not think for a moment that we should be irresolute or hesitate in attempting to improve diagnosis or treatment. However, a degree of responsibility at the Government Dispatch Box is necessary. I say to the House that, thus far, none of our efforts has indicated a medically verifiable way of diagnosis or treatment for this disease. For me to indicate otherwise would be to raise hopes to an extent that would not be warranted.
Mr. Jon Owen Jones: All the early victims of vCJD shared a particular genetic piece of information for the manufacture of certain proteins. Is it still the case that all the victims are in this genetic subgroup? Is that so for this new case? If it is, have we

1585
looked at the 15 possible recipients of blood to ascertain whether they are in the same vulnerable group, or whether some of them are?
Dr. Reid: The simple answer is that I do not know. By this afternoon, I will have asked those questions.
Paddy Tipping: In his detailed and thoughtful statement, my right hon. Friend rightly laid out the tragic consequences not only for the sufferer but for his or her wider family. Against that background, is he in a position to tell the House a little more about the compensation scheme for hepatitis C patients, which was agreed in principle in the summer? When will he be able to make an announcement about the way forward?
Dr. Reid: The answer is shortly. The Under–;Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Miss Johnson). has been working hard on this. and it should not be too long before we can make a public announcement.
Mr. Tom HarrisAt this time of year, the National Blood Service encourages donors to make time in our busy schedules to ensure that we give blood. The timing of the announcement is probably unhelpful, because a number of people will understandably be reluctant to give blood, as happened following incidents in the 1980s and 1990s. What reassurance can my right hon. Friend offer blood donors to encourage them to continue giving blood and reassure them that that is a valuable thing to do?
Furthermore, can my right hon. Friend advise—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has only one question.
Dr. Reid: At this late stage in the questions, I thank my hon. Friend for giving me the opportunity to make the position clear. People who give blood in this country perform a great and valuable service. I thank them for everything that they have done in the past, and we shall continue to seek their support in the future. Nothing that we have said today should in any way diminish the fact that over the years the lives of thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands or even millions, of people have been improved, protected and saved by the public service performed by blood donors. As we approach Christmas and the new year and all the difficulties of the season, I hope that everyone remembers that, and will continue to give blood as a service to their fellow citizens.

Point of Order
1.31 pm
Richard Younger-Ross: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. On Monday afternoon, I contacted your office at 12.35 to inquire whether there would be a statement on Iraq. Your office advised me that there would be no statement on Iraq, but told me that there would be one on the European Council and that there would be no urgent questions. On the basis of that information, I went about other parliamentary business instead of coming to the Chamber. When I looked at Hansard, it was clear that the Prime Minister did make a statement on Iraq.
May I ask you. Mr. Speaker, whether your office was advised that the Prime Minister was going to broaden the scope of his statement? If so, was there any way in which you could have let ordinary Back Benchers know that there would effectively be a statement on Iraq? If you were not so advised, Mr. Speaker, was the Prime Minister in order when he broadened his statement?
Mr. Speaker: The Prime Minister was in order. Had he been out of order. I would have let him know. As the hon. Gentleman said, he was not in the Chamber. We are all on a learning curve in the House of Commons, so perhaps the trick is that when the monitor shows that the Prime Minister is going to make a statement, the hon. Gentleman should come to the Chamber. There may be something of interest to him, and he may try to catch my eye.

Orders of the Day

  Asylum and Immigration, (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Bill
  [Relevant document: The First Report from the Home Affairs Committee, Session 2003–;04, on the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Bill, HC 109.]
  Order fir Second Reading read.
  Mr. Speaker: I inform the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson).
  1.33 pm
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Blunkett): Before I move Second Reading, Mr. Speaker, I should be grateful if you forgave me because, in the light of the court judgment that Ian Huntley is guilty of the murder of Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman, I felt that the House would want to send the families our love and concern. Our hearts go out to them this afternoon. I shall lay a statement before the House and, in conjunction with the Opposition spokesmen, take steps to initiate an investigation into some of the events that took place from 1995 onwards.
  I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  I understand that the shadow Home Secretary is ill, and send him our best wishes for Christmas. [Interruption.]There seems to be some demurral among Liberal Democrat Members, but I send good wishes on their behalf—let us be joyous for Christmas. The Bill is part of a jigsaw that includes not only the legislation already on the statute book but the administrative measures that we have been using to improve the operation of our border controls and immigration system. As the House knows, there have been substantial improvements in recent years, but we all accept that many changes are still required, both in legislation and to improve administration. To repeat what I have said when we have debated these issues over the past two and a half years, Ministers are painfully aware of the difficulties of achieving substantial improvement, given the significant rise in the number of people applying for asylum, while at the same time modernising and improving the rest of the immigration and nationality directorate. We often forget that asylum is only a small part of broader immigration and nationality responsibilities. There have been considerable improvements in the non-asylum elements of the service, but there is still a great deal to be done.
  Lynne Jones: Is my right hon. Friend not concerned that, notwithstanding the fact that the consultation period on the Bill did not comply with Cabinet Office guidelines, it has not been possible, even today, to get hold of a summary of the report on the responses to that consultation? That report is specified as a relevant document, but I could
  1588
  not get hold of it until 12 o'clock. Does that not cause him concern, as we are considering legislation without all the relevant information to hand?
  Mr. Blunkett: As my hon. Friend acknowledged, we laid the response to the consultation before Parliament today.
  Lynne Jones: It is not in the Library.
  Mr. Blunkett: I authorised it to be placed in the Library this morning, so I apologise to the House if that has not been done—[Interruption.] I understand, however, that some Members have been able to obtain it from the Library.
  In our debate on the Queen's Speech, I spelt out the key elements in the Bill that would enhance and support the work that has already taken place. There must be a determination of honesty in relation to individuals and those advising them before the authorisation of the initial decision and the subsequent adjudication. We should consider the blocking of people who arrive at our airports, throw away documents or refuse to co-operate either with the process of determining their country of origin and their passage into the country or with redocumentation for return purposes—I shall come back to that.
  We must deal with the question of organised criminality—the way in which people, with the connivance of facilitators and organised traffickers, become involved in international trafficking and criminality. We need to extend the measures that we have already put in place on sexual exploitation, in both the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 and the sex offenders legislation.
  Paul Flynn: Does my right hon. Friend agree that not all the public feelings of antagonism towards our present system are the result of media hyperbole or invention? There has been a large increase in the criminal elements who are getting involved in the asylum process to the detriment of the public acceptability of our asylum policy—and, indeed, the acceptability of all our policies.
  Mr. Blunkett: I agree entirely. Asylum has been regarded as an opportunity by international gangs of organised criminals to make a great deal of money. Very often, they have made money out of the exploitation and degradation of people with whom they have been dealing. They take large sums of money, sometimes for children whom they have trafficked across the world and literally dumped on our soil, unfortunately in large numbers.
  Of course, those gangs have often done that alongside multiple criminal trafficking activities and the smuggling of drugs and guns. They switch between the different opportunities that they see to make money. They have obviously been doing so in the wake of worldwide people movements —the enormous movement of people across boundaries, which we have discussed in the House before —on a scale unprecedented in our history. Whereas 20 years ago, very small movements initiated by major catastrophes were the order of the day, now, partly because of

  1589
  communication, partly because of the English language and partly because of the economic changes in the world, people are desperate to seek a better life, as well as to seek refuge from terror, and opportunists have taken advantage of that.
  David Winnick: No one disputes the amount of criminality involved, and we remember the Chinese who suffocated to death and who were undoubtedly the victims of criminal gangs, but does my right hon. Friend accept that much of the controversy over the proposals could be avoided if more attention were paid to the quality of decision making? The Home Affairs Committee report, to which I was a party, makes the point, which I am sure my right hon. Friend has noted, that, whereas one in 25 appeals was successful in 1994, the figure has risen to one in five. The quality of decision making by Home Office officials is so important, and some of the controversy about the taking away of children as a last resort could be avoided if that quality were improved.
  Mr. Blunkett: I am terribly sorry but the last point is completely irrelevant. It has absolutely nothing to do with the quality of initial decisions, or the subsequent appeals that take place. Clause 7, which we will come to in a moment, deals with those who have been through multiple appeals systems and have not had the initial decision to refuse overturned. My hon. Friend does his case no good at all by mixing the very real issue of improvements in decision making with the issue of clause 7. If hon. Members take every opportunity to use anything, no matter how extraneous or irrelevant, to deal with clause 7, we will not have a sensible debate this afternoon. I say that in all sincerity, because clause 7 relates to people who have failed to establish their right to be in the country.
  Several hon. Members Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Blunkett: I shall give way in a moment, but first I shall address the sensible and rational issue that my hon. Friend raised—the quality of decision making. The massive increase in volume, especially over the past three years, which can be tracked in terms of the numbers coming in, has undoubtedly put enormous pressure on the system. We accept, as Ministers, that we need to take steps to improve decision making, and we have already done so. That has certainly been true of the recent steps that we have taken, including a fast-track system, building on the experience of Oakington and Harmondsworth, and ensuring that the non-suspensive appeals process is robust.
  We accept that further steps are required. My hon. Friend the Minister for Citizenship and Immigration is announcing today that we will work with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, accept UNHCR's offer to work with our training programme to improve decision making, and undertake integrated work with the adjudication system, so that we can learn the lessons and get it right. I am happy to respond to such approaches and to the justifiable concerns expressed by hon. Members in all parts of the House to make sure that the system is administratively competent, that there are no delays and above all that we do not have to overturn on appeal.
  1590
  There is one other element. None of that discourages people from seeking the asylum route when they would be more justified in seeking legal economic migration. The steps that we have taken to secure our border controls with France are the most significant thing we can do, together with the signals to organised traffickers, to prevent people from seeking asylum when it is not asylum that they want, but a better life, offered through the massive expansion of the work permit system.
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, in response to the strategy that he is setting out on how to deal with asylum seekers who have failed to show that they have a right to asylum in this country, he is opposed by a fantasy island strategy and a Nelsonian blind eye strategy that pretends the problem does not exist?
  Mr. Blunkett: Yes. I am trying to match the two together—Nelson in search of a fantasy island that does not exist and that has apparently been wiped off the map by the Leader of the Opposition, who decided last week, I think, that the Opposition could not find such an island, despite the help of ITV, and that they might seek a peninsula somewhere far away instead.
  Keith Vaz: I welcome the steps that my right hon. Friend has taken to improve what is happening at the immigration and nationality directorate, but one of the problems is that Home Office presentation officers do not attend court. A large number of cases are adjourned because the officers do not attend. Will he take steps, with the tribunal service, to make sure that they turn up to present their case, so that cases will not be adjourned?
  Mr. Blunkett: We have taken urgent steps, and carried out further recruitment and improved training, and there will be a new tranche of presenting officers in January, to avoid such delays and circumstances in which officers are not available, with the consequent cancellation of the hearings to which my hon. Friend refers. That is not acceptable. We understand that that aspect, like much else that we have been dealing with, needs to be improved, and we give a guarantee that it will improve in the new year. The Minister for Citizenship and Immigration is taking the issue on board, as it is extremely important.
  Hugh Bayley: Many parts of the Bill touch on day-to-day immigration matters, not the controversial issues of asylum. Overseas students, whether they go to public sector institutions such as universities or further education colleges, or private language colleges, make a valuable contribution to the UK economy through their fees, and when they return to their own country, they usually leave well disposed towards the UK. Will my right hon. Friend give the House an assurance that he does not intend to use clause 20 to charge that group of applicants more than the actual cost to the Government of processing their visa applications and visa extensions? If he were to do so, it would, in effect, be a tax on an important export industry for the UK.
  Mr. Blunkett: We all accept, as I did when I was Secretary of State for Education and Employment, that

  1591
  we wish to maintain the high levels of application and entry to this country for qualifications. That has the advantages that my hon. Friend outlined. Clause 20 is an enabling clause. I guarantee that we will consult before laying an order. The factors that my hon. Friend mentioned will be a substantial part of our consideration, in conjunction with the Department for Education and Skills. I want to put it on record, because it is not often said, that considerable benefits arise from the availability of the education process in this country and from all the ancillary support and health facilities that go with it, which are not available in other parts of the world. That is one of the attractions for people coming, including —this is not the same thing as asylum seekers —those who bring their families and receive education for their children and access to health care. My hon. Friend makes a valid point.
  Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: In light of what the Home Secretary fairly said —that decision making is, by and large, of poor quality and needs to be improved —is it not extremely unwise and possibly unjust to remove judicial oversight of the process at this stage?
  Mr. Blunkett: First, I did not use those words. I said that, given the number of appeals that were overturned, we accepted that there was room for improvement. Secondly, we are not overturning the right of appeal and it is that to which the 20 per cent. is relevant. That particular appeal is not affected by the proposition that we are putting before the House this afternoon.
  I do not simply blame the media —that is a fairly fruitless task anyway, especially at Christmas —but it is important that people do not automatically believe what they read but study what we are putting forward. That is why the provisions in the Bill streamlining the appeals and removal process, preventing the exploitation of legal services and allowing generous legal aid and advice are crucial.
  Mr. Bob Blizzard: My right hon. Friend just referred to what one reads in the newspapers, but did he see the claim in a newspaper a couple of days ago that an asylum seeker in Britain receives on average about £16,000 a year in benefits? I find that hard to believe, but that is true of most of what I read in the newspapers about the asylum system. Will my right hon. Friend comment on that?
  Mr. Blunkett: There are two separate issues here. One is the total cost of processing and supporting applicants. The other is what they receive, and it is important to distinguish between the two. A family would receive less than £7,000 a year in direct support, but what was presented to the Home Affairs Committee by the Minister for Citizenship and Immigration was the total cost. We have been transparent about that and it is one of the issues with which we seek to deal, in terms of the totality of the draw-down on the public purse.
  Mr. Marsha Singh: I am sure that my right hon. Friend will agree that the fast-track
  1592
  procedure at Harmondsworth has been extremely successful, but does he also agree that, this being the fifth immigration and asylum Bill to come before the House, the real problem, apart from entry, is removals, and if we can get that right, we can crack the system? The level of removals is still very low. Will my right hon. Friend give us a guarantee that this time we will crack that issue and that we will not he back here in a year's time with another Bill?
  Mr. Blunkett: I think that all agree that removals are important, but let me take this opportunity to set out the challenge. It is important to understand the difficulty that we face on removals. We have increased the number of removals to 1,500 or 1,600 a month, which is now over 18,000 on an annualised basis. We separately remove 1,300 people a month, and the figure is rising, who are here illegally but who, before we managed to remove them, did not claim asylum. We have separately managed each month to stop 3,000 clandestines getting into the country. The total picture is rarely presented because in our media, which I have already said I love, one set of people is told to present the worst possible side of asylum and immigration and another is completely convinced that it is not an issue and that it should present the matter as though we have some sort of obsession. Neither reflects the reality. The developed world is addressing a difficult challenge and we are part of that process.
  The difficulty in removals is not simply fast-tracking, giving people their final decision and then putting them on a plane or a boat; it is the process that stops us from being able to achieve the goal. First, there are legal constraints, which is why we intend to improve and streamline the appeals and judicial review process. Secondly, there is the issue of documentation. Even if individuals or families are held in a secure removal centre, they cannot be removed without the documentation that allows the country of origin to take them back. That is a crunch issue, because 70 per cent. of applicants either have never had or have thrown away their documents. Many of them are now being advised, sometimes by disreputable people, that if they do not cooperate in the redocumentation process we cannot remove them, and therefore we will continue to sustain them. Therefore, without the documentation required by the receiving country, we have the devil's own job to trigger compulsory removal, which we are undertaking, and without a country to receive them, we have nowhere to remove them to. We cannot eject them into outer space.
  The complexity of these issues is growing by the day. Every time we close a loophole, the facilitators and those behind them, and many advising those who claim asylum, tell them what to do. I understand such advice from those who are dedicatedly against any removals, with their campaigns for what they call no deportation, but in terms of fulfilling public policy and having a system that works and is trusted, and in which people have confidence, we are constantly fighting a battle to close the loopholes and thwart those who will use any ends to make a monkey of the system.
  Jeremy Corbyn: Does my right hon. Friend have any concerns about the conditions faced by people who, after an unsuccessful

  1593
  asylum application here, are deported to a country from which they have fled and who may then be open to abuse and intimidation? What monitoring is undertaken by his Department or in British posts abroad, and what consideration is given to the safety of such people when they return?
  Mr. Blunkett: The whole system is geared not to send people back to countries where they will be threatened with death and torture. That is the whole basis of the 1951 convention and of our immigration and asylum laws, and will remain so. Secondly, people whose individual claims fail, but whose country of origin, to which we would usually return them, is considered unsafe, are not returned. That is the serious problem that we face with regard to people who have no legal right to be here but whom we cannot remove on humanitarian groundsasylum application here, are deported to a country from which they have fled and who may then be open to abuse and intimidation? What monitoring is undertaken by his Department or in British posts abroad, and what consideration is given to the safety of such people when they return?
  Mr. Blunkett: The whole system is geared not to send people back to countries where they will be threatened with death and torture. That is the whole basis of the 1951 convention and of our immigration and asylum laws, and will remain so. Secondly, people whose individual claims fail, but whose country of origin, to which we would usually return them, is considered unsafe, are not returned. That is the serious problem that we face with regard to people who have no legal right to be here but whom we cannot remove on humanitarian grounds—and we do not intend to change that. We of course monitor and take the international, as well as national, in-country assessment. As a consequence of the previous legislation we agreed to have an advisory group and to take further advice, so we are going out of our way not to send such people back. Even if people inside or outside the House disagree with the Bill, when we return people who have failed all their claims and whom we can return to a country that we believe to be safe, where appropriate we shall assist them with resettlement, as we are doing at present with regard to Afghanistan.
  Mr. Mike Hancock: The Home Secretary said that there was evidence to support the view that 3,000 clandestines were prevented from coming into the United Kingdom each month, and I should be grateful if he would substantiate that claim. Will he also clarify— [Interruption.] The Minister for Citizenship and Immigration laughs, but the Home Secretary made the claim, and it is worth having it substantiated. Secondly, what will the Bill do to make easier the removal of people with no documentation? The House appreciates the problems that the Home Secretary explained, but I cannot see anything in the Bill that will make that task easier.
  Mr. Blunkett: On the first point, the statistics relate to those who are turned back at the new border controls in France—and now in Belgium, where we have put in place facilities at Zeebrugge—and therefore do not claim asylum at our ports and airports. The statistical facts on those people, who are turned away because they have no legitimate right to be in the country, are on the record. Presumably, people do not know about that because we do not shout about it loudly enough, but I have every intention of doing so from here on in.
  On redocumentation, we are working with countries across the world from where large numbers of returnable people seek asylum, to get them to accept simplified and speeded-up measures for acceptance of nationality or a simplified redocumentation system. We are putting in place a system to guard against those who throw away their documents when they get off the plane—bearing in mind the fact that they must have had a passport and other documents to get on it in the first place. That includes our consultation on copying
  1594
  relevant parts of those documents to ensure that we are able to present the facts to the person's country of origin. That measure will assist us substantially.
  Mr. Martin Salter: Does the Home Secretary acknowledge the damage that is done to community relations when many decent citizens without a racist bone in their bodies become understandably frustrated by the fact that after several years of different pieces of legislation from Governments of two different political persuasions, there remain massive delays in processing, a degree of profiteering by certain unscrupulous lawyers and advisers, and extensive profiteering by private landlords, all at the taxpayer's expense? What will the Bill do to address those issues?
  Mr. Blunkett: I agree with my hon. Friend's analysis. That is the kind of discontent and disquiet that others feed on and use to cause friction, break down social cohesion and damage race relations. That is why, through the administrative changes in the Bill, we stress that people should be honest in terms of their presentation of the facts and their willingness to give evidence on what has happened to them. The Bill will help us to tackle organised criminality; to strengthen our borders; to speed up the system, including the adjudication and appeals process; to tackle bogus advice; and to deal with legal aid.
  As well as taking measures to ensure that people have to present their case honestly, retain their documents and tell the truth about their country of origin, we need to be sensitive in understanding the difficulties that some asylum seekers face when they reach the country. The process and the legality of section 55 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 was upheld by the courts, and we intend to respond to that through the Bill. The measures that we are introducing, following discussions with refugee organisations, will allow us to be more flexible in assessing whether people have been in the country for any length of time. That is why my hon. Friend the Minister for Citizenship and Immigration will announce today that we will provide to those who make the decisions the necessary adjustment in advice to allow them—subject to people's giving an honest account of how they reached the country and how long they have been here—72 hours, rather than the current 24 hours, in relation to people claiming asylum and being entitled to benefit.
  Dr. Evan Harris: I am grateful to the Home Secretary for making that point about greater flexibility in relation to the time that is taken to apply for asylum. Another problem is the difficulty that the National Asylum Support Service faces in accepting that, a decision having been made, a person is really without any means of support and qualifies for assistance under section 55(4) of the 2002 Act. Apparently, several hundred applications to court have not been opposed by N ASS in cases where court orders have been given instructing it to provide support for people who, having had an adverse decision, find themselves on the street and destitute. Will the Home Secretary accept that that is a second component where more flexibility is required?
  Mr. Blunkett: Where a court indicates through judicial review that we have an obligation to reconsider

  1595
  the case or to provide support, we will of course do so. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman make known to my hon. Friend the Minister of State any examples of cases where that is not being done.
  Mr. lain Coleman: Will the Home Secretary give way?
  Mr. Blunkett: In a moment. I should explain that I now intend to move through the clauses so that Members are able to intervene at relevant points. However, I shall give way once more if my hon. Friend has a general rather than a specific point.
  Mr. Coleman: With reference to the Home Secretary's comments on section 55 of the 2002 Act, does he recall the informal discussions that he had with me, and a number of my hon. Friends, prior to its introduction? My recollection—I stand to be corrected by the Home Secretary—is that we were told that it was not the Government's intention to use the powers in section 55 for people who had just arrived in the United Kingdom, and that we were talking about not 24 hours or 72 hours but, at the very minimum, weeks, if not months.
  Mr. Blunkett: I think that during that meeting we moved delphically from 72 hours to a period of months. I have never said that those who have been in this country for months could establish a claim to asylum. The purpose of section 55 was to prevent those who had been in the country for other purposes, on other visas and for other requirements from finding themselves destitute and deciding that this route was the fastest and most effective way of gaining public support in relation to subsistence and housing. We indicated that that was not the correct way in which to do so.
  Asylum is about those who are threatened with death and torture escaping from that and seeking sanctuary in this country. We offer that sanctuary readily, but on the basis that when people arrive they demonstrate that they are asylum seekers, not economic seekers of a better life or people who have come for other purposes and do not want to go back home. I am seeking, with my hon. Friend the Minister, to ensure that we show a deal of flexibility within the requirement, so that people should be prepared to co-operate with us. That is not unfair—it is something for something, which is the principle that we apply in terms of the welfare provision offered to the indigenous population of this country.
  Clauses 1 to 5 tackle illegal immigration and abuse of the system, and clause 2 is specific about the undocumented arrivals that I mentioned. I shall not go into that again, because most people would accept that it is unacceptable to throw away evidence of where one has come from and which plane one arrived on, and that we should take action on that.
  Mr. Gwyn Prosser: I support the Bill and the measures that the Home Secretary has introduced in past years, mainly because of the effects in my constituency: I echo what my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West (Mr. Salter) said about the way in which community relationships can be destroyed by a feeling that the situation is out of control. However,
  1596
  will my right hon. Friend give us some assurances and securities in relation to specific clauses? For instance, as regards people coming in without documentation and destroying their documentation deliberately, can he assure us that he will go to some lengths to inform incoming passengers that that will be a penalised offence, so that they do not take the advice of the traffickers, tear up their documents and end up being prosecuted unnecessarily?
  Mr. Blunkett: That is a sensible point. We should work with sea and air carriers to ensure that the message is clearly conveyed. We have tried to make more sophisticated the subsidiary ruling on airports in relation to section 55 of the 2002 Act. At one stage, we were almost being asked to provide public address systems at airports to tell people that if they wanted to claim they should do it immediately. That struck us as a trifle odd, but I accept the thrust of the helpful suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Prosser); I believe that it would help people to thwart traffickers and facilitators.
  Mr. David Heath: Further to that point, would it not be even more satisfactory if, at the embarkation points, we had copies of asylum seekers' travel documents, which would detail likely points of departure? Even if they destroyed the documents, we would then know their identity. Could not such a responsibility be placed on carriers?
  Mr. Blunkett: We are consulting on precisely that point. We are in discussion with Departments that have an interest in the matter. I should like to ensure that such a liability did not interfere with free competition or disadvantage British-based carriers. We should try to ensure that that does not happen. Any such provision would be in conjunction with the purchase and presentation of a ticket and run alongside the visa regime which applies to countries where visas are required.
  Clause 6 deals with people's preparedness to give a reasonable explanation. I have commented on that in the context of thwarting facilitators, and that is linked to clause 2. Clauses 4 and 5 introduce a new criminal offence and build on the powers that relate to sexual exploitation, which I mentioned earlier.
  The behaviour of those who are authorised to take steps to provide credibility will be important. The credibility of the claim, and the credibility clause, as we may deem clause 6, will enable us to respond to the debate a few moments ago about providing a better, faster and more sensible method of dealing with the initial decision. Adverse behaviour makes a hell of a difference in such circumstances. The countries through which people have passed, the way in which they present their claim, timings and much else will be considered.
  I hope that hon. Members will give me a moment to explain our thinking on clause 7. There is disquiet about our holding families in detention centres when their claims have failed and they are in the process of being redocumented or given removal directions. Yesterday, my hon. Friend the Minister for Citizenship and Immigration responded to concerns about children who are held in those centres by saying that there will be what might be called a ministerial lock. The Minister will not

  1597
  only monitor but have to approve any lengthy stay in removal centres. The conditions in which families are held in those centres have been and will continue to be improved.
  Some people fundamentally oppose holding families in removal centres, however. Some fundamentally oppose compulsory removal of families —picking up children and families, putting them on a plane and removing them. Anxieties about that have already been expressed this afternoon. Some people, including some hon. Members, are worried about the withdrawal of public support from those who have been through a lengthy process, including multiple referrals by letter and interview, and a 14-day stay while the family is further informed about what will happen.
  Annabelle Ewingrose—
  Mr. Hilton Dawsonrose—
  Mr. Blunkett: I shall give way to both hon. Members shortly.
  Some people oppose all three measures that I outlined and believe that if people will not leave, we should simply do nothing and accept the position as a burden of a modern, economically successful country. I do not agree with that.
  Annabelle Ewing: The Home Secretary mentioned the comments that the Minister for Citizenship and Immigration made yesterday. She said that children would be held in Dungavel removal centre for an initial period of 28 days and thereafter, they would be subject to a ministerial review. Does not the Home Secretary accept that for a child, 28 days at Dungavel is 28 days too long? Surely, as a plain-speaking man, he accepts that that will punish innocent children for the actions of their parents. By what means will the Bill exclude the competence and jurisdiction of the children's panel system in Scotland, which has primacy over the matter?
  Mr. Blunkett: The hon. Lady knows that the issue is reserved. There has been a massive campaign about Dungavel. The average time families are held in removal centres is 10 days because there are some long-stay cases, but the bulk of cases are dealt with in five or six days. On Monday this week, 38 children were held in removal centres in the United Kingdom. I regret the holding of any child in a removal centre and I want other measures to be applied to avoid that happening. They include encouraging people to be redocumented and supporting them with free return and, when appropriate, resettlement. That is why, in a sensible debate, people cannot simply rule out every possible measure to achieve a public policy goal and then criticise the Government for failing to achieve it.
  Mr. Dawson: I welcome the news of progress on monitoring children and families in detention centres. Will my right hon. Friend assure me that the oversight will include input from the relevant social services authority with child protection responsibilities? In expressing frustration about the way in which some asylum seekers try to thwart the system, will my right
  1598
  hon. Friend also confirm that their children are highly unlikely to have played any part in the decision either to come to this country or to try to evade immigration authorities?
  Mr. Blunkett: First, I accept that social services have a highly relevant and appropriate central role to play in protection and in our education programme. On my hon. Friend's second point, of course I accept that the children are not responsible for their parents' decisions, but neither are we. We have to deal with children and support them wherever we can, consequent on the decisions and responsibility of their parents.
  We are considering an issue of fundamental values. The primary concern of parents is the well-being of their children. That should come first, second and third. If it is in the interests of that well-being to comply with sensible and sensitive removal to the country of origin when asylum seekers have failed to establish their claim that they faced the threat of death and torture, they must take responsibility and accept the consequences. Parents, not only the state, must take responsibility for consequences. I reiterate that the state has an important role of last resort. However, in a civilised society, it is our job to protect children and not to give way to, second-guess or replace parents' responsibility for the care of their children.
  Mr. Dawson: I accept my right hon. Friend's comments, but does he agree that much of the welfare state's work is protecting children from the consequences of their parents' actions, and that, by and large, that should be done by keeping families together?
  Mr. Blunkett: As someone who was a chairman of social services for four years and dealt with difficult issues, such as removing children from their families, I accept my hon. Friend's point. I accept that we should take every possible step to ensure that children are well cared for, supported and maintained in their family unless they are at risk. As we have seen cases from Maria Caldwell all the way through to Victoria Climbié, our only objective is to protect children's interests when the decisions of adults whose care they have been in—parents or otherwise—have led to their being at risk. When they are at risk, we intervene to care for them.
  Mr. Mark Oaten: Will the Home Secretary give an absolute commitment that social services will be informed at the point at which a decision is taken to withdraw benefit from a family with children, so that social services are not brought in too late?
  Mr. Blunkett: The obligation on the family is, first, to accept the removal directions and to be removed—we shall be tracking these families—and secondly, if they are in distress, to indicate that that is the case so that we can take the appropriate steps, including, as a logical conclusion of destitution, although not as part of the Bill, supporting the tiny number of children whose parents have taken such a contrary decision that it has put those children at risk. That is the normal practice. We are not in the business of trying to engineer a situation in which children are at risk and destitute and have to be taken into care. That is neither the role of the

  1599
  state nor the will of the Government. Had this issue not been totally distorted publicly after three weeks of the initial consultation, we might have been able to hold this debate on a more sensible basis.
  Ms Diane Abbott: The whole House will agree with the Home Secretary that the actions of adults have consequences. However, the question at issue in relation to clause 7 is whether those actions should have consequences that are visited on the heads of children.
  Mr. Blunkett: In every circumstance in which parents make decisions and are held responsible—whether it is parents who engage in unlawful action, parents who neglect or abuse their children, or parents who are no longer in receipt of benefits as a result of their actions—we have to take steps. In the domestic situation—and I am familiar with the legislation—section 1 of the Children Act 1989 enables social services, in extremis, to intervene financially. What we are saying is that we are prepared to intervene financially: we are prepared to pay the fare and provide support to those being returned to their country of origin.[Interruption.] That pager might have been providing an answer that I needed to give to the House. I thought I had better pause for a moment in case it was something vital. What we are not prepared to do is to get ourselves into the situation in which parents, having gone through all the processes that I have described, know that we will not withdraw public support from them because they have a child. In those circumstances, what chance would we have of getting the growing number of people being advised not to cooperate with re-documentation and removal to leave? That is the simple public question: what do we do, and what do people expect?
  Our actions have consequences, as do the decisions of parents. Through our actions, we have identified a massive and growing problem: 70 per cent. of those claiming asylum do not have documents, and many are not co-operating with re-documentation. They are being advised by those who should know better to "play the game". So what do we do? Do we simply say, "If you are a family, when you touch British soil, you are here for ever"? We cannot do that and have a credible system.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Blunkett: I shall give way in a moment.
  Let us bear in mind the fact that, when one hon. Member said earlier that the real issue was removals, there was an enormous number of "Hear, hears" around the Chamber. I can say, "Hear, hear," to the removal of those who have no legal right to be in the country, but not to taking away any steps that we put forward to make that a reality. It is the challenge of a legislature to make decisions, to ask the Executive to implement policies that are both credible and administratively possible, and to back them in taking those difficult decisions forward. When we were debating the previous legislation, I said—this is in Hansard—that I believed
  1600
  that people would encourage us to step up removal, but that there would be tears when removal was implemented. That is the case.
  Mr. John Denham: My right hon. Friend knows that the Home Affairs Committee and I support the principle behind clause 7, as I hope to explain later. I welcome the fact that, earlier this afternoon, he said that he was looking again at the way in which section 55 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 is being applied, perhaps because some of the consequences had been harsher than the House or he intended. Does he take from that the fact that the House must look very carefully at how the Government would implement clause 7 in practice, to ensure that it achieves the outcomes that he wants, rather than resulting in consequences that we would find unacceptable?
  Mr. Blunkett: I accept that stricture from my right hon. Friend. I am pleased that his Committee is not recommending that clause 7 be removed from the Bill. I accept that, as with so much legislation, it is crucial that the Executive are properly scrutinised and that the House—including the Home Affairs Committee, which my right hon. Friend chairs—does that job. That is part of Parliament's democratic role, and it is a very important one. If we can be shown to be in the wrong in terms of the way in which we apply legislation administratively, or to be too harsh or too soft, the House should hold us to account. While I cannot engage in a subjective judgment, as requested by the Select Committee, in terms of predictions of numbers, I can assure its Chairman that we will present all the facts to it and keep it informed on how we are implementing this legislation.
  Mr. Andrew Turner: I am sure that many of us sympathise with the right hon. Gentleman in terms of the very difficult decisions that he is trying to balance in the Bill. He referred to people who ought to know better giving poor advice, and to people making a monkey of the legislation. Does he have—or will he take—the power to withdraw legal aid contracts from firms of solicitors that consistently give poor advice, propose failed appeals and bring forward failing arguments?
  Mr. Blunkett: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs is to implement a review of the legal aid system, which will apply from April, and, with the Legal Services Commission, a new accreditation system for those providing advice—not to withdraw the accreditation but to ensure that there is proper monitoring. We are also strengthening the powers of the commissioner in the Bill so that he can achieve what the hon. Gentleman is seeking, in the interests of good advice and public probity and of ensuring that the very large tranches of public money that are going into the system are used wisely.
  Mr. Keith Bradley: I seek further clarification on clause 7. I have here a briefing which states that
  —local authorities will have to take whatever action is necessary to protect the children. In most cases, this would not involve taking children into care".

  1601
  Will the Home Secretary clarify exactly what actions local authorities should take where they do not take children into care?
  Mr. Blunkett: There might be family friends and members of the community who are able to assist. Let us bear in mind that 30,000 people in London receive benefit only, and not accommodation, and therefore are presumed to be accommodated by the host community or by family and relatives in this country. That is an interesting point in itself. We were enjoined not to withdraw benefit only when we introduced the measure in the 2002 Act, and we have not done so, because we have listened to the requests of hon. Members not to do that.
  Those in a responsible position should give advice and support to families to encourage them to take up the offer of voluntary as opposed to enforced removal. Other measures in the Bill will assist us with enforced removal. With the fast-track process and better notification of the removal directions when the final appeal is turned down, we should be able to achieve a more streamlined system.
  Mr. Neil Gerrard: I want to return to the issue raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham). The Home Secretary is asking us to accept that very few children will be taken into care or be made destitute as a result of clause 7, but large numbers of people could be affected. It is a question of how the provision will be implemented. Some of us have studied section 55 of the 2002 Act. My hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith and Fulham (Mr. Coleman) asked for an assurance that that would not be used against people who have been in the country for only a short time—a matter of days. However, as we have just been told, the practice was 24 hours. I have a letter issued two months ago to someone who was denied support and had been in the country for one hour. How are we expected to accept assurances when that is our experience of what has happened under section 55?
  Mr. Blunkett rose—
  Mrs. Janet Dean: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Blunkett: I shall give way in a moment, but I would be grateful if I could first answer the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard).
  There are two separate issues: one is the individual's claim and the other is the credibility of the claim. Any individual can claim that they arrived only an hour ago, depending on where they arrived from and what mode of transport had got them within an hour of being able to make their claim.
  Mr. Gerrard: That was accepted.
  Mr. Blunkett: If it was accepted that the person had arrived an hour ago, their claim to enter the asylum process and to receive support, including at an induction centre or through the fast-track process, in which the
  1602
  country of origin may be taken into account and the non-suspensive appeal may apply, should have been put in place. I am happy to take my hon. Friend's complaint if the procedure was not followed and the situation was badly handled.
  I acknowledge that in the period after the 2002 Act was passed a year ago we had multiple claims from people in-country who had been here for some time and whose credibility was in considerable doubt. We believe that in the circumstances that we are now addressing, alongside the legislation dealing with greater credibility, we should exercise a degree of flexibility. I am happy to take criticism for having been too harsh, but I will not take such criticism when I have actually been more flexible and have acknowledged that what is being said to us has merit and we have changed our minds.
  I shall give way one more time, to my hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Mrs. Dean).
  Mrs. Dean: It is clearly nonsense for the asylum system to be run in such a way that those who fail in their claim can carry on receiving public money. But will my right hon. Friend assure the House that people who have failed in their claim receive adequate warning that public funds will be taken away from them? That is vital when children are involved.
  Mr. Blunkett: I can give that absolute assurance. There will be multiple notifications, interviews and a further period of notice. People will be clearly informed of the consequences. The whole intention is to have a process that avoids that problem. The fast-track process, the sensible operation of removals, including encouragement to leave voluntarily, resettlement help and, despite the difficulties of planning consent, the experimental accommodation centres, were all designed to achieve precisely that. We want people either to move through induction to accommodation, receive a validated claim and be integrated, or to receive a removal direction and be removed immediately from the accommodation centre—as opposed to a secure removal centre, where we have to hold people in secure provision. Someone has always been against all that in one form or another.
  The Minister for Citizenship and Immigration and I just have to accept that we will not satisfy everyone, either this afternoon or during the operation of the system. I respect the view of those who believe that, whatever the circumstances, families should continue to receive benefit on the ground that there may be some detriment to their child as a consequence of their decision. I understand and respect that view, but I cannot agree it as public policy.
  I want to move on to clause 10, because I am sure that hon. Members will want to discuss the issue of decisive speed and effectiveness in dealing with the present system. Clause 10, together with schedule 2, will introduce the fast, speeded-up single tier of appeal. An appeal will be retained, and within the single tier multiple tracks for different forms of application. There will be an appeal to the president of the immigration appeal tribunal, and the ability on points of law to challenge whether the initial decision of appeal adjudicators was correct. A case can also go from the president of the single tier to the Court of Appeal when a point of law requires to be tested.

  1603
  We believe that that will cut out the terrible situation in which, despite the adjudication system, which weeds out initial decisions that are doubtful, we end up with months and sometimes years of prevarication before action can be taken. We recommend to the House that we should move along those lines judiciously and sensibly to make the system work.
  As with non-suspensive appeals, the different tracks will enable us to test a case when there is an unusual or new situation. I think hon. Members will agree that that process has been implemented with some care.
  Mr. Robert Marshall-Andrews: What will happen if one of these tribunals exceeds its power, perhaps grossly, or reaches a decision on the facts that no reasonable tribunal could have arrived at? Under the Bill, there is no provision for appeal. How will such decisions be reviewed?
  Mr. Blunkett: There will be an appeal within the single tier to the president of the adjudication system — I am talking about judges, some of whom are part-time and some full-time. They will make a decision on whether the application made to the president is valid. That does not involve the case having to leave the single tier, and the president of the adjudication system will be able to make a judgment as to whether the application fits the criteria specifically — my hon. and learned Friend uses the word "specifically", because that is appropriate for such an application — and whether it should be referred to the Court of Appeal. I think that that is a reasonable process to adopt, so that we do not end up with judicial review after judicial review on claims that are not valid.
  Clause 11 concerns safe countries. I think most people would agree that ours is a reasonable proposition in terms of the groups affected. Clause 12 is merely a tidying-up exercise, as are clauses 13 and 14. Clause 15 will allow us in the future to use new technical developments, primarily to avoid the need for people to be in secure accommodation. It is envisaged that they will be able to choose whether to be in a secure removal centre or, if the technology allows it, to use that technology to enable their whereabouts to be traced. Clauses 16 to 19 concern immigration advisers and the new powers of the Immigration Services Commissioner. I have answered a question about clause 20, relating to charges reflecting the totality of the benefit available and to the consultation we are undertaking.
  I sincerely hope that in the next 18 months my hon. Friend the Minister of State and I will have a full night's sleep. I hope that we will answer fewer parliamentary questions, sign fewer letters and attract less acrimony, and that we may even be the subject of the odd complimentary leader in The Guardian—although I am not holding my breath. I also hope that we will have a system which, legally, administratively and in terms of competence, satisfies the requirements of what I believe to be the overwhelming majority of Members. That will be in the interests of a system and a process that work, but above all it will be in the interests of good race and community relations, and of the ability to give a warm welcome to people from around the world who — as I said at Chatham House a month ago — should be welcomed here, in a diverse, open society.
  1604
  If there comes a time when we can have the sort of debate that I asked for a month ago but did not get, I for one will be a much happier man.
  2.41 pm
  Mr. Humfrey Malins: I echo the Home Secretary's comments about the Soham trial, and welcome the investigation to which he referred.
  I apologise profusely for the absence of my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis), who is confined to his bed with flu. With slightly gritted teeth, I wish him a speedy recovery. I hoped that he might have recovered yesterday. The House will understand that I, more than most, regret his absence today, but I wish him well.
  The hon. Member for Walsall, North (David Winnick) made a brief reference to the fact that one day in June 2000, some three and a half years ago, we woke to a shocking headline in our newspapers: 54 Chinese had been found suffocated in the back of a van at Dover. They were all young people —four were women — and they had suffered appalling deaths, having travelled across the continent of Europe to reach this country under the influence of criminal gangs. To any decent and civilised person, it should not matter whether they were genuine refugees or merely economic migrants in search of a better life. The fact is that these were young lives needlessly lost.
  That tragedy brought the debate about asylum and immigration policy into sharp focus. It is a debate that has been very necessary. I think — and I thank the Home Secretary for all his contributions during his time in office—that we in the House have engaged in it rationally and sensibly—an approach that, sadly, has not always been adopted in the press and other media.
  We are all agreed on one proposition: that our asylum system must be humane, and we must continue our long and honourable tradition of giving safe refuge to the persecuted. Along with humanity, however, there must be efficiency. I contend that our current system lacks efficiency, and is beginning to lack humanity.
  Keith Vaz: As the hon. Gentleman will know, the present Government inherited a large backlog from the previous Government. He was involved in that Government as Parliamentary Private Secretary to, I think, a Home Office Minister. Does he not agree that his party shares some of the responsibility for not ensuring that the system was more efficient when the present Government took office?
  Mr. Malins: The hon. Gentleman should never forget that under the present Government, the number of asylum applicants has trebled. He should never forget that this Government have been in power for nearly seven years. He should never forget that under the previous Conservative Government we had a treaty with France under which those who turned up illegally on our shores were returned to France, and that the treaty lapsed and was never renegotiated. I will never forget that I was not here during that Parliament: the electors of Croydon, North-West had said goodbye to me in 1992.
  I was saying that our current asylum system had begun to lack not just humanity but efficiency. Indeed, it is now widely accepted that it has reached a state of

  1605
  almost total collapse. For a start, many of us would agree that the wrong people are claiming asylum. It is claimed almost entirely by those who reach the United Kingdom illegally, or those who, having come here legally, try to overstay. Unlawful entry normally requires the paid services of people-smugglers—the criminal gangs who take vast sums from their victims by extortion and threats. Many of those who claim asylum have the economic resources to get here; they are not destitute, or the most deserving of help.
  Furthermore, our system has been characterised by delay and inefficiency for many years. I believe that in recent times the Home Office has been overwhelmed by the number of applications.
  Mr. Tom Harris: The hon. Gentleman says that those with money, who can pay the people-traffickers, are less deserving of asylum, while the more "destitute" deserve it. Is he not making a case for economic migrants to use the asylum system to come here on false pretences?
  Mr. Matins: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point. I am merely saying that there are those with the money to cross the continent to get here, and that the most persecuted are often the poorest. They simply have not the resources to travel any distance from their own countries.
  As I have said, the number of asylum applications has almost overwhelmed the Government. Last year the number of people seeking to come to Britain for asylum topped 110,000. That figure is the highest in Europe, and it is three times as high as the number claiming asylum in the last year of the Conservative Government. I do not believe that the Home Office has been able to cope with the volume of applications, and there is a growing feeling that the Government are beginning to lose control of our borders. Here is the rub: the Government believe that by legislating they can cure inefficiency and a discredited system. Legislation, however, is not the answer. The answer is to have practical operations working properly.
  Let me say gently to the Home Secretary— who could probably say the same to me of my party—that we legislate too often and too hastily. Today we are discussing the second major piece of legislation introduced by the Home Secretary in two years: the ink is hardly dry on the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002. As the House will recall, the flagship policy of that Bill was the establishment of accommodation centres where asylum seekers would live. The Government, of course, got it wrong then. ignoring advice from all the experts and proposing centres that were far too large and in the wrong places.
  Tony Baldry: Does my hon. Friend agree that there is absolutely nothing humane in placing large numbers of asylum seekers in huge accommodation centres in the middle of the countryside? Will he confirm that an incoming Conservative Government would abandon such a policy?
  Mr. Matins: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention, and I pay tribute to the work that he has
  1606
  done on his constituents' behalf in respect of the proposed accommodation centre in his constituency. He has worked tirelessly on their behalf. No, we are not in favour of large accommodation centres being established in the wrong places, and we were backed up in that—[Interruption.] An hon. Member says from a sedentary position, "In Banbury", but, as we know, all the experts outside this House say, "Keep the accommodation centres small, and keep them near urban areas, rather than rural ones."
  Mr. Singh: I have served with the hon. Gentleman on the Home Affairs Committee, where we discussed these and other issues. Does he accept that it is something of an exaggeration to say that the system is collapsing? It has got better under the legislation that we have passed, and it will get better still under this Bill. Does he accept, however, that it was near to collapse when the previous Government introduced a hopeless IT system and sacked 1,200 experienced immigration officers?
  Mr. Matins: The hon. Gentleman has a distinguished record on the Home Affairs Committee, so I had anticipated an extremely friendly intervention; I am only mildly disappointed. The previous Conservative Government did many very good things in the asylum field, one of which I have already mentioned. We had a treaty with France, whereby people were returned there forthwith when they arrived here illegally. The treaty lapsed and has never been renewed by this Government, despite my pressing them on many occasions to do so.
  Mr. Prosser rose—
  Mr. Matins: I give way to the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Prosser), with whom, I should point out in advance of his intervention, I shared very happy times on the Home Affairs Committee.
  Mr. Prosser: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that, but I am afraid that he will get an equally unfriendly intervention from me. Does he not remember that it was the current Leader of the Opposition who signed up to a Dublin convention that was designed never to work, and that on the day that he did so, the original arrangements collapsed? That is the real reason why we were no longer able to send people back to France.
  Mr. Matins: With respect, the hon. Gentleman is wrong. The agreement lapsed, but there was nothing to prevent this Government from working tooth and nail to renegotiate it.
  I was referring to accommodation centres, the work done by my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) and the Government's flawed policy. The House will not be surprised to hear that, some 18 months after the introduction of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, not one single accommodation centre is yet up and running. That shows that although we can discuss legislation for weeks and months and ram it through this House at great pace. it does not equate with efficiency. We legislate too quickly: after Second Reading of the 2002 Act, the Government added 342 of their own amendments and 25 new clauses.

  1607
  What about this Bill and the consultation period? Frankly, that period has been disgracefully short—a view shared by many on the Government Benches.
  Mr. Blizzard: The hon. Gentleman may remember that in the Queen's Speech debate I intervened on the Leader of the Opposition to ask him whether they were going to oppose this Bill, at which point he launched into a tirade against it. Are they going to oppose it, or do they intend to allow failed asylum seekers to continue to receive benefit for long periods? Was the performance of the Leader of the Opposition just for show?
  Mr. Matins: My right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the Opposition was particularly opposed to a matter relating to children, to which I shall turn in a moment. I am afraid that I missed the hon. Gentleman's intervention during the Queen's Speech debate, although that had nothing to do with the fact that there was a one-line Whip. I should point out to him that I have a long track record in the world of asylum and immigration. There are some things in the Bill to which I can give qualified support; in other respects, I want to tidy it up and improve it in Committee. We do not even know whether there will be a vote on it later today —at least, I do not. However, I should point out that there is much in it with which I do not agree, and which must be improved in Committee or in the other House. That view is shared not just by my Conservative colleagues, but by the vast majority of Labour Back Benchers.
  Mr. Dawson: Is the hon. Gentleman really trying to tell us in his gentlemanly way that the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) was shedding crocodile tears when he made that vehement statement about children in care?
  Mr. Matins: Quite the contrary. My right hon. and learned Friend—incidentally, he himself has a refugee background—was expressing justified concern, which has also been expressed across the nation, about the possible treatment of children under one of the Bill's clauses. I shall return to that point and make my feelings quite clear.
  The Government wrote to interested parties with their proposals on 27 October. They set the wholly unrealistic deadline for responses of 15 working days, completely contrary to Cabinet Office guidelines. The Bill itself was published only nine working days after the deadline for responses. My guess is that it was printed before the consultation period even began, and I should not be surprised if the Government flood this House and the Committee with amendments.
  The Home Secretary will point to improvements that have taken place in the past few months, such as a drop in the number of asylum applicants. It is possible that the Government deserve some credit for that, and I pay tribute to him if it is true that any of his measures have indeed improved the system. but before he becomes too smug—he has never been so in the past—let us ponder the following facts. The number of asylum seekers is still much higher than under the previous Conservative Government. Secondly, there has been a policy U-turn, involving the reintroduction of Conservative proposals
  1608
  that the Labour Government condemned and scrapped; indeed, that may be a factor. Thirdly, the recent drop in asylum claims may in part have been achieved by letting greater numbers into Britain by other means. Legal immigration is up dramatically. Hundreds of extra Home Office staff are granting thousands more work permits. Because we do not count people out, and because our borders are not secure, nobody knows how many illegal immigrants are in this country. Indeed, the Home Secretary confessed recently that he did not have a clue how many illegal immigrants there were. He could have added that, after nearly seven years, the Government still do not have a clue about how to manage an efficient system.
  Let me focus on one or two of the Government's failures, which I hope the Home Secretary is prepared to accept. First, they have abjectly failed in their policy for removing failed asylum seekers. That failure strikes at the credibility of the whole system; indeed, the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Singh) referred to it. That credibility was further damaged when the Home Secretary announced a series of amnesties for failed asylum seekers. Many in the country were dismayed at his recent announcement of an amnesty for up to 50,000 people whose asylum claims had failed. Surely a key ingredient in the integrity of any asylum process is the Government's ability to remove those found not to be in need of protection. The story so far has been one of Government failure—a fact confirmed by the Government's own Back Benchers in a series of Home Affairs Committee reports.
  Ms Abbott: The hon. Gentleman criticises the Government for the level of removals, but is it not true that the level was not much higher under the Conservative Government?—[Interruption.] Indeed—it was lower. It is easy to call for many more removals, but in fact it is a very difficult and contentious thing to achieve.
  Mr. Matins: I agree with the hon. Lady that it is a very difficult thing to achieve. I also agree that the previous Conservative Government did not remove every failed asylum seeker, but she should not forget that the problem is getting worse. I hope that she understands that there are tens of thousands more failed asylum seekers than there were seven years ago.
  Let us have a look at the comments of the Select Committee on Home Affairs. It was three years ago, I say to the hon. Lady, if she is prepared to listen—[Interruption.] She is not. It was three years ago that the Home Affairs Committee, dominated by the Labour party, concluded that this Government had been dilatory in enforcing removals. It added that that in itself had attracted more people to the UK. There was further criticism of the Government on removals by the same Committee in spring this year. A glance at the statistics illustrates the problem. Last year was one of the worst on record. Of 45,000 failed asylum seekers who should have left, only 10,000 went through removals and voluntary departures. What kind of efficiency is it when barely one in five failed asylum seekers are being removed from the UK?
  The Government compound the problem by setting themselves targets to try to grab the headlines. They had a target of removing 30,000 failed asylum seekers per

  1609
  year, rising to 37,000 by 2003‥04, but what on earth is the point of setting a target if it is so unrealistic that it cannot be met and has to be abandoned? Again, as the Home Affairs Committee has remarked, what on earth was the basis for the belief at the time that the target was achievable? A target that is not reached and is dropped serves only to arouse false expectations of what can be done. That failure results in a drop in morale among all concerned.
  There is another basic failure, which is at the beginning of the asylum process: the Government's continued refusal to understand that initial decisions must be fast and of the highest standard. At the moment, I do not believe that they are either. A parliamentary answer in June 2002 revealed that the average time for a Home Office official to reach an initial decision on an asylum application was seven months. It further revealed that at that time nearly 20,000 cases had been awaiting an initial decision for more than six months. Some 16,000 cases had been outstanding for more than 12 months. That was in 2002 and, to the Government's credit, times for initial decisions are coming down, but it is a slow process and it will take years to catch up. Even today, with the vast resources and money poured into the system, considerably more than 20,000 applications per year have to wait more than two months even for an initial decision.
  What of the quality of those decisions? They are made largely by inexperienced Home Office officials who are on a starting salary of £5,500 per year—two thirds of the national average. With only 27 days of training, those officials have to make decisions that can literally mean life or death to the applicant. They are neither paid nor trained well enough to deal with those complex issues. I wonder whether the Home Secretary knows what the turnover rate of such staff is. It is a telling but unsurprising fact that considerably more than 20 per cent. of appeals against their decisions are successful. The percentage used to be 4 per cent. In relation to some countries, the successful appeal rate against initial decisions is even higher. That must surely concern us all, and it has certainly concerned the Labour-dominated Home Affairs Committee.
  The inefficiency at the early stage of the process is compounded by the fact that at most appeals before an adjudicator the Home Office simply does not have a presenting officer present to argue its case. I ask the Home Secretary, what has happened in the past year to cause so many part-time and full-time adjudicators to bemoan the fact that the Home Office has simply stopped providing representation before them? That failure can only lead to more delays and, in practice, a greater likelihood of appeals being allowed.
  With that background, it can be no surprise that the Government have largely lost the confidence of the British people. I wish that they would take our advice and concentrate on an expert and timely initial decision-making process, coupled with an efficient removals system.
  David Winnick: When the then shadow Home Secretary, now' the shadow Chancellor, gave evidence to the Select Committee on Home Affairs a few months
  1610
  ago, his party's solution was to put all the applicants on an island, from which their claims would be processed. Does that remain the policy of the Conservative party?
  Mr. Matins: I will tell the hon. Gentleman what our policy is, and I am glad to have the opportunity to do so. We believe that the current system is in many ways discredited and that the Home Secretary has real difficulties getting it to work properly. We doubt whether he will ever be able to do so, although we wish him well in that pursuit. We believe that the appropriate course of action is to scrap the current system entirely, to accept—[Interruption.] I am explaining, if the hon. Member for Walsall, North will listen, that we should accept a quota of refugees, designated and agreed between us and the UNHCR every year, so that we know when they arrive that their arrival has been agreed, and they are to be welcomed.
  Under that quota system, if anyone else sought to claim asylum on these shores, they would be removed to a safe offshore haven. I am using my words carefully here: they should be removed to a safe offshore haven forget the island—where their cases would be decided. [Interruption.] It is all very well for the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz) to barrack, but there is a great deal of sense in deciding asylum applications offshore if possible, because we would be able to avoid the problems that the Home Secretary is now facing, which he cannot solve.
  We want to work towards a combination between a quota system and offshore decision making. We do not want a system like the one that the Government preside over, which is so discredited throughout the country.
  Keith Vaz rose—
  Mr. Douglas Hogg rose—
  Mr. Matins: I shall give way to my right hon. and learned Friend first.
  Mr. Hogg: May I press my hon. Friend a little on the policy that he is enunciating? If we are to delegate to the UNHCR the role of determining who is an asylum seeker, is not one of the consequences that if somebody comes to this country unlawfully we should simply refuse to entertain an application from that person, but rather say that he or she should make an application within the UNHCR procedure?
  Mr. Malins: I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend—or at least, I think I am. We all want to avoid the situation in which people travel to this country, at great risk of their lives and under the cosh of the gangs, in order to make their claim, so there is much to be said for the proposal that every year we take a quota of refugees who are officially recognised by ourselves in conjunction with the UNHCR. There is also a great deal to be said for moving as rapidly as possible to an offshore processing system, which would be a much more efficient way of handling matters. [Interruption.]Before Government Members scoff, let me ask them this: in the seventh year of this Labour Government, is not their record one of abject failure on

  1611
  all fronts, and do not the British people regard the system that they are currently operating as chaotic and in a complete shambles?
  Keith Vaz rose—
  Lynne Jones rose—
  Mr. Malins: I shall give way to the hon. Lady, and then to the hon. Gentleman.
  Lynne Jones: Would the accommodation provided in those offshore havens be of a large institutional nature, or would there be small units, as advocated by the hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry)?
  Mr. Malins: The hon. Lady is trying to tweak me on this subject, but I shall give her a frank answer. We do not know the answer to that question yet. Let us just occasionally be frank in this House, and say that we are not sure—
  Mr. Blunkett rose—
  Mr. Malins: I shall give way in a moment. I shall just finish my sentence and say to the hon. Lady that there would be centres where—
  Mr. Stephen Pound: Neither offshore nor sure.
  Mr. Malins: That is a good line. I shall remember that. Let me just tell the hon. Lady that at those offshore bases and centres there would be a proper judicial system, with legal advice and the fullest possible help given. Part of the purpose of that policy is that if we send a message throughout the world—[Interruption.] I hope that the hon. Lady will take this on board. I am saying that if we send a message—
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): Order. Hon. Members should listen to the hon. Gentleman's response to the question.
  Mr. Malins: If we send a message that we in this country offer a genuine welcome to the needy who have been identified as such, and a message to those who want to use the asylum system as a means of getting here, that they cannot, because they will be removed to have their claims decided offshore, we shall have fewer applicants.
  Mr. Blunkett: I am almost sorry to ask the hon. Gentleman this question, because I imagine that flu is rapidly developing. A propos the accommodation centres, will he tell us whether the offshore facility per se would have to be in an urban rather than a rural area, particularly given the Conservative party's clear policy on those matters?
  Mr. Malins: The Home Secretary gets a reasonable laugh for that, but not the greatest that we have heard in the House. Let me tell him frankly that we have to identify methods—we are currently working on this—
  1612
  by which we can move to an offshore processing centre. I say that in the certain knowledge that if our policy can be formulated and put into practice, there will be far fever abusive applications for asylum in this country.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Malins: I want to make some progress and I have already given way several times. However, I shall give way to the right hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham).
  Mr. Denham: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. He is dealing with the problem with his characteristic good humour, but does he not recognise the dangers in his approach? Many of our constituents say that there must be some simple solution, like sticking all asylum seekers on a boat somewhere or shoving them off to an island. However, it is extremely dangerous to encourage the idea that there is a simplistic solution that can wish the problem away. Does the hon. Gentleman not recognise that Conservative Members need either to produce a credible policy or to shut up about it? The idea that there is some simple solution is highly dangerous.
  Mr. Malins: I pay tribute to the right hon. Gentleman for all that he has done in home affairs and for what he is doing now. Let me say, quite frankly, that there are no easy answers to any of these problems. However, I also say, just as frankly and with all the force that I can muster, that the movement towards having a recognised quota of refugees, identified by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and ourselves, coupled with offshore processing of those seeking admission to this country, is the right way forward. That is my and my party's view and that is what we shall do.
  Mr. Hogg: I am sorry to press my hon. Friend on the point, but I wonder whether he may be unduly complicating our position. I can understand the point of having a quota system based on the UNHCR—it may require changing our ratification of the convention—but why the need to have a secondary ability for people to come in and then make an application from some secure centre? Surely it would be best to have one way in—through the UNHCR—and then entertain no applications that do not fall under that one process.
  Mr. Matins: My right hon. and learned Friend makes his point in his own way, but there will be people outside the quota system who seek to claim asylum in this country, and my message to them today is that we will remove them to a safe offshore centre where their applications will be processed. That will bring more order into a system that is utterly discredited.
  Keith Vaz rose
  Mr. Matins: No, I want to make some progress. I have given way on every occasion so far and I shall not do so any more.
  Some of the Bill's proposals are to be welcomed. Anything that can be done humanely to improve the removals system will be welcomed on the Opposition Benches and throughout the country. We offer a welcome to the extension of powers of arrest, entry and

  1613
  search for immigration officers. We also offer a limited welcome to the proposal to criminalise those who wilfully destroy their passports or immigration documents with the purpose of pursuing unmeritorious claims, which is a pernicious practice. We welcome provisions to tag electronically those subject to immigration control, provided that such measures work in practice.
  One of the Government's greatest failures hitherto has been their inability to keep in touch with asylum seekers in the community, and not to require sufficient reporting at regular intervals. A classic example is the Oakington centre. That fast-track procedure, which incidentally costs the taxpayer £1,600 a week for each person in detention, works quickly, humanely and efficiently. But at the end of the process, it utterly fails. Why? Because applicants are released into the community, and many are never seen again.
  We also welcome measures that seek to make the appeals process more efficient, provided that justice is not lost in the process. However, we have concerns, which are shared by not only expert organisations outside the House that work in the field of asylum law, but many of the Home Secretary's own Back Benchers.
  In respect of making it a criminal offence, punishable by two years imprisonment, to present oneself to an immigration officer without a valid immigration document, have the Government considered what effect implementation might have on the prison population in this country?
  Mr. Marshall-Andrews: The hon. Gentleman knows that clause 10 removes any judicial review or oversight from the tribunals. The only review will be by the tribunal itself, which is not a review. For the first time since the Star Chamber, we are creating a body that has powers over people's lives that are not reviewed by the courts. Does the hon. Gentleman agree with that? Knowing him as a libertarian, I am sure that his immediate answer will be no. If so, why are the Tories not voting against the Bill, and why are they leaving it to Labour Members to test it?
  Mr. Malins: Let me deal with the point of principle first. Am I in favour of that clause? The answer is that I am not, and I do not believe that any fair-minded person would want it to remain unamended.
  Returning to the offence under clause 2, there is one category of people who must be dealt with: those who tear up their immigration documents on a flight or on arrival at an airport wilfully and with intent to evade the system. Would it not be more effective either to require carriers to take copies of traveller's documentation, or to take such documents from them when they board the aeroplane and give them back at immigration control?
  Can we not distinguish that group of people—those who wilfully destroy their documents before arrival—from the other group who flee persecution, crossing the continent, often under the influence of criminal gangs? Thousands of those people have never had travel or immigration documents, or passports. Such people would be guilty and could go to prison for up to two years. We are potentially criminalising people who have to flee in a hurry and are told to destroy documents by the smugglers, people who never had them in the first place, and people who have them collected by the
  1614
  smugglers before they reach immigration control. A huge percentage of genuine asylum seekers have no documentation whatever, so there is real concern that the provision might catch and hurt innocent and vulnerable people, rather than merely catching those trying to defeat the system.
  How many such asylum seekers have dependent children with them? What would be the effect on those children if the asylum seeker, on being charged, were remanded in custody and, on conviction, placed in prison for up to two years? What if their parents were fined thousands of pounds that they clearly could not pay? If they came before the courts as defaulters and had to go to prison, what would happen? What sort of system is that for the genuine asylum seeker?
  Lynne Jones: I agree with the hon. Gentleman's comments. The Government have said—I finally saw the consultation document in the Library—that few people would choose to go to prison rather than return home. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that people who are prepared to go to prison for two years are likely to have established that they did have a well-founded fear of persecution?
  Mr. Malins: The genuine asylum seeker arriving here, fleeing persecution, torture and possible death, would, if offered a choice between going back or spending two years in a British prison, opt for prison every time. However, the clause is potentially unfair, unless it is amended in Committee to make sure that we punish only those who are deserving of the punishment—in my view, those who wilfully tear up their documents on the aeroplane or when they reach our airports, not those who flee in haste across the continent.
  Mr. Tony McWalter: Is the hon. Gentleman confused about the idea that it might be deemed an offence not to have documents? As far as I can see, the Bill certainly does not suggest that it is an offence for someone not to have documents, as opposed to someone wilfully refusing to co-operate with the authorities in seeking to establish his or her identity. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will take that point on board.
  Mr. Malins: The clause reads as follows:
  "A person commits an offence if when he is first interviewed by an immigration after arrival … he does not have with him an immigration document which … is in force".
  That is the offence. The broad nature of that allegation means that we might send tens of thousands of innocent people to prison, so the clause will need to be carefully examined in Committee.
  Clause 7 deals with withdrawal of support. Until now, asylum seekers with dependent children have received support until they fail to comply with a removal direction. The issuing of a removal direction is an administrative act signifying the Government's immediate readiness to remove the failed asylum seeker—it comes right at the end of the process. Now, it is proposed to stop benefits much earlier. That may encourage more failed asylum seekers to take advantage of an opportunity to leave the UK; it may send a signal that those who attempt to play the system cannot expect

  1615
  to succeed; but it may also drive failed asylum seekers underground and split up families, as well as make removal more difficult.
  The measure may hit many people who have nowhere to go—people on whom the Government would hesitate to serve a removal direction because of the hardship involved in removing them to their country of origin. Zimbabwe is a case in point—a prime example. Removals to Zimbabwe have been suspended for a long time, so what happens to the failed asylum seeker whom the Government cannot and will not remove to Zimbabwe? Does such a person receive the notice stopping all their benefits or not? There are many people whom the Government would hesitate to remove because of the practical difficulties in getting the country of origin to receive them back—countries such as China, Moldova, Zimbabwe and the Congo all have their own particular difficulties. What would the Government do about failed asylum seekers whom, in the normal course of events, they would not remove to those countries? Will the Minister for Citizenship and Immigration set out precisely what is to happen to such people? As the Bill stands, they could be refused any support, which might he grossly unfair.
  There is one aspect of the changes that the Conservative party will never tolerate. Last month, the Government briefed the press that the children of asylum seekers would be taken away from them to make them leave Britain. It was a despicable and disgraceful idea, and the British people have already expressed their disgust, yet despite the opportunities given to him on many occasions in the House by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), the Prime Minister has refused to rebut his officials' briefings. The Home Secretary has distanced himself from the threat and there is no mention of it in the Bill. If the Home Secretary can guarantee that the removal of children into care will not be used as an explicit threat to asylum seekers, he will have our support; but if any amendment is made to the Bill to the effect that asylum seekers' children will be taken into care simply to persuade their parents to go home, we will have none of it and we will oppose it in the strongest possible terms.
  The Minister for Citizenship and Immigration (Beverley Hughes): The hon. Gentleman discredits himself with that accusation, which the Home Secretary has refuted on many occasions, including by writing to the newspaper concerned. The newspaper repeated that story, even after we had disavowed its version of clause 7. Will the hon. Gentleman accept that that story was in no way the result of briefing by either Ministers or officials?
  Mr. Malins: I have to say to the Minister that the briefing began somewhere—the press were briefed to that effect by someone in the Government. All I ask the Minister to do is to give us the undertaking I described.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Malins: I want to make a little progress before giving way again. I have given way almost every time I have been asked.
  1616
  We have always said that a streamlined, fast and efficient appeals system is important. Like the Home Secretary. we deplore attempts by those who seek asylum to play the system for all it is worth and to mount a succession of unmeritorious appeals, so in principle we understand and accept the desire to unify the appeals system. However, I greatly regret the proposal in the Bill to abolish all existing rights of appeal and review to the High Court, the Court of Appeal and the House of Lords. One of the strengths of the present system is that the Court of Appeal and the House of Lords have decided a large number of asylum cases and given clear and binding precedents on a number of vital matters. I would be more than sorry to see that go.
  It is a fact that the stakes are often highest for the poorest and most vulnerable people in our society. A mistake could send asylum seekers back to a country where torture and execution await them, and we must be absolutely sure of ourselves before introducing the measure. As the Bill stands, the obvious question to ask is how an erroneous decision by the new tribunal can be corrected if there is no right to apply to the Court of Appeal for a binding decision. The Bill offers only one possibility: for the tribunal to review its own decision on the basis of written representations. That provision is surely too restrictive, in effect, making the tribunal a judge of its own cause. Remember also that under the Bill as it stands, there is no judicial scrutiny of a decision by an immigration officer to remove someone. I share the concerns expressed by many hon. Members, not only Conservatives but Labour Members, most eloquently the hon. and learned Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews).
  Mr. Coleman: I strongly agree with the hon. Gentleman's most recent observations, but may I take him back to his comments about destitute children and the leader of the Conservative party? I advise the hon. Gentleman that the policy of a large number of Conservative-controlled local authorities in the event of a family being found to be intentionally homeless—perhaps because they have got into rent arrears or refused an offer of accommodation—is to take away the children of that family and put them into care against their parents' will? Does he regard that as despicable and barbaric, and if not, why not?
  Mr. Malins: As the hon. Gentleman was speaking, an hon. Friend was whispering something into my ear, so although I picked up most of what he said and will give the best answer I can, if I do not completely answer his point, let us talk about it afterwards. In principle, I am not generally in favour of taking children into care. I believe that the splitting up of families with the children being taken into care is potentially extremely damaging to the children, to the family unit and to the long-term prospects of those young people.
  Mr. Dawson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Malins: Let me make some progress.
  Can we not agree that the highest courts in this land should, when appropriate, be available to all our people, regardless of background? We will have to examine the clause closely in Committee. We will also look closely at the provision for charging immigration applicants more

  1617
  than the cost of processing their applications. That has caused much concern in educational establishments, and needs to be considered with care.
  We can therefore give the Bill qualified support, subject to proper scrutiny and amendment in Committee and the other place. It is greatly to be hoped that it will do much to remove the incentive to remain in Britain after an application has been refused on appeal, and that it will end the dire situation whereby some failed asylum seekers can cynically play the appeals system. However, it troubles me that the Government are seeking to exclude the judges.
  It is something of an irony that the Prime Minister, when he was Leader of the Opposition, championed the right of individuals to have access to the highest courts in the land, yet now talks to his party conference about the problems that the Government face from what he describes as "judicial interference". When the Government accuse the judiciary of interfering, it is time to be very concerned about our ancient liberties.
  I end with this advice to the Government: in future, legislate less, and give much more thought to legislative proposals; consult more widely; move more slowly; and remember that legislation has never created, and will never create, operational efficiency. That is what is wrong with our current system.
  Finally, in view of what so many of us feel about some of the Bill's illiberal aspects, the Government should never lose sight of the principle that although our system must work, it almost certainly must remain a beacon of humanity and decency to the rest of the civilised world.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: I remind the House that Mr. Speaker has imposed a 12-minute limit on Back-Bench Members' speeches.
  3.30 pm
  Mr. Hilton Dawson: I beg to move,
  That this House declines to give a Second Reading to the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Bill because it contains provision that would make children destitute.
  I am extraordinarily grateful to Mr. Speaker for selecting this reasoned amendment. I have spent most of the morning being warned by vastly more experienced colleagues that that would not happen. That it has is a mark of Mr. Speaker's commitment to the rights of Back-Bench Members. It is also, I hope, an indication of the seriousness of this subject. I regard it as a matter of fundamental principle and conscience. Other hon. Members will deal with the merits or demerits of many more of the Bill's 28 clauses than I shall. I intend to concentrate solely on clause 7.
  Clause 7 is so wrong in what it intends to do that it should be opposed by every hon. Member from every party in this House. The presence of the clause in the Bill demeans all of us here.
  It is an indication of the seriousness of this matter that all hon. Members will have received a briefing from the British Association of Social Workers. I spent 25 years as a social worker, but I never joined the
  1618
  association as I did not think that it reflected the profession's radicalism. It is extraordinary, and entirely to be commended, that the association should say that it cannot overstate its opposition to receiving children into care on the ground of parental poverty, which it regards as a breach of professional ethics. The association briefing states:
  "We expect our members to strongly resist the implementation of this clause."
  It is a matter of enormous regret that the Bill has been produced by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, and that it has the support of my hon. Friend the Minister for Citizenship and Immigration. Both are exceptionally fine people, whom I hold in the highest respect and regard. They have an enormously difficult task, and I support them in many aspects of the job that they try to do. However, they are wrong in what they propose this afternoon. They are taking us a step far too far.
  It seems extraordinary that I have to say this to a Labour Government, but in no circumstances whatever should the basic means of sustenance be removed from children. That is true whatever their parents have done, whoever they are, wherever they come from, and regardless of the merits of the case presented by any adults involved. All hon. Members should reflect that, if they vote for a Bill that contains clause 7, they will be voting for a measure that will mean that children in this country will go hungry. That will be their individual responsibility, not the responsibility of Whips. They will be taking direct responsibility for children becoming homeless. They will be taking direct responsibility for children being at risk of physical and sexual abuse, and they will be taking direct responsibility for children needing to be looked after by their local authorities and separated from their parents simply because those parents are destitute.
  Mr. McWalter: My hon. Friend knows that I greatly respect his tremendous work on behalf of children. Will he reflect on the fact that families are rapped out of their beds at 5 o'clock in the morning and wrenched out to the airport by force at present—children must also go through that traumatic experience? The Bill is an attempt to put in place a system of co-operation that would be gentler and better supported, which should be better for children all round.
  Mr. Dawson: I am sorry, but I entirely reject my hon. Friend's view. I entirely support ways of working with families and helping them to deal with situations in which they find themselves, but we do not help families by taking away their basic means of sustenance and impoverishing them. I have gone to bed in nice hotels in Romania, Angola, Burundi and Kenya knowing that destitute children were right outside the building, but that has never happened here. My hon. Friends might like to protest that such things will never happen and that families with no right to remain in this country who are faced with the prospect of destitution will take their leave earlier and more quickly. They may also argue that local authorities will intervene,

  1619
  after which people will be removed virtually immediately in any case. I hope that they are right—they may well be right for several cases.
  Beverley Hughes: I have told my hon. Friend that I know of and respect his great concern for children. However, it might be worth while for him to set out where he thinks that parental responsibility lies in such circumstances. There is an important difference between the families about which he is talking, and indigenous families and those with the right to remain. Those families will have the opportunity to get an assisted package to help them back home to their country and assistance with resettling, if necessary, so they will consequently have the means of avoiding the possible consequences of support being taken away from them.
  Mr. Dawson: I shall try to respond to my hon. Friend's point in part later in my speech. However, we cannot rule out the possibility that neither the Home Office nor all its procedures will be infallible, so people who are forced to go home might well be pushed back to a life of torture and oppression in the countries from which they came. We need to draw a clear distinction when comparing children in such circumstances with children from our country. The welfare needs of children from our country are met by keeping the family together and offering all sorts of support, but they are occasionally removed from their families to address their protection needs. Several hon. Members have conflated those issues already.
  When some families are faced with the implications of clause 7, whatever the merits of their case, they will ask local authorities to look after their children because they are unable to do that. They may do that at an earlier stage than my hon. Friends would like to believe. The nature of section 20 of the Children Act 1989 has already been misunderstood this afternoon. Children cannot be taken into care under the provision, because the arrangement is entirely voluntary. If parents go to local authorities because they have no money to look after their children, given that the authorities will not be able to provide the families with money and the only alternative would be to try to construct a network of voluntary support, social workers will probably have to agree to accommodate children under section 20 despite the fact that that offends against the paramount principle of the Children Act and every tenet of good professional practice. Thereafter those parents could disappear, leaving their children as alone as any unaccompanied asylum-seeking child who had made their own way to the UK. Such children would be left in the care system and would need to be looked after until they were grown up.
  Those children could be the lucky ones, however. I have great faith that the overwhelmingly decent people of this country would rally round to help families made destitute by clause 7. The horrible, ridiculous nonsense peddled by the likes of the Daily Mail and The Sun does a gross disservice to the people of this country. Churches, mosques, synagogues, temples, voluntary organisations, friends, families and many individuals will do all that they can to offer food, clothing and shelter. They may reduce the number of people who will
  1620
  need to beg, to steal and to camp out on our streets, but people will still be on the streets as a consequence of the clause.
  The criminals and paedophiles will also spot new prey. Only last month, we passed the fine legislation that is the Sexual Offences Act 2003, but how many families desperate to stay in this country will be impelled back into the arms of traffickers or forced into the arms of thieves and pimps, into the homes of men who will have an uncommon hold over people who will feel the full weight of that obligation? In such circumstances, social workers may have to intervene with compulsory powers.
  Over the past few days, we have heard much, rightly. about the awful human difficulties of compulsorily removing families from this country under our immigration laws. My right hon. and hon. Friends might also like to contemplate the awful human difficulties of removing children from their families under emergency protection orders. That can be a very harrowing experience indeed.
  The proposed legislation will make some families—some children—disappear from view and they will be in colossal danger. As I wrote that sentence I thought, "My God, I hope I'm wrong." We should not dream of putting the legislation, or families, to the test. What is proposed in clause 7 is wrong. It undermines all the work that the Government are rightly doing to emphasise the principle that every child matters. Under clause 7, some children do not matter. The clause breaches the Children Act 1989; it breaches articles 3 and 9 of the United Nations convention on the rights of the child; and goodness knows how the Home Secretary can believe that it complies with the Human Rights Act 1998. The Human Rights Act is not worth having if these provisions comply with it.
  The Bill invites us to attempt to persuade adults to do something because if they do not we will harm their children and break up their families. That is immoral.
  Julie Morgan: Is my hon. Friend aware that the office of the Children's Commissioner for Wales has expressed grave concerns about the legislation? Does he agree that when there is a children's commissioner for England that person may express similar concerns?
  Mr. Dawson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. The children's commissioner for England would face the prospect of such legislation with coruscating anger and would take the Government fully to task for even contemplating it. We should not allow this country to reach that position.
  Voting against Second Reading is a moral imperative for Members on both sides of the House. We have heard utter confusion from the Conservative Front Bench and I appeal to Conservative Back Benchers, over the heads of their Front Benchers and the crocodile tears of their leader, to vote with their consciences this evening.
  The Whips should have no sway over the issue. I am confident that even they might examine their consciences in this case—[HON. MEMBERS: "No, never."] I remain confident.
  I sincerely urge my right hon. and hon. Friends to reconsider clause 7. to think again and to decide not to take our precious, tolerant, democratic society, which is based on fundamental human rights, down a wicked road.

ROYAL ASSENT
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Act:
Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Act 2003.

Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Bill
Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.
3.45 pm
Mr. Mark Oaten: I start by sharing a sentiment with the Home Secretary on the outcome of the Soham murder trial. I should add that if it does emerge in the next day or two that there were some serious record-keeping errors in the past, that will be of serious concern to parents throughout the country. After all, what is the point in having such measures in place if there has been a failure? I hope that the Home Secretary will come to the House as soon as possible to explain what will be done to examine the issues thoroughly.
If somebody had told me six years ago, when I entered Parliament, that as a Liberal Democrat I would be arguing against an immigration Bill that used children as a tool to try to remove asylum seekers, and which took away levels of natural justice, and then told me that it would be a Labour Government to whom I would be raising objections, I would not have believed that possible. However, since the Labour Government came to office, they seem persistently to want to battle it out in the right-wing press to try to outbid the Conservatives in their period of office.
If the Home Secretary, as he said, wants to try in the next few months to have some more positive leaders in The Guardian, my advice to him is that he may have to do away with some positive leaders in the Daily Mail if he is to achieve such an outcome.
I shall run through some of the measures in the Bill. Before doing so, I will place my remarks in the context of why we are having the debate in the first place. There have been discussions about the degree of the problem in relation to asylum seekers. A couple of weeks ago, the Government announced that by their own measurements, there had been a reduction in the number of asylum seekers coming into the country. It strikes me as slightly odd that against that backdrop of a clear Government target met, they want to introduce another wave of measures, I assume to try to have a further cut in place. When the Minister replies, it may be useful for him to explain whether an assessment has been made to ascertain what reduction in the number of individuals seeking to come to the UK the Government want.
Is there to he another target similar to the one that the Prime Minister announced a year ago? If not, have the Government made assessments of the impact of these changes? It strikes me that the sole purpose of the changes must be to try to reduce the number of asylum seekers entering the country. It would be helpful all round to know what the target is, or whether there is a target.
I hope that the Government will accept that one of the reasons why we are seeing a reduction in the numbers is that there has been a change, with the expansion of the European Union, which will be embedded in 2004. Some of the measures that the Government will put in place with the enactment of the Bill may not be needed if the pattern that seems to be emerging over the last year or so continues.

1623
There are three or four critical clauses and I shall raise some concerns and put my points to the Minister. First, there is clause 10, which introduces a fundamental issue. There is much talk about children and benefits, but for me the big principle rests with the changes that the Government plan to the appeal system that currently operates. It seems that the Government, despite the Home Secretary's assurances that there will still be some peculiar route to a higher court, are doing away with a level of appeal. Not only that, they are doing away with the principle of being able to go to a higher court for some form of judicial review.
Tellingly, the Law Society has said:
"The general principle of English law is that the High Court exercises a supervisory jurisdiction through judicial review, over administrative decisions and the work of tribunals, in order to ensure there is a remedy where those bodies make errors of law or reach decisions in a way that is grossly unfair."
It added:
"It is essential that asylum appeals which deal with life or death issues are subject to that full and proper judicial scrutiny."
I cannot understand why the Government want to take away that protection and break an established principle that we have in law.
It is important to have the ability to refer on to a higher court. We have often seen in the past that testing out some laws through judicial review has resulted in better decisions. It has changed the practice. It has changed the way in which decisions were made in the first place. We will lose all that now.
Mr. Marshal-Andrews: Are the two things not linked? Is not clause 7 made infinitely more iniquitous because of the problems introduced by clause 10, which make it infinitely more likely that deserving cases will be subject to the provisions in clause 7?
Mr. Oaten: All the clauses are connected in many ways, and the implications of rights being taken away in one clause by changes introduced by other clauses are very dangerous indeed. I would include in that something that is not in the Bill but which is being discussed elsewhere—the plans to change legal aid. If the Government are moving towards a more streamlined approach and want to remove certain levels of appeal, it is critical that decent decisions be made. If such decisions are to be made, decent legal aid must be in place. The Government proposals to remove legal aid should be put on hold until we have seen how the changes in the Bill bed down.
Jeremy Corbyn: I agree, particularly with the hon. Gentleman's last point. Is he aware that, especially in inner London, large numbers of solicitors' firms are closing down because they simply cannot afford to represent immigration and asylum cases? Voluntary sector law centres are overwhelmed by cases, so people can only go to places where they are prey to unscrupulous, incompetent advisers who often mess up a case, resulting in a grave injustice at a later stage.
Mr. Oaten: That is an extremely valid point. The consequences of the proposed changes in legal aid are
1624
serious, as we could end up with individuals who have not got the necessary skills, particularly given the change in the structures suggested by the Government.
The Government are breaking a fundamental principle, and it is extraordinary that they should do so, as there are very few areas indeed where they have removed the ability to go on to a second appeal and then a higher court. In fact, the only other area in which they have made such changes involves issues of national security. The affected bodies are the investigatory powers tribunal, the Special Immigration Appeals Tribunal, and the Proscribed Organisations Appeal Commission. I do not see how the issue of dealing with asylum seekers falls into that category of national security. Having already broken one principle, the Government should not break the principle of referral to a higher court of genuine asylum cases. The plans to take away the option of another tribunal looking at a case are of concern, let alone the issue of being able to go to the High Court. The limitation of having only a written review, which cannot be discussed unless technical issues are raised, narrows very unfairly indeed a tribunal's ability to review its own decision.
It is critical to establish the number of individuals who are going through the process at the moment. When we debated the Queen's Speech a couple of weeks ago, I tried to establish with the Home Secretary how many people were involved. There was general agreement that in the first stage of appeal 20 per cent. of cases were successful. In the second stage of appeal, I argued that 20 per cent. of people were successful, but the Home Secretary said that it was more likely to be 3 per cent. It is important to get that figure right. A Library briefing tries to clear the issue up:
"The Home Secretary has consistently referred to 3 per cent. of appeals to the IAT being successful but this is not apparent from the published statistics".
It appears that there is genuine confusion about the number of individuals who are currently successful on the second appeal. In written answers, the Home Office has not been able to tell me what proportion of immigration appeal tribunal appeals are initiated by the Home Office, and it cannot tell me what proportion of Home Office appeals are successful compared with appeals lodged by individuals. Without those statistics, it will be difficult for us to debate the issue in Committee, as it is critical to know how many individuals will be affected by the removal of the second tier of appeal. I hope that in the time available we can try to get more detailed figures.
Far too many cases are being dealt with incorrectly at the first stage of appeal. The 20 per cent. figure suggests that there are serious problems with the way in which the process is currently conducted. The situation seems to have got worse in the past five years, and in particular country cases, 39 per cent. of appeals by Somalis and 38 per cent. of appeals by Sudanese have been successful. Something is clearly going badly wrong in the system if that proportion of decisions is proven to have been incorrect.
Vera Baird: The situation is even worse than the hon. Gentleman sets out. The 22 per cent. average failure rate allows for the abusive applications that we have heard a good deal about.

1625
Many applications are made that should not be made and do not have much of a leg to stand on. They, of course, weight the average. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman is prepared to take it from me, but there are some skilful asylum practitioners who have a success rate on appeal of 90 to 95 per cent. That is what we are really talking about.
Mr. Oaten: The hon. and learned Lady's reputation is such that I am prepared to take it from her. That demonstrates the need to establish the figures clearly before Committee stage; otherwise we will be discussing these issues in a vacuum.
All hon. Members agree that we must speed up the process by getting it right in the first place, not by cutting out tiers of natural justice. That means, as we have heard, better training and—we have not heard this—better use of interpreters during the early process. There could be difficulties over language and understanding what is being said at that stage. Better and faster information is needed on applicants' countries. The Home Secretary said that the Government had established the advisory panel to help produce that information.
I have concerns, first, that the information is still not as up to date as it could be about possibly fast-moving events in those countries, and secondly, that the information and all the data collected with it are not getting through to the individuals down on the desk who take the initial decisions. We need to make better information available faster. Finally, the proposals to do away with legal aid will make it extremely difficult to try to steer an individual's case through a changing legal process.
I turn to clause 7 and the controversial issue of the withdrawal of benefits. As I said, this is the issue that has hit the headlines. I know that the Minister is irritated by it, and that she will claim that no briefings by the Government to the press have taken place. Nevertheless, I am left with an impression—I do not know where it came from—that the issue of children and asylum was put in the press from somewhere. However that happened, it is extremely regrettable that the subject of children has been raised in that way, as part—
Beverley Hughes: For the record, let me clarify, in addition to my earlier comments on the issue, that the Government publicised their intention to legislate in precisely this way on 24 October, when I announced the ILR—indefinite leave to remain—exercise involving 15,000 families. We also announced these measures. On 27 October, in our first consultation document, we included the details of what is in the Bill. The Bill says nothing at all about taking children into care. That is not the measure that we are debating.
Mr. Oaten: Whether the announcement was made three months ago or three weeks ago, it is incorrect and wrong. It is clearly the intention of the Home Office to remove the benefits of children and families. That will lead to hardship and will make it necessary for social services to make judgments on those children. On the "Today" programme yesterday morning, the Minister said that she did not expect any children to be taken into care because parents would comply if threatened in that way. Does she stand by the view that she does not
1626
envisage children being taken into care because people will comply? I believe that is the Minister's view—that children will not be taken into care. [Interruption.] I am happy to give way.
Beverley Hughes: If the hon. Gentleman wants me to intervene to answer that question, rather than doing so from a sedentary position, I am happy to do so. I do not believe that the vast majority of parents who are asylum seekers, any more than the vast majority of any of us as parents or any other group of parents, will want to be separated from their children when they have an alternative remedy, which is to go home, with assistance. That is my position.
Mr. Oaten: My instincts as a parent are much the same as the Minister's, but it is the Opposition's role to ensure that we have good legislation, and that is not achieved by putting in place a threat that one hopes will work and that one therefore does not expect to have to use. If that logic applied, there would be fewer people in prison. We have laws, we hope that they will act as a deterrent, but human nature is such that people take different views from those that the Minister or I might take. The Government put forward a similar argument for section 55 of the 2002 Act. The logic then was that individuals would not make late claims because the possibility of losing their benefits would be a deterrent. In fact, the evidence is that people have been prepared to lose their benefits.
Dr. Jenny Tonge: Does my hon. Friend agree that a really good parent who had escaped terrible persecution in their country of origin would be quite likely to prefer to leave their children in care than have to take them back to the country where they knew that they would seriously damaged?
Mr. Oaten: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. The Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee said:
"Faced with that choice, families might disappear and leave their children in care, thinking that may be the better option, because at least the children would get to stay in Britain and perhaps the adults would get to stay here, albeit working illegally".
Ms Abbott: The Minister says that she believes that the majority of parents, faced with having their children taken into care, will comply with directions and return home. But how big will be the minority of parents who do not comply? Are we talking about a dozen, a couple of dozen, a hundred? Perhaps when she winds up, the Minister will tell the House how big the minority of children will be who will end up in care as a consequence of the Bill.
Mr. Oaten: I shall leave the Minister to respond to that well made point when she winds up.
Glenda Jackson: I applaud the Minister's natural sense of how she would behave in a situation, but would not a logical conclusion of that be that every child who arrives here as an unaccompanied minor seeking refuge is an orphan? I know that many of them are, but not all of them are.
Mr. Oaten: Again, that is an extremely good point, which is one of those issues that, when we have line-byline analysis in Committee, we shall want to probe.

1627
I should like an assurance from the Minister that, at the point at which the decision is taken to withdraw benefit, someone will ensure that a meeting takes place with the local social services department to explain the consequences of losing the benefit and what will happen next. If the benefit is simply withdrawn, and the other agencies are not informed, over a period of months some form of hardship could develop of which none of the other agencies would be aware. Whatever our views about the clause, we would not want such a situation to emerge. It is important that individual authorities should be notified.
For tackling the problem of removals, Liberal Democrats do not support the idea of an island; rather, there should be a greater use of existing powers. The situation has been allowed to go on for far too long, and the long delays make an eventual removal harder. I, and the Home Affairs Committee, have had examples of individuals who had reached their final stage, but five years on nothing had happened. By that point, individuals have become embedded in the community and it is difficult to remove them, so there needs to be much more effective use of existing powers. I accept the Home Secretary's argument that one barrier to removal is re-documentation, but I thought that clause 14 tackled that; so if that is effective, we do not need powers to withdraw benefit, nor the threat to take children into care.
Initially, I had some sympathy with the view that we should take a tough stance on individuals who have clearly destroyed their documents. It is important that those who give genuine asylum seekers a bad name should be highlighted in the way proposed. I understand the Government's desire to send a strong message to the organisers of gangs who encourage individuals to do that. However, these clauses will need very careful examination if we are to ensure that genuine cases are not criminalised. At the moment, the onus is on an individual who arrives without documentation to make the case for why they have not got it. That is the wrong way round. I believe in the assumption of innocence, which means that we should assume that they have a genuine reason for not having it.
Because a punishment will be attached to the non-possession of documents, the Crown Prosecution Service is being drawn into the process. That gives rise to the danger of a twin-track process whereby somebody who arrives here without documentation is subject both to the normal immigration process assessing their case and to a CPS process leading towards possible conviction. Since the two processes will presumably consider the same information, it would be unnecessarily complicated for an individual to have to steer their way through that twin-track process. Furthermore, the situation could arise whereby although it had been decided that they were genuine and could be allowed into this country, the CPS had to continue to pursue the issue of their not having documentation. It would be crazy to have the two processes running at the same time. Will the Minister clarify that?
1628
Does the Minister accept that there are many genuine reasons why individuals might come into this country without documentation? In some countries, such as the Republic of the Congo and Somalia, it is difficult to obtain such documentation in the first place. Alternatively, if someone is fleeing a country because something has suddenly flared up, the last thing on their mind will be to go back home to try to get their passport—indeed, their house may have been burned down, so trying to get that documentation could prove very difficult.
Jeremy Corbyn: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Geneva convention requires signatory states not to discriminate against individuals because of their lack of documentation or the method by which they arrive?
Mr. Oaten: Indeed—the UK signed up to that convention in 1951, and it would be interesting to hear from the Minister how the Government's proposals fall within its legality.
Another of my concerns about arrival without documentation relates to the message that the Government want to send back to the gangmasters and traffickers. I can understand their desire to send that message, but I have not yet heard them explain how it will physically be achieved. Those individuals would need to have a fairly sophisticated understanding of UK asylum law in order to interpret what the Government are planning. Let us also remember that traffickers often place the people they want to come into this country in considerable danger or make threats against their families. That pressure may mean that it would be reasonable for them to argue that they had come into this country without documentation because they were told to destroy it by a gang leader.
We will need to examine these clauses carefully to ensure that nobody who comes here without documentation for genuine reasons ends up in prison. I would also say to the Home Secretary that adding another category of individuals to those who are imprisoned is, first, unacceptable given the number of people who are already in prison and, secondly, unrealistic in financial terms, because the costs involved in keeping somebody in prison would wipe out some of the potential savings. We are in danger of criminalising innocent individuals instead of finding a way of punishing the gangmasters and traffickers who have brought them into this country.
The Leader of the Opposition made a great cause of the issue of children and said that the Home Secretary and the Prime Minister should be ashamed. In this sense, he is right: the Government should be ashamed that they have put themselves in a position whereby they can take such strong criticism from a former right-wing Home Secretary. On the grounds of natural justice, on the way in which children are being used as a political tool, and on the principle of this country remaining a safe haven, Liberal Democrats will vote for the amendment and against the Bill.

Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Bill

  DEFERRED DIVISION
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I now have to announce the result of a Division deferred from a previous day.

  1629
  On the motion on extradition, the Ayes were 243 and the Noes were 43, so the motion was agreed to.
  [The Division Lists are published at the end of today's debates.]

Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Bill
Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.
4.9 pm
Mr. John Denham: The Select Committee on Home Affairs reported yesterday, and I hope that the report will be of value to the House in the debate today and also in scrutiny in Committee. I should particularly like to thank the Minister for Citizenship and Immigration, who, as part of the asylum applications inquiry, has appeared before the Committee on some six occasions in the last calendar year. I wish all Ministers were so happy to give evidence. We shall he publishing a fuller report on the asylum process in the new year, but we picked out for the current report the elements that applied to the Bill.
Asylum is clearly a major issue for many of our constituents. There is real concern about abuse of the system and about the impact on many areas of the country of significant numbers of new people moving into settled communities. I think the case for being seen to take strong measures to tackle flaws in the asylum system is sound, and the recent figures suggest that the Government have had considerable success in doing that.
I want to start with two general comments. First, we need to ensure that the public are kept properly informed about the issues. The Minister was very helpful in trying to inform the Select Committee about the overall costs of supporting families in the asylum system, but it was very unfortunate that that was done in a way that enabled the cost to be represented as a much higher income than some of our constituents enjoy, when the reality is that, on a like-for-like basis, asylum-seeking families have a standard of living that is significantly below the income support levels available to British families. It does no good for any of us if the problem is overstated in the public mind—it creates a rod for all our backs if people get the wrong impression.
Secondly, we must recognise that failed asylum-seeking families are human beings. Of course, there are people who try the asylum system who are of outright criminal intent, and certainly there are many who wish to use the flaws in the system to remain here as long as possible, to exploit the ability to work illegally and so on. But the truth is that most are people who, although they have no valid claim to be refugees, have set out and risked a lot in the hope of a better life for themselves and their families. When the decision comes that the answer is no, they still deserve to be treated humanely by the system, and we need to bear that in mind in talking about these proposals.
The Select Committee considered the proposals but not the Bill; we did not have time to do that. I have to say that there was too little information available at the consultation stage for the Committee or many of the respondents to respond in detail to the proposals that are now being discussed. Particularly in relation to clause 10, which will clearly be controversial, it would have been better if the full shape of the Government's proposals had formed part of the consultation document. Difficulties will arise in another place, if not here, and it would have been better to work through the issues.

1631
The Committee's overall assessment of the Bill is that its basic principles are right, but its implementation will be critical. There is clearly a significant problem with undocumented passengers, both in returning those who have no case for asylum to their countries and in tackling people traffickers. The Committee supported the general proposals to tackle those who deliberately destroy documents or fail to co-operate with redocumentation.
However, we must ensure that there is real protection for those who are genuinely fleeing persecution. Most people who enter the country, particularly on airlines, depend on people-traffickers; they get their information from people-traffickers. If people are to be aware of the consequences of destroying documents, we need to ensure that they understand the position fully. There must be improved information to passengers.
When the Minister came before the Committee, she told us that it was not the intention to use the provision against those who have no option but to travel on false documents because they come from countries where they cannot approach the embassy to ask for a visa, or even get a passport in the first place. We welcome that assurance, but I believe that it should be explicit and included in the Bill. That would provide a valuable protection.
Lynne Jones: Does my right hon. Friend agree with the Government that the reforms are urgent and that the Government were therefore justified in not carrying out due process in relation to consultation or making the appropriate details available to his Committee and other Members?
Mr. Denham: I believe that there is a powerful case for the Government introducing this legislation in this Session of Parliament. It is unfortunate, however, that Parliament—and, more particularly, the informed organisations outside—did not have more time to comment on the details. I think that there will be problems as the Bill goes through that could have been avoided if we had had a longer consultation period, and that is a shame.
To return to the problem of undocumented passengers, the Committee believes that not all the burden should be placed on the individual asylum seeker. We were given useful information about the use of covert surveillance and other methods of ensuring that the authorities knew which flights people had arrived on. There is scope for far more action of that kind at airports—for example, having immigration officials meeting selected flights, and so on. These cases depend heavily on the individual asylum seeker at the moment, and more could be done about the way in which the immigration and nationality directorate operates.
We have to be realistic about the appeal system. There is undoubtedly a significant incentive in the system at the moment, in that the lengthy and cumbersome appeals procedures with their multi-layered approach enable those supporting people coming to this country to tell them that they will be able to stay for a very long time before their cases are resolved. In terms of pull factors,
1632
that is a significant issue. The Select Committee took the view that, in principle, simplifying the appeals procedure so that the process did not last as long as many hon. Member know it does now was the right thing to do. Those who say that there is nothing wrong with the current system are simply turning a blind eye to the fact that that long-drawn-out procedure is a significant pull factor.
The Committee therefore supports, in principle, a simplified system with a single level of appeal. But—and it is a very big "but"—the problem currently lies in the quality of the initial decisions. To switch to a simplified system when so many of those decisions are wrong and when there is so much reliance on further stages of appeal will be very difficult. The statistics are not satisfactory, because the Home Office does not keep track of what happens to particular cohorts of asylum seekers, but one in five decisions are overturned at the initial decision stage, and it would appear that well over half the cases that reach the immigration appeal tribunal are overturned in one way or another—cases are either held up or referred back to an adjudicator.
The Government must recognise that there needs to be confidence in the system. I understand that rights for asylum seekers are not a popular concept, and that tough action is. However, tough measures must be founded on sound principles and procedures. The Committee therefore concluded that initial decision making must be improved, as demonstrated by a fall in successful appeals, before the system is simplified. We are saying not that this part of the Bill should be removed, but that there should be a clear commitment about when it will be brought into effect. I regret the fact that the Government rejected this recommendation from the Committee within hours, if not minutes, of our report being published on Monday. I hope that they will listen to the tone of today's debate and look again at the issue—given that it will take time to put in place a different system of tribunals anyway—and set themselves a target to improve their record on initial decision making before the changes are made.
Mr. Marshall-Andrews: I do not disagree with the principle of simplifying the adjudicator and immigration appeal tribunal process. That is where the principal delays are occurring. Many people will agree with everything that my right hon. Friend has just said, including those who criticise clause 10. He will get an extra two minutes as a result of this intervention, so will he briefly address the question of the proscription of any judicial overview of this process? That is absolutely unique in our system, and, as I have said, has not existed since the Star Chamber.
Mr. Denham: The Select Committee did not consider that issue. We were unable to do so, as the Bill had not been published when we were preparing our report. My own view is that we must avoid a situation in which such a recourse becomes as regular a part of the procedure as the IAT or judicial review. I shall go no further than to say that it is worth exploring whether that protection can be provided but in a limited set of circumstances, so that the rights to which my hon. and learned Friend referred can be protected.
The restriction of family support is the most controversial element of the Bill. It is deeply unsatisfactory that we do not have any estimate of the

1633
number of asylum-seeking families currently in the system to whom this measure could potentially be applied. We are having a major debate with no idea whether we are talking about tens of thousands, thousands, hundreds or tens of families. It is a problem with the Home Office statistics rather than with the Minister, but none the less the Standing Committee must be given better information.
The Select Committee came to the view, which I support, that the principle is right. It is difficult to say to our constituents that a family who have no right to be here should expect taxpayers' support ad infinitum. To go against that principle would be to make a mockery of the asylum system for families—we might as well say that once they have set foot in this country they should be allowed to stay. We are not suggesting that clause 7 be removed from the Bill. However, the House must scrutinise carefully how the Government intend to implement it.
We accept that the aim is to achieve more voluntary returns, and we must examine how that will be done. Our Committee has said in the past that much needs to be done to improve the return and removal system—not necessarily with more snatch squads or dawn raids. We should ensure that the whole system is reformed, so that it is understood by all parties that a failed claim will lead to swift action to effect removal. I hope that the Committee will say more about that in the new year. My view is that everyone should be prepared before they receive the decision, so that it is perfectly clear that if it is yes, this is what will happen to them, and if it is no, that is what will happen to them. I worry that we are still starting the process when the appeal letter arrives, which is too late to involve people in informed decision making.
Ms Karen Buck: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Denham: No, I will not give way as I have very little time left.
In the Standing Committee, the Minister must set out exactly how the procedure will work. If the House can be persuaded that it will produce more voluntary returns, the Government should implement it. But we need to be sure that it will not lead to the worst possible outcome, which is children being taken into care and parents working illegally.
Mr. Dawson: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Denham: No, I am running out of time, I am afraid.
It is critical that we know which countries the Government believe are safe to return people to, and which have a return and resettlement programme. This issue already arises with single people, but now that it will be linked to the removal of benefits from families, we need to know which countries those are, and that must be open to scrutiny. Our Committee considered whether that should be a statutory process, and decided against it for obvious reasons. The Government must in every case make it perfectly clear which countries they believe it is safe to return families to.
1634
Those are the Committee's major conclusions, and I hope that they are helpful to the House in the weeks to come.
4.23 pm
Mr. Robert Key: I agree with the analysis made by my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. MalMs). He is right not to reject the Bill wholesale, but to say that there is a great deal of important work to be done in Committee. I fear that this could be a law of unintended consequences, in one respect at least.
Last week, I was e-mailed by Mr. Michael Wills, the principal of the Salisbury School of English, who made representations about the impact of the Bill on language schools in this country. I spent Friday with the chemistry department of the university of Southampton and with my Royal Society pair, Dr. Andrew Hector. I heard from students and the vice-chancellor of the university that the Bill would have an unintended consequence for overseas students and universities up and down the country. They expressed great concern about clause 20, which also concerns me.
In clause 20, power is given to the Secretary of State to impose fees that exceed the administrative costs of determining an application for a visa. It also gives the Secretary of State power to reflect benefits that the Secretary of State thinks are likely to accrue to the person who makes the application. In other words, the Secretary of State can say, "If someone attends a language school in Salisbury, they are likely to have a higher earning potential when they get home, so I'll screw them".
According to the explanatory notes on the Bill, charges will be set at some stage by statutory instrument—although we do not know what the statutory instrument will say—and a further regulatory impact assessment will be completed. Today—indeed, for a week and more—it has been very difficult to get hold of the regulatory impact assessments. But it was always clear, since the press release issued by the Home Office on 27 November, that the Government intended the Bill to catch students. It states:
"More than 500,000 non-asylum applications are expected to be made this year from people who enter the UK to work, study or join family members."
I was relieved to hear the Home Secretary say that he would guarantee that the Home Office would consult people who would be affected in that way. What a pity that it did not do so before.
In annexe B to a letter dated 27 October and signed by the Minister of State, a list of consultees stretching to scores of organisations makes no reference to any university or to the language school sector, or even to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, which has a role in sponsoring language schools. That is astonishing.
The Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee has said that his Committee's report—and a very good report it was—was written before the Bill was published. The Committee therefore had no opportunity to scrutinise this aspect of the Bill, and to consider who might be affected and what it might cost.

1635
Paragraph 24 of the regulatory impact assessment states
"The over cost charging indicative figures are that charges might range between £20-;£500 but would be introduced on a rolling programme over a number of years."
In the excellent House of Commons Library briefing for the Bill, the excellent researcher points out that in saying that, the assessment identifies the risks of introducing above-cost charging, and the entry fee is pitched at a level that encourages people to consider illegal entry, overstaying and working. In other words, the consequence of, say, a £500 surcharge on a student coming to a language school might cause him or her to try to enter the country illegally in order to avoid it. That is absurd.
I was approached by Pat Marchiori-White from the Southwold School of English, on behalf of the Recognised English Language Schools Association, who pointed out that at present a visa for a fortnight's course in the UK costs a student £95. If the student wants to extend the visa by a week, however, it will cost £155 to do so by post and £250 to go to London in person to do so.
Mr. Tim Boswell: Exactly the same concern arose in relation to a recent order on visa fee extensions. Again, the Home Office had not consulted and the consequences were substantial. Is there not a real risk that the controversy over top-up fees will be supplemented by concern about top-up visa charges?
Mr. Key: My hon. Friend is right.
I do not accuse the Minister or the Department of a conspiracy. I have been a Minister myself, and for me the cock-up theory wins every time. I do, however, think that the Minister should look at this carefully, because the impact could be enormous. Quite simply, the business will leave this country and go elsewhere.
The Recognised English Language Schools Association says:
"the importance of students to the UK economy is not just what they spend on course fees, accommodation and social programmes while they are here, but their value through the affinity they develop"
with our country. When they go home, says the association,
"they recommend British education to others, they are more likely to return here as tourists with their families, and they are more likely to look favourably on UK suppliers in trade deals etc."
After all, only a couple of years ago the mayor of Shanghai, who had been at a UK university, raised with the Prime Minister the whole question of the excellence of British education. In 1999 the Prime Minister launched an initiative to increase the number of foreign students attending UK universities, colleges and language schools. If the Secretary of State for Education had been standing at the Dispatch Box today, he would have trumpeted the success of the Prime Minister's initiative of 1999. Instead, the Home Secretary is doing his best to destroy it by hitting students with a succession of charges. He will drive those students, many of whom come from the Pacific rim economies, for
1636
example, to competitors in New Zealand, Canada and elsewhere. Were that to occur, it would of course have a big impact on my constituency.
The importance of English as a foreign language to the UK economy is the main factor in arguing that the industry should not be penalised by the Government in this way. It is also extremely important to universities, as the vice-chancellor of Southampton told me last Friday. The charge already made for foreign students to extend their visas in order to complete degree courses is punitive. Of the total number of international students on UK education and training programmes, each year some 600.000 participate in English language programmes, almost 250,000 participate in higher education programmes, and 250,000 participate in other programmes. The value is enormous. Courses involving English as a foreign language bring in £1.3 billion a year to the UK economy. Higher education courses bring in much more—£3.5 billion a year. Further education courses bring in £450 million, and private sector training is responsible for some £1.6 billion. That is nearly £7 billion a year in invisible exports from this country, as a result of such people coming here.
I am sure that Home Office Ministers never intended this outcome, and I hope that the consultation, along with the judgment, will be thorough and careful. I hope that the judgment will also be sensible and will neither discourage students from coming to this country, nor discourage science students in particular from attending British universities. I hope that drawing attention to this important problem in this way will help Ministers to make up their minds.
4.31 pm
Mr. Neil Gerrard: This is the fifth time that I have taken part in a Second Reading debate on an asylum and immigration Bill since entering this House in 1992. It is also the fifth time that I have been told that such legislation was going to solve all the problems with the asylum and immigration system; and, of course, it is only a year since the last such Bill was debated.
When I first looked at the Bill before us, I could not see too much of a problem with clause 28—the short title—but I have some difficulty with more or less every other clause. I then realised that I was perhaps being a bit harsh. Some clauses deal with trafficking and the powers of the Office of the Immigration Services Commissioner. With some minor changes, they will be welcome, but there is not much else in the Bill that I welcome. It has been presented to some extent as a tidying-up exercise that deals with some of the remaining problems in the system, but it is not just that. The effects of some clauses, particularly clause 10, are far more fundamental.
Of course, clause 7 does not introduce an entirely new power. Schedule 3 to the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 contains the power to allow support to be withdrawn from a family who do not co-operate with removal directions—so the Government already have that power, which can be applied to a family with a dependant. It was introduced in 2002 at a very late stage in the legislation's passage, and we had virtually no time to debate it. In fact, the total time spent debating some of the later clauses was very short indeed.

1637
The proposal in clause 7, however, is of a different nature. Under the clause, we will use destitution, or the threat of destitution, to get families to leave the country voluntarily, rather than using the Home Office's existing powers to remove people whose asylum claims have been rejected. We all understand that removals must take place, and that removal is not a pleasant thing. Indeed, it can be a very unpleasant exercise, especially when families with children are involved. Time and again, I see failures arising from the complete dislocation in the Home Office system. There is no real connection between decision making and enforcement, as completely different groups of people are undertaking the two processes. As a result, huge time lags occur between a decision being taken and something being done to enforce it. It is not surprising when that happens, and it has nothing to do with appeals. Appeals can all be finished, but nothing happens, so it is not surprising that people then assume that they will be allowed to stay, and do not take the removal directions seriously.
I am not entirely comfortable with the Select Committee's recommendation that we should just wait for assurances on that matter. I referred earlier, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith and Fulham (Mr. Coleman), to assurances that we were given last year on section 55 of the 2002 Act—another part of that Act that was debated for a grand total of, I think. 15 minutes in this Chamber—which cut off support to people who applied late. We were then told clearly that the section was intended to deal not with people who had been in the country for only a short time, but with people who had been in the country for weeks and months, and it would not be used to deal with people who had been here a matter of days. None the less, people have had support cut off when they have been in the country for a day or less. The first time that I have heard the period of 24 hours cited as a norm has been in today's debate, when the Home Secretary cited it at the beginning, and then said that he would generously extend it to three days. That is still completely different from what we were told when the provision was introduced. When one has had such assurances in the past, one becomes a little wary of accepting them over the operation of new legislation.
Ms Abbott: May I take my hon. Friend even further back in time, to the introduction of the voucher system and totally cashless support? When some of us complained that that would only drive people further into destitution, we were told that we were wrong, and that that system would be an engine and a lever to discourage abuse of the asylum system. What happened? People were forced further into destitution. A punitive approach to asylum control demonstrably does not work.
Mr. Gerrard: That argument has been put many times in this Chamber over the past few years, and it has been proved right. Punitive approaches simply do not work.
I have one last comment on clause 7, which is on the practical implications of how it will operate. Some of us have seen a flow chart produced to illustrate how the process will run through stages involving up to four different letters from the Home Office to the family, depending on whether a family attends an interview,
1638
fails to attend without reasonable excuse and so on, through to either their leaving the country or support ending. When I looked at it, I found that there were chunks missing. I could not find any box that said "Home Office sends letter to wrong address because it doesn't have a record of a person's change of address", or "Home Office sends letter cutting off support to someone else of the same name", or "Home Office has lost the reply from the person who sent it". Believe me, all those things will happen. That is precisely what happens time and again now. I can tell hon. Members that distressed families will turn up in our surgeries time and again because of the operation of the system, and we will have the nasty job of telling them what is going to happen to them.
Clause 7 is bad, but it is not the worst part of the Bill. The most serious part of the Bill, by some way, is clause 10, which seems to be based partly on the view that the use of appeals is just deliberate delay, and that the judicial system is not there to be used. We put the Human Rights Act 1998 in place, but we complain when someone uses it.
As has been pointed out, clause 10 removes all judicial oversight of decisions. That is not just for asylum cases but for many immigration cases as well, which at the moment can go through that process. It will be impossible to challenge decisions on a point of law. The only person who will be able to decide whether a point of law is involved will be the president of the new tribunal. That is justified on the basis that people waste time and that the number of successful appeals is tiny—3 per cent. has been cited. I have looked at the statistics, and I think that I know where the 3 per cent. comes from, although I am not absolutely sure. The only place that I can find anything that looks like 3 per cent. is where the number of decisions made by the immigration appeal tribunal on leave to appeal is compared with the number of appeals allowed. That works out at about 3 per cent., but it is a completely spurious statistic.
Let us examine what happens on the basis of the latest figures. Nearly 23,000 people applied for leave to go to the IAT. We heard that there were 6,900 appeals. The tribunal knows how to filter out cases that do not have much merit. It allowed 620 appeals—only 11 per cent.—but sent another 48 per cent. back to the adjudicators, so almost 60 per cent. of cases were recognised as worth looking at. That is not 60 per cent. of initial decisions, but 60 per cent. of cases that go before the IAT.
The same applies to judicial review. Many applications are made, but the courts reject most of them and do not allow them to go much further. In 2002, there were 2,980 decisions on applications, of which only 260 were granted leave. The court gets rid of cases pretty smartly when it does not believe that there is much merit. Of those that were determined, however, 30 per cent. of people seeking judicial review won their case.
Those are not insignificant figures, but are we playing a numbers game? I am not defending the IAT as such, or saying that I have a fundamental objection to a simplified appeals system with one tier of appeal, provided that people can still apply to the appellate courts or the higher courts, if necessary. The decision must not be made solely by the president of a tribunal.

1639
The Select Committee is wrong in saying that we should wait until we have an improved number of decisions, because it is playing the numbers game rather than examining the principles involved.
The purpose of the higher courts such as the House of Lords is to deal not with large numbers of cases, but with important cases. They should set case law, but no case law will be established under the new system. Case law, when established, affects many people, so it is not the numbers that matter, but the principle of how a system operates. If the principle under discussion applies here, where else will it apply? We could find out how many civil or criminal cases go to the highest court in the House of Lords and express that as a percentage of all appeals. It would be tiny, so let us get rid of that. That would be just as logical as what is proposed.
Mr. Russell Brown: My hon. Friend is right that we must have a decent appeals system, but I ask him to examine it from the other side as well. Individuals and families going through an appeals system, usually represented by legal aid, are dragged through a process in the belief that there is justice and a positive answer at the end. I mention the Ay family, who were dragged through the system in Scotland, when, quite honestly, the decisions taken at an early stage were the right decisions, but someone—their legal representatives—saw fit to drag them through a system with no decent outcome at the end. Some people use the appeals system for all the wrong reasons.
Mr. Gerrard: I am aware of cases where lawyers have given extremely poor advice about the chances of winning on appeal and dragged people through the system without helping them in the slightest, but the higher courts are not unskilled at quite quickly filtering out the cases with no merit at all. As I said earlier, I do not object to a basic one-tier system, provided that there is judicial oversight that allows cases that really matter to be looked at by the appellate courts—up to the House of Lords, if necessary.
Mr. Heath rose—
Mr. Gerrard: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I must finish.
The Bill goes further than any that I have ever seen in removing judicial oversight of the asylum system. I cannot help wondering what we would have said if this Bill had been introduced by a Tory Government. I recall what was said by the then hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) when the Tories were removing certain rights to appeal in 1992:
"It is a novel, bizarre and misguided principle of the legal system that if the exercise of legal rights is causing administrative inconvenience, the solution is to remove the right." — [Official Report, 2 November 1992; Vol. 213, c. 43.]
Now that he is Prime Minister, he should remember those words.
4.44 pm
Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: First, let me say that Plaid Cymru and Scottish National party Members are quite happy to vote for the reasoned amendment.
1640
I believe that the Bill is insidious. Clause 2 deals with the criminal offence of not having travel documents without reasonable excuse. It seems to me that few asylum seekers have their own passport—indeed, possession of one's own passport is sometimes taken by immigration officers to mean that the holder is not a genuine refugee, since the authorities of a persecuting country are unlikely to issue passports that will enable people to escape. In addition, agents bringing asylum seekers to the United Kingdom generally provide them with false travel documents, which they need to board the aircraft, ferry or train, and tell their charges to destroy or dispose of them.
Article 31 of the convention on refugees recognises the difficulties that genuine refugees are likely to face in attempting to reach a safe country. It prohibits the prosecution of asylum seekers who enter the country illegally provided that they claim asylum promptly and "show good cause" for their illegal entry. In 1999, the High Court denounced the immigration police and prosecuting authorities for their failure to implement that provision. In direct contravention of article 31, hundreds of asylum seekers who had entered the UK on false documents were being sentenced to prison terms of up to six or nine months. In response to the High Court criticism, the Government enacted legislation that provided a defence to the charge of possession of false documents. The Law Society has expressed the view that clause 2 appears to contravene article 31.
Clause 14 makes it a criminal offence to fail, without reasonable excuse, to comply with a broad range of demands that the Secretary of State might make in order to obtain documentation for a person's removal, including providing fingerprints or other biometric data, making an application to the embassy of the person's country, attending interviews and answering questions, and filling in forms "accurately and completely". It is hard to think of any other field in which failure to tick a box on a form or to provide fingerprints might result in imprisonment. The maximum sentence for the offence under the clause is two years' imprisonment.
The provisions relating to withdrawal of support have attracted the most media and public attention. They appear to me to be inhumane in the extreme. As the Home Office itself has acknowledged, the difficulty is that many countries of origin are simply not safe enough to send failed asylum seekers back to. Such countries, including Zimbabwe, Sierra Leone and Iraq, are the subjects of Home Office policy scrutiny. Nationals of other countries simply find themselves in limbo, unable to work or obtain support, yet never told to report for removal. It is feared that denial of support will result in whole families going underground to prevent children from being taken into care, leading to a swelling underclass of people working as sweated labour in inhuman conditions for virtually nothing, unable to obtain health care or send their children to school on pain of discovery and separation.
I am told that Government lawyers have warned the Home Secretary that the proposal to withdraw all state benefits from rejected asylum seekers will trigger human rights challenges in the courts. I am also advised that the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Woolf, has protested to the Home Secretary about that proposal and about the provisions restricting access to the High Court to

1641
challenge decisions through judicial review. The Prime Minister and the Home Secretary are expected to urge the public to consider backing even more far-reaching proposals, including much greater use of detention of asylum seekers and, in effect, rewriting the 1951 Geneva convention on refugees. No doubt they will he told some things at big conversation events that focus on this subject.
Britain's directors of social services have also joined the mounting opposition to the package. They have said that the threat to take children of failed asylum seekers into care is something that
"belongs to an earlier century."
Andrew Cozens, president of the Association of Directors of Social Services, has said that the move runs contrary to the objectives of the Children Act 1989. That is obvious.
The detailed explanatory notes accompanying the Bill make it clear that Whitehall will foot the extra costs involved in taking children into care, using savings made when rejected families leave Britain in the face of that threat. They also state that that could amount to inhuman and degrading treatment and a breach of the right to respect for private and family life under the European convention. However, I understand that lawyers have also advised the Home Secretary that if those people leave, their legal challenge on that basis will end as a result.
I cannot understand how that one-tier appeal system will improve matters. Before the Bill was published, it was not made clear that rights of appeal and review from the tribunal to the High Court, and from the Court of Appeal to the House of Lords, were also to be abolished. The "ouster" clause proclaims that no court may entertain proceedings questioning the tribunal's decision, even if there is a breach of natural justice, an irregularity or error of law, or any other problem. It is astonishing that we should be considering bringing in such an insidious Bill as this.
Mr. Heath: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that an especially repugnant factor is that a Ministry of the Executive should be asking Parliament to accept that no decision that it takes should be subject to judicial overview? Does not that underline my argument that we need a Ministry of justice that is entirely separate from the Home Office's executive functions?
Mr. Llwyd: I agree entirely. In no field other than immigration is recourse to the higher courts prevented. Such prevention is, of course, in breach of article 13 of the European convention on human rights. The Court of Appeal has frequently spoken about the high constitutional importance of access to the courts. Senior judges are likely to oppose the attempt to deprive them of their supervisory role, especially in asylum cases, where the consequence of getting it wrong can be fatal. The Home Office and the immigration appeal tribunal have frequently got it wrong in the past.
The deprivation of access to the higher courts has to be seen in the context of the proposals to remove legal aid from asylum claimants, thereby reducing their access to proper advice. On the one hand, asylum seekers are told that they will be given one chance to persuade a legal body of the merits of their claim.
1642
However, on the other hand, they are to be deprived of the legal help required to do that. In addition, most asylum seekers do not speak English and are unfamiliar with the procedure. Many are suffering from the physical and psychological effects of their experiences, and are dispersed to parts of the country where legal expertise is sparse and where they face hostility and marginalisation. Others receive no support at all and are supposed to prepare and present their claims while they are homeless and have no means of support.
Jeremy Corbyn: I think that the hon. Gentleman is on to an extremely important point. Does he recall that when the Home Secretary opened the debate he said that there are 30,000 asylum seekers in London who receive benefit but are not given accommodation? That shows that people come to London because they see it as a place of safety, where there is a degree of community network and public charitable support for them that is denied in other parts of the country?
Mr. Llwyd: That is absolutely right. It is understandable that that community support would exist in London, as there are many people in similar situations. Problems are always worse—or at least as bad—in rural areas. We do not talk about rural areas often, but they face problems too. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that that is true even of parts of rural Wales.
It will be hard to monitor the denial of access to the higher courts, but I cannot accept that we should legislate for a second-class justice system. One significant cause of delay and inefficiency in the asylum system is flawed decision making. The Home Secretary has admitted that that needs to be improved. That is borne out by the large number of successful appeals
Plans to remove judicial scrutiny are therefore worrying, and I shall refer briefly to the Law Society's position. It says:
"The Law Society believes that a second tier appeal is currently essential in view of the poor quality of Home Office decision-making at the initial stage, which means that in many cases adjudicators are, in effect, the first instance decision-making body. If the Government proceeds with the removal of the IAT second tier appeal it is absolutely essential that improvements to Home Office initial decision-making are made concurrently."
In a letter to The Times last week, Roger Smith, the director of Justice, similarly said:
"The Council on Tribunals complained…in April that 'better-quality decision-making at first instance' and 'speedier and better preparation of appeal papers by the Home Office' were among the conditions required to ensure an appeal process of adequate quality."
He went on to say:
"The removal of judicial oversight provides no incentive to raise or maintain standards."
Those quotes come from people who know what they are talking about.
The Refugee Council is worried about the package in the Bill and says that several of its provisions breach article 31 of the convention on refugees. It says:
"The Government proposes to remove support from families in a position to leave the UK. Support under Section 20 of the Children Act 1989 will not be available to asylum seeking families. If necessary, children will be separated from their families"—
as we know. Most seriously, the implication that children could be taken from their parents and placed in care flies against the aim of the Children Act, under

1643
which the well-being of a child is, and must be, paramount. The Government propose to reject that principle for young children, who will find themselves in an awful legal limbo, although the situation is nothing to do with them. Experience has shown that the removal of support under section 55 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 has increased destitution and put refugee communities under further pressure, and the provision has resulted in 800 High Court injunctions. The withdrawal of section 20 of the Children Act will undermine the principles of that Act.
The Bill is insidious. If there is a blockage in the asylum system, the problem should be tackled by improving the quality of decision making. We do not need the Bill. Its proposals might look good in the Daily Mail, but it is awful. I shall be proud to vote for the reasoned amendment.
4.57 pm
Ms Diane Abbott: I am grateful for the opportunity to say a few words about the Bill. If one comments adversely about the themes and underlying principles of the Government's policy on immigration and asylum, one is often told that that is because one does not understand the problem and how people feel about it, or that one is trying to deny that a problem exists. My constituency probably has more asylum seekers, immigrants and economic migrants than the constituencies of most hon. Members—apart from half a dozen of my hon. Friends—so I am only too aware of the challenges posed by asylum.
My constituency has its fair share of casual bigotry about asylum seekers. I hear all the remarks that my hon. Friends hear, such as, "If I were an asylum seeker, I would get rehoused," or, "These asylum seekers come over here and get everything." I hear bigotry from British constituents who are white and from British constituents who are black. If I hear comments that have substance in fact, I deal with the facts, but if the comments are just casual bigotry, I name them as such. However, I do not come to the House to demand ever more draconian measures. I tell my hon. Friends that they will of course hear casual bigotry because people want to scapegoat asylum seekers for their many dissatisfactions, but Labour Members should be able to do better than colluding with that by coming back to the House to demand ever more draconian enforcement and legislation.
I want to speak about three things: removals, clause 7 and clause 10. There is no doubt that the level of removals is low, but I point out to Conservative Members that the level was even lower under their Government. But what does that prove? Does it prove that successive Conservative Home Secretaries, such as the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard)., were greater bleeding heart liberals than our own Home Secretary? No, not a bit of it. What it proves is that removals are extremely contentious and that they are difficult to achieve.
Mr. Malins: What it proves is that under the last Conservative Government there were fewer failed
1644
asylum applications because there were fewer asylum seekers altogether. The number in the last year of the previous Conservative Government was only a third of the number last year, under the Labour Government.
Ms Abbott: It is easy to demand more removals, but tricky to achieve them, not least because when it comes to forced removals one of the organisations that is most reluctant to get involved is the police force. Of course, we must have a more effective system of removals, but we should not fool ourselves that the mass removal of people who may have been settled in this country for a long time is either practical or desirable. We would be dealing with a few small areas where there are quite large groups of people. There would be scenes on our televisions and written about in our newspapers that the British people would not tolerate, whatever the Daily Mail and the Daily Express ran in their leader columns. Let us not be glib about removals. If it were so easy to remove people, the number of removals under the Tories would have been much higher.
On the issues relating to children under clause 7, I have heard the Minister for Citizenship and Immigration say, very reasonably, that reasonable, sensible parents, faced with the prospect that their children would be taken into care, would agree to go back whence they fled. They would do the reasonable and sensible thing, take the plane ticket and go back. She clearly has not done what some of my hon. Friends have been doing for 17 years: she has not sat across a table from people whose asylum or immigration case was going nowhere and told them what they have already heard half a dozen times from lawyers, advisers or social workers. She has not had to try to talk to such people only to see complete disbelief and terror in their eyes.
Reasonable people, people in the Minister's position, take reasonable decisions. Desperate people—those with whom I and some of my colleagues deal week in and week out—take unreasonable and irrational decisions. Tragically, some parents faced with that choice will take the ticket and go home, but many others will find themselves forced underground, or even more vulnerable and marginalised than they were before.
I do not care if most parents take reasonable decisions. If some parents are so frightened of going home to face torture, political persecution and, yes, economic chaos and destitution—something that we in this place cannot really get our heads round—that they are prepared to see their children go into care, that is a situation that no decent Government should bring about. The use of even one child as an instrument to enforce the removal of its parents is one child too many. As a Government, we cannot use the threat of destitution or losing a child as an instrument of asylum policy. There must be better methods than that.
One method would be to increase the efficiency of the system. Year after year, I have said in the Chamber that the biggest incentives for making phoney asylum claims and for working the system are the interminable delays—the dislocation between enforcement and removal. Why do not we get the system working properly? Why do not we cut out the delays caused by the Home Office itself? Why do not we ensure that we

1645
have an efficient system before we turn to people and say, "Guess what? We're going to use your child as a lever to remove you from this country."
We have heard what the British Association of Social Workers said. Even the Select Committee on Home Affairs said that we should defer the clause until we have some statistics on its likely effects. I cannot believe that the clause will not be challengeable under the Race Relations Act 1976. It will inevitably bear most heavily on children and families with an ethnic minority background. I put it to Ministers before it is too late just as we tried to appeal to them on the issue of vouchers—that they should think again about a thoughtless and punitive piece of policy which I do not believe will bear scrutiny, and will hold them up to an extremely harsh light. Like so much that has been done under asylum and immigration policy over the past seven years, clause 7 wholly underestimates the desperation of the people with whom we are dealing.
I move on to clause 10. It is with a sense of timidity that I tread into legal matters—so many distinguished barristers are waiting to speak on these matters. The point at issue is the cutting off of a group of people who are currently resident in these islands. The clause will cut them off from proper review and appeal processes. I do not object to one tier of appeal, so long as there is some possibility that where necessary and where appropriate, they can take their case to a higher court.
I shall quote Lord Denning—I cannot do the accent—ex parte Gilmore. In 1957 he said:
"If tribunals were to be at liberty to exceed their jurisdiction without any check by the court, the rule of law would be at an end."
I did not say that. It was not said by a member of an extreme left-wing group; as I said, it was Lord Denning. The issue that clause 10 raises goes wider than the issue of asylum—it goes to the heart of the way in which we organise our legal system. If we can get away with removing proper appeals and proper legal redress from asylum seekers, what other group that is not popular with the Daily Mail will we move on tomorrow and the day after? We cannot offer one standard of legal redress to one part of our population and another standard of legal redress to the rest of the population because that particular part of it, this morning, is getting negative leaders in Associated Press newspapers.
We could greatly improve the pure administration of immigration and asylum policy. I support Ministers who have recently begun to talk about the need for a managed system of economic migration. Sadly, this Bill, which is the fifth on asylum and immigration that I have spoken on since 1997, is yet another Bill that is more concerned with appeasing leader writers at the Daily Mail and the Daily Express than with building a coherent, a fair and a non-racist system of asylum.
5.7 pm
Tony Baldry: There is no confidence in the Government's asylum policy. Organisations concerned with the welfare of asylum seekers do not have confidence in the Government's policy. Professional organisations, such as the Law Society and
1646
the British Medical Association, do not have confidence in the Government's policy. People generally do not have confidence in it. That is in no small part because the Government appear not to know from one day to the next what their asylum policy is.
I shall take one simple and straightforward example. Clause 7 adds a new paragraph to schedule 3 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002. Incidentally, we appear to have annual asylum Bills. Doubtless the Queen's Speech in 2004 will contain another such Bill.
The purpose of clause 7 is to make it clear that failed asylum seekers with families will cease to be eligible for public support. The Government are clearly having considerable difficulty in working out what the new clause means. The Bill, in whatever form, is clearly bad news. The General Council of the Bar has said that
"if passed into law, not only will … this Bill severely curtail the rights of asylum seekers and immigrants, but it will set a very dangerous precedent, and send a most unfortunate message around the world."
The United Nations has said that
"the UK Government has been the subject of severe criticism from the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child and the Joint Committee on Human Rights about its treatment of children. It will be impossible to ensure that legislation operates within the framework of the Children Act 1989."
Before the Bill was published, Home Office officials briefed journalists heavily, saying that one of the consequences of the provision was that children of failed asylum seekers could and would be taken into local authority care. Consider the Prime Minister's comments, as reported by the Press Association on Thursday 4 December:
"If someone makes an asylum claim and their claim fails, and they exhaust all their appeals, and we say to them 'we will pay your fare back to your country of origin'; if they refuse we are saying we are going to withdraw social security benefits from those people. In those circumstances, asylum seekers' children are being treated no different than anybody else's".
The Prime Minister could not have made the position clearer. He had obviously been briefed by Home Office Ministers on the same basis as the media. There was a public outcry, and almost immediately Ministers changed their tune. The Home Secretary went on the BBC programme "Any Questions?" the next day to deny any such suggestions. On the Thursday, the Prime Minister said one thing, but on the Friday the Home Secretary said something completely different. In the transcript of the exchange between the Home Secretary and Jonathan Dimbleby, the Home Secretary says:
"It would be a choice of the parents not of us."
Mr. Dimbleby asks:
"But if they aren't encouraged then presumably if the children, in your view, face destitution then there will be a requirement on the appropriate officials to go into people's houses where the parents are with their children and forcibly remove the children from the parents.
The Home Secretary replies:
"The encouragement is not about taking their children away, the encouragement is to say we cannot have a system where you fail but we carry on paying you and housing you because if we do who the hell will leave voluntarily, it means with each and every family—each and every family have got to be pulled out."

1647
That is markedly different in tone from the Prime Minister's comments. The Home Secretary's comments also differ from those of his colleague, the Minister for Citizenship and Immigration. I tabled a straightforward parliamentary question in which I asked the Secretary of State
"how many children of asylum seekers he estimates will be taken into local authority care each year following the Government's recent announcement."
The Minister replied on 8 December:
"It is not the Government's intention that any children will be taken into care as a result of this proposal."— [Official Report, 8 December 2003; Vol. 415, c. 235W.]
That answer is unambiguous—no children of asylum seekers should be taken into care as a consequence of the Bill.
Explanatory notes to the Bill were published on 27 November, the same day as the Bill itself, but before the Minister answered my parliamentary question. The notes clearly refer to the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants etc.) Bill, and paragraph 25 states:
"Failed asylum seekers with dependent children receive asylum support until such time as they leave the United Kingdom or fail to comply with a removal direction … if the Secretary of State certifies that, in his opinion, such a person has failed without reasonable excuse to take reasonable steps to leave the United Kingdom voluntarily or place himself in a position in which he is able to leave the United Kingdom voluntarily … then asylum support for the family will cease. The family is also rendered ineligible for various other types of support or assistance, although the children in the family may still be supported by, for example, the local authority."
In other words, failed asylum seekers will be told to leave the country, and if they do not their children will be taken into care. What is in the Bill is therefore completely different from what Ministers are telling Members of Parliament, non-governmental organisations and the public generally.
If one had any doubts about the meaning and import of that explanatory note, the interpretation is confirmed by paragraph 121:
"A possible consequence of creating a … class of person (failed asylum seeker family) who will cease to be eligible for support … is that some children might have to be accommodated by local authorities. The costs to local authorities of children being accommodated under these circumstances will be met by Central Government. The savings made by this measure should cover any such costs."
On 8 December, the Minister for Citizenship and Immigration told me that no children would be taken into care, yet the explanatory notes that the Government have provided make it clear that they do expect children to be taken into care. How can there be any confidence in a Government policy on which the media is briefed one day, confirmed by the Prime Minister the next, denied by the Home Secretary just one day later, denied by a Minister of State in an answer to a written parliamentary question a few days later, yet confirmed in black and white in the explanatory notes to the Bill that the Government are introducing? How can
1648
there be any confidence in a Government who appear not to know—or, if they do know, appear unwilling to admit—the Bill's purposes and intentions?
The matter is relevant and important to the residents of north Oxfordshire. The House will know that the Government intend to build an accommodation centre for up to 750 asylum seekers on the outskirts of Bicester. The origins of the policy are the Government's knee-jerk "we have to be seen to be doing something about it" mode of response. For a while, they were deeply embarrassed by nightly television reports of asylum seekers coming through the channel tunnel from the Sangatte refugee camp. Something had to be done. They wanted an initiative—any initiative—to give the impression that they had a grip on the problem.
The Home Secretary proposed accommodation centres for asylum seekers where they would be processed and dealt with on one site. The only difficulty was that he had used up all his good will with the Treasury, which was understandably exasperated by the ever-spiralling cost of the Government's asylum policy. The Treasury told the Home Secretary that he could go ahead with his trial for accommodation centres, but the funds would be limited—so limited that the only place they could be built was on land already owned by the Government—and as a consequence, they would have to be big accommodation centres. Hence the proposal for 750 asylum seekers to be accommodated on former Ministry of Defence land at Bicester.
That is an utterly friendless policy. There is not a single organisation that supports the proposal. Originally, the Government intended to use their emergency powers to push through the proposal, without even the most cursory scrutiny by the planning system. Having appreciated that that course of action might result in judicial review, the Government eventually submitted the proposal for planning approval, which in due course led to a public planning inquiry.
Again, people thought that they knew what Ministers were saying. On 5 November 2002, the Minister for Citizenship and Immigration said at the Dispatch Box:
"The Government have made it clear that we will abide by the planning process, and by the outcome of any public inquiry. That is both fair and democratic".— [Official Report, 5 November 2002; Vol. 392, c. 152.]
I was a planning Minister for four years, and believe that almost everyone would consider the outcome of a planning inquiry to be the decisions and recommendations of the planning inspector—almost everyone except the Deputy Prime Minister. Having considered thousands of pages of written evidence, including that of Home Office lawyers, and having heard 48 witnesses in person over a period of two weeks between December 2002 and March this year, the planning inspector concluded that the
"first Secretary of State should not give approval for proposed development".
The outcome of the planning inquiry was clear and unambiguous. The planning inspector adjudged that the centre should not be built. He concluded that such an accommodation centre contradicted the Government's own planning guidance and would put an additional burden on already overstretched local public services,

1649
and that such a location for an accommodation centre raised safety concerns for local residents and asylum seekers alike. The planning inspector comprehensively rejected the Government's proposals.
The Deputy Prime Minister ignored the planning inspector's conclusions and put two fingers up to the inquiry. He behaved as though the public inquiry had never taken place, and decreed that as the Government wanted the accommodation centre, and notwithstanding the planning inspector's recommendations, the accommodation centre for asylum seekers would go ahead. Ministers have decided to try to press on with proposals to build the centre, notwithstanding the concerns of local people, the objections of Cherwell district council, the conclusions of the planning inquiry, and the fact that not a single organisation concerned with the welfare of refugees supports the Government's plans.
That is neither fair nor democratic. The proposal is fundamentally flawed on policy and planning grounds and would probably cost taxpayers millions of pounds if it went ahead. It is almost certainly doomed to failure. Is it any wonder that there is no confidence in the Government's asylum policy? The decision is subject to possible judicial review so, under the rules of the House, I shall say no more about it.
Under the Government's proposal for the accommodation centre at Bicester. 750 people will be processed every six months—that is, 1,500 people a year. Many of those will be single young men, but a not inconsiderable number will be families with children. At present, on average, eight out of every 10 asylum applications fail. There is no reason to believe that the failure rate at Bicester will be any different, which will mean that a not inconsiderable number of families with children will he refused asylum. In the words of the explanatory notes, children will have to be
"supported by the local authority"—
taken into care.
Children taken into care are potentially the responsibility of the local authority until they reach the age of 18. There could be a substantial and accumulating number of children, which will be a substantial new responsibility and burden for Oxfordshire county council. The children taken into care will have to be educated; they will require schooling. I understand from the Department of Health's figures that that would cost at least £16,900 per child, and for some special needs children Oxfordshire is paying as much as £91,624 per child in care.
When Ministers, Cabinet Ministers, the Home Secretary and the Prime Minister cannot agree from day to day on the basics of their asylum policy, it is not surprising that there is no confidence in their having thought through the ramifications or the details of the consequences of their policies. When Ministers ignore the totality of evidence presented at a planning inquiry as if it had never happened, it is not surprising that there is little confidence that they are approaching the issues in a sensible, proportionate and balanced way.
The Bill, which meanders from forgery to fingerprints to electronic monitoring, will doubtless find its way on to the statute book, but undoubtedly it will not reassure
1650
north Oxfordshire residents that the Government have a grip on asylum policy; indeed, quite the contrary. The Government feel—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has had his time.
5.20 pm
Vera Baird: I profoundly disagree with the hon. Member for Working (Mr. Matins), who led, though with some hesitancy, for the Opposition, that the asylum system is in real difficulties. I am very impressed by the progress that has been made by the Home Office with the asylum system in recent months in speeding it up. In short, I would describe the Home Secretary and the Minister for Citizenship and Immigration as having brought it back from the brink. They have started to turn it into a legitimately effective system—speeding it up, cutting the backlogs, halving the applications. I accept, too, that there is more to do and that further steps have to be taken to achieve greater efficiency.
Subject to the Standing Committee's deliberations and to a good deal of anxiety, and I hope a good deal of Government flexibility, I could even be persuaded that further strong measures to persuade people to be removed are necessary, but if there are to he tougher removal measures, it is critical that we are sure that we will remove the right people, and that requires a proper judicial process with a proper appellate system.
At present, asylum seekers apply to the Home Office and the appeals, as we know, go to Home Office adjudicators, who allow about 22 per cent. of those appeals. But what is clear, and I think is admitted by those on the Government Front Bench, is that the quality of those initial decisions is very poor. What is also clear, and I am very ready to accept, is that many appeals beyond that are put forward when they have little hope of success.
As I said in an intervention, there are excellent practitioners and there are very poor ones. Very good asylum practitioners bringing proper appeals have success rates of 90 per cent. That is how poor the calibre of initial decision taking is, and how unrepresentative even that quite high figure of a 20 per cent. success rate is.
It is clear that the quality of decision making at the beginning should be improved, but it is equally clear that we must root out those charlatan advisers who push families through an appellate process inappropriately, doing them no harm and everybody else a good deal of damage. However, the Legal Services Commission is beginning to know who they are, it is beginning to weed them out, and it can do more. That is the job that should be being done now. The problem is the slack in the system, which can be weeded out in the ways that I have mentioned.
At present, appeals from adjudicators go to a High Court judge chairing a panel, and that is the tier that would be abolished. I can say, without any fear of contradiction, that that is by far the best tier that exists in the asylum system. First, it is presided over by a High Court judge; adjudicators are not that—I will say what they are in a minute. It is speedy, efficient, self-regulating, it has recently speeded up its processes and it

1651
polices its own considerations, so it grants leave for itself to review cases only if there is merit in them. That is proper judicial supervision.
It is so odd to be trying to abolish that tier, because, as has already been said, it is terrifically good at weeding out exactly the appeals that should not go any further—those that are put in by some of the less good advisers. It weeded out nearly 23,000 applications for leave, and since the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 removed any power to appeal by judicial review against the decision not to allow an appeal, that is really the end for a vast number of appeals. That is an important role and that too will be abolished if that tier of appeals is abolished. Moreover, it works—this is important—on a proper legal merits basis. It has been said, but it bears repeating, that when it accepts that appeals have been properly brought, the panel allows 60 per cent. of them—that is to say, 60 per cent. Of adjudicators' decisions that are properly appealed are defective.
The intention is to scrap all appeals to that tribunal, which is crazy. The process will simply stop at the adjudicators. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary called them judges, but that is not right. Their numbers have been rapidly increased through recruitment to cope with the huge burden of work. The only qualification that is required is to be a solicitor or a barrister of seven years' standing—they do not even need to have dealt with an immigration or asylum case before. They are not highly trained, and they are under huge time pressure—it is common for them to deal with three cases a day. They tell us that they have to work at breakneck speed, to deal with badly reasoned Home Office decisions, to conduct a fresh inquiry from the start, to look at the background country conditions again from the beginning, and to consider all the relevant legal principles. They are required to consider natural justice in highly complex situations, and to look at a mass of national laws and rules and a mass of international law principles from a variety of conventions. They often have to do that without well qualified representatives before them, and sometimes there are no representatives.
Mr. Malins: Are adjudicators less qualified than district judges?
Vera Baird: They do not have to be qualified in the area of work that they are intended to deal with. It would be rare to get such a vast increase in recruitment of district judges. I could tell the hon. Gentleman some horror stories about people who are working in this field.
The tribunal that will be the beginning and the end of every asylum seeker's appeal process has, on a legally scrutinised basis, a 60 per cent. failure rate. Clause 10 says:
"No court shall have any supervisory or other jurisdiction"
over any of its determinations or decisions, even if such a decision was a nullity because there was a lack of jurisdiction, an irregularity, an error of law, a breach of natural justice, or for any other reason. It is the be all and end all.
1652
What is to be gained at this judicial appeal? Frankly, nothing worth having. It will be able to review its own decisions. That means that a person appeals to the same people, so that the issue is not between them and the Home Office, but between the Home Office and the tribunal—and it is the tribunal that does the decision making. That is called being the judge in one's own cause—or, as we would see it up in Redcar, it is like Boro playing the Magpies with the referee coming from Middlesbrough. The fact that that is the only way in which we would ever win the match is beside the point. One has to ask what is the point of such an appeal. If the tribunal upholds its own decision or refuses to review it, one can do nothing about it—one is dealing with the same people with the same level of qualifications and training, who get many things wrong.
Another overwhelming principle is involved. The adjudicator
"who knows that his decision may be subject to appeal is likely to be a good deal more circumspect, careful and even-handed than the officer who knows that his power of decision is absolute. That is simply. I fear, a matter of human nature, quite apart from anything else." — [Official Report, 2 November 1992; Vol. 213, c. 43.]
I am quoting the Prime Minister, and he was right. There is nothing to put in its place. There is a nominal power for the president of the adjudication body to refer on to the Court of Appeal for advice. However, he will not necessarily be a High Court judge, because that requirement has been removed since the previous Act: he need be no more than an ordinary adjudicator.
There is no provision for anybody to ask the president to make a referral; there is no procedure for that. How will he determine the cases that he refers on a principled basis? How many hundreds of adjudicators must he supervise? Even if one can write to ask him to use his powers, there are no criteria whereby he decides whether to do that. He does not even have to read the letter. The correspondent will never know whether he has done so. There are no legal precedents to guide him about the decision because the immigration appeal tribunal—the body that sets them—has gone.
If the president sends the right case and the point of law is found to be wrong, there is no means of enforcing the finding. The victim of the wrong point of law can do nothing. The Court of Appeal has the power only to make an advisory ruling. It may be clear that I should not be deported to Burma—someone was almost deported to Burma a couple of weeks ago, despite all that is said about that country—but there is no way to enforce that right because the Court of Appeal's power is merely advisory. Neither power—to refer and to advise—is worth much. The process therefore starts and finishes with adjudicators, who, as we have witnessed, are frequently wrong, yet make decisions about life and death.
I accept that there is delay in the current system. Some lawyers and advisers—for cash or political correctness—waste time and resources. That is the problem, and the Legal Services Commission should close those lawyers down. The immigration appeal tribunal is speedy and efficient, has good procedures, is effective in weeding out poor applications and finds that 60 per cent. of those left have been decided erroneously. It has proper processes. All we are left with is an adjudicator's decision being checked by the adjudicator

1653
at the next desk. That cannot achieve the same result. We must be careful not to act on a call for efficiency and deliver gross injustice.
5.32
Mr. Andrew Turner: The Bill is fairly adequate and can be considerably improved. I am sure that we shall have the opportunity to improve it as it proceeds. I begin by describing what my constituents—and, I am sure, those of many other hon. Members—perceive as the problem that we are trying to resolve. The hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten), who is no longer in his place, denied that there was a problem.
The problem is a gross overflow of asylum seekers and other immigrants to this country, to the extent that 20 per cent. of the population of London are of ethnic minority origin, and 80 per cent. of the population of the country want better control of the immigration process. It is evident that the Home Office has no idea of the numbers. It produces a variety of statistics on different occasions and challenges the information that organisations such as Migrationwatch UK provide. The Home Office believes that there are 45,000 people from Colombia in this country, whereas the Colombian embassy believes that the figure is 250,000. Perhaps both are wrong.
In such circumstances, it is hardly surprising that people are prepared to say what they would have been ashamed to say 10 years ago. According to a recent poll, between a third and a half of the population accepts that, as individuals, they are "mildly racist". The term has been abused so much and applied to so many that people think that, if it is racist to question the number of migrants to this country, they are prepared to admit that it applies to them. I do not believe that it is racist to challenge the number of migrants, and it is not wrong for the Government to act to put right the deficiencies of the immigration system that my hon. Friend the Member for Working (Mr. Malins) outlined so effectively.
The 200,000 or so people who come to this country every year put huge pressure not only on London but on the outer boroughs, the countryside around London and as far away as my constituency. It is no surprise that, when 200,000 people a year come to this country and 200,000 new houses are required in the south-east every year, people see a connection.
That situation will become even worse when the new countries join the European Union shortly. It is estimated that, as a result of the Nice treaty, 72 million people will be entitled to live in this country, although not all of them will come here. The draft constitution that we just escaped having imposed upon us last weekend provided for immigration to become a joint competence and therefore out of the control of the House altogether. That is not something that I find satisfactory.
I am glad that the Government—unlike the Liberal Democrats —recognise that there is a problem and that they are taking some steps to resolve it. However, those steps are meagre and inadequate, for various reasons. As the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) said, it would be better if we could also get the processes right, but that does not absolve the Government of responsibility to put through this legislation, with some amendments.
1654
Let us look at what is wrong with the Bill, because there is quite a lot. Clause 7 is certainly open to criticism, and one of the problems was that the Home Office had not briefed that clause 7 meant that children would be taken into care, while No. 10 Downing street had briefed to that effect. The Minister did not deny that No. 10 had provided that briefing; she denied that the Home Office had done so—
Beverley Hughes: That was not the claim.
Mr. Turner: That is indeed what was claimed. The Minister will have heard the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry). I am not an expert on these matters, but it seemed to me that the Home Office was delivering an honest briefing while No. 10 was issuing a briefing thought to be more suitable for the columns of the Daily Mail and The Daily Telegraph. Perhaps that is where the problem arises.
If children will be taken into care as a result of the implementation of clause 7, would it not be more useful if some of the responsible bodies contributed charitably to the sustenance and support of those children, so that they did not have to be taken into care? I refer to bodies such as the Law Society, Liberty, the Immigration Law Practitioners Association, Justice, the Refugee Council, the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants and a host of others that constantly try to undermine the efforts of this Government and previous ones to control the number of migrants to this country. Their making such a contribution would be a much more useful and effective use of their time and energy.
I referred in an intervention on the Home Secretary to one of the key problems, which is that too many lawyers are making too much money by giving inadequate advice—in some cases, wholly inadequate advice—to people, and raising their hopes in the way that the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington described. I have two examples of that. The first involves a man of Chinese origin who was advised by a mainland lawyer to get a letter from his Member of Parliament— that is, me—to support his application. I am not competent to provide a letter saying anything other than what that person has told me. I do not undertake investigations into whether people are telling me the truth. Why is his lawyer advising him to get a letter from a Member of Parliament, as though that would make a difference to the process? The unsupported word of a Member of Parliament written on the basis of unsupported evidence provided by someone who may have been resident in his constituency for less than a fortnight certainly should not make a difference.
The second, similar example is that of a person who came to this country from Italy, claimed asylum and spent six months going through the asylum process. He was subsequently convicted of rape. A number of statutory agencies gave information in support of him and his family remaining in the country, which turned out not to be supported by the information that he and his wife subsequently gave.
Keith Vaz: Surely the hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that the Government should take away the right of Members of Parliament to make representations in immigration cases. Clearly, we must accept what our

1655
constituents say to us. It is an important right to be able to make representations to Ministers, and to leave it to Ministers and officials to make the decision.
Mr. Turner: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. Indeed, it is an important right for us to make representations, but it is not the right of someone who has lived in a constituency for two weeks to demand that a Member of Parliament supply a letter. It is certainly wrong for a lawyer supported from the public purse to advise someone that they have that right.
Jeremy Corbyn: Surely any constituent has a right to go to his Member of Parliament. Whether his Member of Parliament makes representations is down to that Member of Parliament. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw his remark that people have no right to do that. Everyone has a right to go to their MP.
Mr. Turner: I said that that person had no right to expect such a letter. That is what I intended to say anyway, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I did not make that clear.
I should like to move on to some improvements that could be made to the Bill. Representing the Isle of Wight, I am well aware of the fantasy island argument, which I believe originated with my friend in the European Parliament, Tim Kirkhope, who produced a paper for my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) when he was shadow Home Secretary. If we implement my right hon. Friend's other proposals, it is important that we find a place where those who end up in this country can be placed pending a decision, whether that decision is taken by the British Government or by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees.
In my view, it is appropriate that people in those circumstances should be confined and not able to move out into the community. One way of doing that is to put them at some distant place offshore. That may be a British dependent territory, or there may be other territories where those arrangements could be made. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where?"] I hear what hon. Members say. I am not in a position to tell them where it is, but that is the sort of place that we —and the Government if they are wise —should be looking for. It should be somewhere from which people do not have the right to return to this country.
We should consider providing temporary leave to remain for asylum seekers if we believe that circumstances may change in their home country. There are many Iraqis in this country who will be grateful for the changes that have taken place in Iraq recently, but we should ask whether they are entitled to remain here indefinitely, because they came here when there were problems in their home country.
I welcome the proposals on loss of documentation. I hope that that provision will not operate to the disadvantage of British carriers. If people arrive on these shores in carriers from other countries, perhaps those carriers should be persuaded to provide a bond for their good behaviour.
Will the Home Secretary consider more effective coastal controls? We have the coastguard, Customs and Excise and the immigration and nationality directorate,
1656
and between them they cover the 57 miles of coastline in my constituency, most of which is rural, for half a day a week if we are lucky. I think that there should be a single agency to cover coastal security, because not just immigration but smuggling needs to be covered. I also think that the immigration service should have the power to enforce removals, so that the police need not be involved.
As I have said, great improvements could be made to the Bill, and I hope that that will be possible in Committee. As I told the Home Secretary earlier, he is making difficult judgments and there are no simple solutions, but it is not right for children to be used as a weapon by the Home Secretary to effect the removal of their parents, or for them to be used as a weapon by their parents to secure the acquiescence of our immigration policy in their remaining unlawfully in this country.
5.45 pm
Mr. Robert Marshall-Andrews: I shall try not to use all the time available to me, not least because clause 7 was dealt with magnificently by my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson), and clause 10 was dealt with similarly by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Redcar (Vera Baird), who I thought was at her compelling and frightening best. Those clauses are the two iniquities in the Bill. When it is written in a Bill that children are at risk of impoverishment, that is a matter warranting the utmost scrutiny, demanding the utmost answer.
The answer that we received from the Minister today was very simple. She said that the solution lay in the hands of parents. They had the option of returning whence they came or had been sent, and we would throw in some money to help them. The responsibility was theirs.
Let me echo what was said by the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner). It is deplorable that parents should use their children to obtain benefit or advantage. That happens in this country, among our indigenous population, thousands if not hundreds of thousands of times each day. It is, however, infinitely more deplorable that the state should attempt to use children to deny that benefit or advantage, however illegal it may be. The Minister's response that she is sure — profoundly sure — that parents faced with that alternative will go back, no matter what the consequences may be, simply underlines the power of the threat without attempting to explain away the threat itself.
Let me now turn to the part of the Bill on which I have concentrated during the debate — clause 10, which deals with the removal of judicial oversight, judicial review, the Court of Appeal or any form of judicial counterweight to the tribunal that we are setting up. Judicial review is an ancient right that goes back to the Star Chamber. No tribunal in the country is free from judicial review. If we pass the Bill in its present form, we will pass a measure that —in peacetime — has been without compare for centuries.
It is worth reflecting on precisely what that means. It means that the tribunal, once established, can make any decision, however unreasonable, even if it is so unreasonable that no tribunal could previously have arrived at it. The decision may be capricious, but it will be immutable and without challenge. The tribunal will

1657
be able to act entirely outside the powers that we in Parliament have given it, and that too will be immutable and without challenge. That is the extent of the Bill that we are being asked to pass, and it is entirely unique.
The other aspect, which has already been touched on, is the effect of the appeal process on tribunals. If I may, I shall draw from my own limited experience. I have sat as a temporary judge since 1982, and I can say without hesitation that it concentrates the mind wonderfully to know that one's decisions, whatever they are, will be the subject of judicial review. But in this case, the only review will be that by the tribunal itself. The tribunal will have the capacity to look again at its decision, but that is not an appeal process. If I were asked to review a decision that I had taken, I would have a natural proclivity to think that it was probably right, particularly if I knew that there was no appeal against it. That is the extent of the power that we are giving to such tribunals.
It is interesting to reflect that no tribunal in this country is free from judicial review. If a planning tribunal that is deciding whether a conservatory may be put up acts unreasonably or outside its powers, it is subject to judicial review. Here, we are talking about a tribunal that can decide whether a person is liable to torture or death, yet its decision will not be the subject of any review.
We must be careful where we travel in this regard. Recent history's examples of repressive or oppressive regimes have hallmarks that can be traced through them. The first is the identification of unpopular, minority or weak groups. The second is the vilification of those groups as being unworthy and undeserving. The third is the removal from those groups, and only those groups, of the protection and rights that they enjoy under the law. The fourth is the blaming of those groups themselves for the removal of those rights, and, often, the vilification of the civil liberties organisations that attempt to protect them.
So as we embark on this road, it is worth reflecting —as I hope the Home Secretary will —that we are entering dangerous territory and a realm in which we have bad friends. I hope that he will reflect that if we put into effect measures that give the appearance of a repressive and oppressive state, we are but a short step away from becoming a repressive and oppressive state. For my part, I do not accept in any way the apologia that by imposing these strictures and eroding these civil liberties, we will in some way head off the extreme right by taking its ground and distilling away its support. I do not believe that for one minute; nor is there any historical context in which that has proved the truth. The fact is that moving down that road offers the extreme right encouragement and support, and, ultimately, success.
Mr. Hogg: One of the most powerful criticisms of the Americans' approach to the detainees at Guantanamo Bay is that they do not have a right of appeal outside the military system. That is extraordinarily like what the Home Secretary is proposing—that there should be no external appeal against a decision of the tribunal.
Mr. Marshall-Andrews: I concur with that point. Of course, this is not a statistical matter—it is the principle that is all-important—but it is worth reflecting that in 2002, the judicial review process threw back 260
1658
cases as being not simply wrong, but so wrong that they were wholly and completely unsupportable. It is reasonable to suppose that if half those cases involved families, 200 to 300 children were involved in those decisions. Those are the people who will now have no right of appeal. They will face the agonising choice of going into impoverishment and care or going back to the country in which they were persecuted. For those reasons, it will be a pleasure for me to support the reasoned amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre. I very much hope that many of my hon. Friends and other hon. Members will be able to do likewise.
5.55 pm
Mr. John Randall: It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. and learned Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews). He always makes a lot of sense to me —but perhaps that says more about me than about him.
My constituents increasingly raise asylum and immigration issues with me, so I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Bill. We have heard some very good speeches. I was particularly pleased to hear the speeches of my hon. Friend the Member for Working (Mr. Malins) and of the Chairman of the Select Committee, the right hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham).
The hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) said that when dealing with such matters, we must all be aware of the urban myths that are around. We probably all know them. Locally in Hillingdon we have the housing myth, which I am sure is also found in many other areas. It says that the fact that no one can get a house is somehow all the fault of asylum seekers. Another story that I have increasingly heard is that everyone seems to know a neighbour or a friend who has sold a car which was paid for with a cheque from social services or the benefit agencies, but when one asks for more details, somehow they disappear into the ether. Not so long ago I even heard from someone who was very worried because they had heard that the top floor of Hillingdon hospital had been closed down to house asylum seekers. Those may seem amusing stories, but they spread around and cause more and more concern, which is one reason why the subject of immigration and asylum is so often raised.
The people who are concerned are not racists and bigots, although those do of course exist. Similarly, those who genuinely raise the rights of asylum seekers are living in the real world, although the facts are sometimes uncomfortable for people. I dare say that next week at many a Christmas day service, sermons will be given about asylum seekers, which will lead to much harrumphing, with people saying that the vicar should have said a bit more about Christmas. But it is a good thing for us to be reminded of such cases.
We must also always be reminded that although we refer to groups, we are talking about individuals. For example, one of my constituents is always telling me that immigration and asylum seeking are not being dealt with properly in Parliament and saying, "It's about time you lot woke up." However, he knocked on my window at home late one evening to ask me to do something to prevent a Kosovan of his acquaintance from being deported. When we are dealing with individuals, it is a different matter.

1659
There is a problem, as everyone acknowledges. We have to resolve certain problems. which cannot be done in this Bill. I have just mentioned housing. If there were not a housing problem, the urban myths would not exist. The high level of council tax is raising problems in my borough because, as the hon. and learned Member for Medway said, someone is getting blamed for it. There is an issue, which I am taking up with the Minister, of a recent court judgment about unaccompanied asylum-seeking children over 18, which will have a considerable financial effect on the borough. We have asked for a meeting and I am sure that if she has not agreed to it, she is in the process of doing so. It worries me when people I know, such as general practitioners or head teachers, talk about "the Heathrow effect". We know what they are talking about when they say it. It is genuine, and it is upsetting for community relations within the borough.
To return to the Bill, I wholly agree with some measures. We know how many passports and documents turn up in bins at Heathrow airport, and we have to deal with that problem.
The quality of decision making has been mentioned. I am not sure exactly how decisions are taken, but I suspect that some people have to work for long stints. Inevitably, they will get jaded. Security officers at airports have only a limited time to deal with each case; otherwise, they are not doing their job properly. Some of the people taking the decisions might be bombarded by a whole load of applications and it is easy to get rather blasé about it all. I do not know whether anything is being done about that. The quality of advice given by some legal practices can also be dubious. The lawyers often seem to take the money and then send the applicants along to our surgeries.
Another problem is the endless set of appeals. We MPs may be just as guilty, in that when someone complains at our surgeries, we often put the matter to a Minister again and again. As the hon. Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn) said, we have the right to raise such matters, though we do not judge them. The time lag is the real problem.
Clause 10 does concern me and I hope that the Government will listen to what is said about it. We should all be aware of a potential slippery slope. Speeding up the process sounds appealing— although that may be the wrong word to use in this case —but we must be careful.
I waver a little on clause 7. When I first heard about it in the media, I was, like many others, appalled. Perhaps I am too generous spirited, but I believe the Home Secretary and the Minister when I hear them say on the "Today" programme that their intentions are entirely honourable. However, the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Glenda Jackson) made the important point that even those who are not genuine asylum seekers—in the sense that their cases are not accepted—are still very desperate people.
Many unaccompanied asylum-seeking children who end up in the borough of Hillingdon are not orphans; people may have spent a lot of money sending them here on an aeroplane. We may find it incredible that people could send their children away, but people in desperate
1660
circumstances do precisely that. I can therefore quite understand people going along with being deported, but wanting to leave their children behind. We need to take that into account.
It is difficult for us to appreciate how desperate some of these people are. My experience is mainly drawn from the people who come to my surgery. Some are. shall we say, making the system work for them, but there are some heart-rending cases. I have only limited experience of seeing refugees abroad, but I did see internally displaced people in Serbia, being trucked out of Kosovo. I have seen the conditions that they live in and I can understand why they might want to go to another country. For us, it is almost inconceivable that we should ever want to leave our country, but I can understand why people in different circumstances might want to leave theirs.
Some of the Bill's other provisions, I wish well. I am not sure about electronic monitoring, but it sounds all right and I am prepared to be persuaded that the technology works. Similarly, this morning the Home Secretary was talking about ID cards as a means of protecting our borders. Yes, we need some controls, but I am not sure that ID cards are the answer, although I am prepared to listen. My hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) made some interesting and valid points in relation to clause 20, which I hope the Home Office will examine. I have Brunel university in my constituency, and many of the things that my hon. Friend said would apply equally there.
If I do not vote for the reasoned amendment, it will not be because I do not have a great deal of sympathy with it. However, I think at this stage that there is enough in the Bill to let it run its course. My hon. Friends and Labour Members will do their job in Committee, and when the Bill comes back for Report and Third Reading, we will have another look. If it has not been improved in the areas I have mentioned, we may have to vote against it.
6.5 pm
Jeremy Corbyn: I was going to say that I agree with everything the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) said. Well, I do, except for the last bit. I think that the Bill needs to be opposed because of its serious deficiencies.
I shall be brief so that others might have a chance to speak. I ask myself why we are here again, and then I look at the headlines in the Daily Express two days ago—some spurious stuff about every asylum seeker receiving £16,000 a year. That is not my experience of talking to the large number of asylum seekers in my constituency, many of whom are desperate to work and to contribute to society and feel angry that they are often denied that right. As the Home Secretary said, there are in London some 30,000 asylum seekers who moved to London after having been deposited in other parts of the country by the National Asylum Support Service and who are living here without any housing support. They have only income support, which is of an extremely limited nature, and they live on the grace and favour of people in their community. We should think for a moment of those 30,000 people spread throughout London's boroughs — an average of 1,000 per borough— living in grossly overcrowded

1661
accommodation, the children at risk of underachieving in school because of that degree of overcrowding, the parents enduring considerable hardship, and other members of the community going through hardship to support them because of the degree of racism and harassment of asylum seekers that persists in many parts of the country and from which London is not immune.
Those who sanctimoniously write the newspaper headlines making abusive comments about asylum seekers should ask themselves whether they do not in part encourage the racist attacks against asylum seekers and the killings of asylum seekers that have occurred in several parts of the country in the past two years. We all have a duty and a responsibility to be careful in what we say and how we say it. We must remember that a remark of ours that is thought to be an expression of a prejudice becomes something very nasty when it gets into the hands of a group of racist thugs on a Saturday night on a street anywhere in the country. The people who cop it are those who thought that they had left a place of danger and desperation. We should not be so self-satisfied about racial tolerance in our society, because a high degree of racism remains and the people who suffer are those who thought they had got away from that type of danger.
We should ask ourselves why so many people are trying to seek asylum now. Look at the wars in Afghanistan, Iraq and Congo, where some 3 million people have died. Look at the instability and disruption in Somalia and in so many other places around the world. Although I do not pretend, claim or assert that this country is responsible for all those conflicts, I do believe that collectively the European Union and north American contributions to the world arms trade, to the search for and the extraction of minerals and to the trade policies followed around the world lead to instability and to large numbers of people seeking a place of safety — asylum — somewhere else. Is the history of the 20th and 21st centuries to be written in memory of the people who have died in rusting hulks trying to cross the Mediterranean to gain a place of safety in Europe? Economic, political and social migrants have all been treated with a brutality that is seen as typical of the uncaring, arrogant and aggressive attitude that rich countries take towards the victims of poverty elsewhere in the world.
I do not pretend that we can solve all the problems, but we must maintain a sense of reality. We must understand what it is like to face the ultimate disruption of having to leave one's country, home and society because they are no longer safe.
Ms Abbott: Does my hon. Friend agree that we should remind ourselves that 70 per cent. of asylum seekers stay in their own regions, and that only 30 per cent. find their way to the west?
Jeremy Corbyn: My hon. Friend makes an important point. The number of asylum seekers turning up in Europe and north America is quite small, whereas the numbers that try to survive in India, Jordan, Mexico and many other much poorer societies around the world are huge. Anyone who has visited a refugee camp that has existed for many years will be aware of the misery, hardship and sense of bitterness that exist there, and will have some understanding of the problem.
1662
In common with other hon. Members, I have very strong objections to parts of the Bill. I object to the atmosphere in which it has been introduced, and to the assertions that have been made about it. However, my main objections are to clauses 7 and 10.
Clause 7 proposes that we should punish children for decisions made by their parents. Those decisions may be irrational ones, arrived at after a series of legal judgments, or as a result of the very poor level of representation available to families in the first place. The idea is that putting children into care for those reasons will serve as a deterrent, but I agree with what the hon. Member for Uxbridge said. It is incomprehensible that anyone living in a relatively affluent society in western Europe should knowingly put children at risk. Yet what decisions would any of us make if we were faced with the grim alternatives that some asylum seekers face? Those alternatives include the possibility — or grave danger — that children might be inducted into a child army, or that they might die because of malnutrition or serious health problems. We need to think more deeply and carefully about that.
I also have serious and strong reservations about clause 10, the problems with which have been well aired in the debate by other hon. Members. If it goes through, the Bill will establish a tribunal, and that tribunal will appoint a president. The Government are very fond of calling people "tsars". Mostly, the title is ridiculous, but in this case it would be ideal. As I understand it, the tribunal president will have complete power over the decisions that are made. The president will decide whether a decision should be reviewed —and whether his or her actions should be reviewed by a higher court.
It would take a particularly saintly person, as tribunal president, to refer himself or herself to a higher court to be judicially reviewed for any capricious decision that might have been made. Such a person may be available: my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews) could be an excellent candidate, but I doubt that his name is in the frame at the Home Office just now. I suspect that the president will be someone who is far more pliant in respect of the existing system.
We need to think very seriously about this matter. We are elected Members of Parliament, and we are proud of our judicial system's independence from political interference. We are proud, too, that people who go to court know that their cases will be heard fairly —we hope — and that they will be represented independently and properly — we hope. We are also proud that in such cases there will be a similarity in the standards of decision making that can be reviewed by a higher court through the judicial review process. The Bill will set up something totally out with anything that we have had in this society in living memory — indeed, for several hundred years. We are creating a dangerous precedent.
Keith Vaz: My hon. Friend has spoken with passion in every immigration debate in the House for the past 16 years. Does he agree that another reason why we should pause before accepting clause 10 is the restructuring of our judiciary? Given that it has been announced that the role of Lord Chancellor will be abolished and a new

1663
committee set up, should we not take the changes as a package and pause to think carefully about the provision?
Jeremy Corbyn: My hon. Friend makes a sensible suggestion. If we are to establish a new supreme court and alter the ultimate structure of the legal system by changing the office of Lord Chancellor, ideally we would not go ahead with the clause but would fit the provisions in elsewhere.
I do not intend my comments to be interpreted as scaremongering. However, we have legislated to allow the Home Secretary to imprison foreign nationals indefinitely on the grounds that they might be terrorists, without giving them access to normal justice. If we allow asylum seekers to be tried by a tribunal that is outwith any normal justice, what will be next? Will we have special tribunals to try special categories of crime to which normal judicial rules and habeas corpus will not apply, and in relation to which judicial review will be impossible? The provision represents a dangerous road to go down, and I hope that the Minister recognises that many of us have genuine concerns about it.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott), I have a crowded inner-city constituency that has all sorts of problems and social tensions and contains many asylum seekers. The asylum seekers whom I meet have often been through horrific and terrible experiences. They want better for their children — we all want that; it is a normal human reaction — but above all they want to contribute to our society. There is great joy in seeing asylum seekers who have been through human rights, literacy and computer courses and have got to university and qualified. Such people have made, make and will always make a contribution to our society. Surely hon. Members should applaud and welcome that rather than allowing the popular press to be so beastly to asylum seekers and playing up to their game by using language such as that in the Bill, and by implementing its measures. I hope that the House will oppose the Bill and support the reasoned amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson). If the Bill receives its Second Reading, as I expect it will, I hope that clauses 7 and 10, at least, will be emphatically removed in Committee or by another place.
6.17 pm
Dr. Jenny Tonge: My bedtime reading over recent weeks has been "Every Child Matters", which is a good White Paper that the Government published several months ago. But it would appear from the Bill's provisions and from what we have heard in the debate that every child matters except for the children of asylum seekers.
The hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson) organised a good meeting in the House last week during which we heard about conditions in detention centres. That was a bit of an eye opener for me, and given that detention centres are mentioned in the Bill, I thought I would use this opportunity to ask the Minister to address the problems. It is unclear why
1664
people — especially families with children — go into the detention centres and at what stage of the process that happens. The original intention for people to go into such centres as a result of a court order seems to be have been thrown out of the window, because that no longer happens. No one knows who decides the length of time for which people stay in the centres.
Inspections carried out by Her Majesty's inspectorate of prisons show that people in the centres often have no privacy and that their rooms have no locks. They are not allowed access outside and their children receive no proper health care or education. Those facts are not rumour or anecdote: they come from an official inspection. At last week's meeting, it was questioned whether the Government are upholding the human rights of families and children who are in detention centres. The situation is serious and scandalous, so I hope that the Minister will address it in her response and tell us what the Government will do about it.
A lot has been said about clause 7. I merely repeat that families with children are usually the most genuine asylum seekers. Who would haul their children halfway across the world to a country where they know few people and do not speak the language, when they have no money and no means of finding work, if they were not in genuine fear of persecution? I cannot believe that people would do that.
On the other side of the coin, the Government say that people would rather leave this country and take their children with them than stay without benefits. If I were in their position, knowing the treatment I would get when I returned to my country of origin, I would probably prefer to leave my children in care and take the risk. At least I would know that they would be safe. Clause 7 is appalling.
Mr. Kelvin Hopkins: Does the hon. Lady agree that a good example of her point is offered by the "kinder transport" system that existed before the second world war, when families put their children on a train and never saw them again.
Dr. Tonge: Absolutely. The hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre referred to the report from the British Association of Social Workers, which made that very point: we thought that sort of thing had stopped during and just before the second world war. We thought that we would no longer have to take children away from families who would never see them again. Are we really going to introduce that practice— however
unintentionally — in the 21st century? I hope not.
The hon. Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn) made a pertinent intervention to ask who assessed how safe it was for people to go back to their country of origin. On a similar point, the Minister for Citizenship and Immigration said that if people returned to their country of origin they would go with support. I shall tell the House briefly of one such experience.
A year ago I travelled to Kosovo with my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) to visit a family who had recently returned there. The family had come to the UK at the height of the war in Kosovo and found refuge in Harrogate. While they waited for a decision about whether they could stay in

1665
Britain, they settled in the town; the man found a job as a waiter, his wife had a second baby and they were accepted by the community. They had a quality of life that they had never experienced before.
The final decision on their application was that they were refused asylum and told to get out. When all the due processes had been followed, all the charities and churches in the area, my hon. Friend and many others tried to stop the family's removal. That little family, with two small children — a toddler and a baby — were happily established, but they were taken from their house at a few minutes' notice, put on a plane and sent back to Kosovo. They were met, taken by car out into the countryside and dropped within a mile of their original village and given 10 —only 10.
Is that the support to which the Minister referred? Is that how we treat people who have had among the worst experiences in the world? I hope that the Minister will tell me that such things will not happen again as a result of the Bill.
Worse was to come for that family. The man was persecuted by the Kosovo Liberation Army; he was seen as a collaborator because he had worked in a Serb factory and wanted to keep his job. He has not lived with his family since their return. The last we heard was that nobody knew where he was; he moves from safe house to safe house, trying to escape persecution. Is that the support that we give these unfortunate people? Why did the original process take so long, with the result that the family were settled before they had to be turned out of the country? As the hon. Member for Islington, North asked, who checks that the country of origin is safe? Who says that a person will be all right when they get back? Let us hope that more provision will be made in future for returnees than ¬10.
In just over a week's time we shall be celebrating the birth of a child to the most famous refugees family in history. I am appalled and ashamed of what the Government are doing in my name to some of the most vulnerable people on earth.
6.25 pm
Julie Morgan: I am concerned about clause 10, especially the loss of judicial review, but my greatest concern is clause 7, to which, given its potential impact on families and children, I shall address my remarks.
Ministers have said that they do not think that many, or any, children will be affected by the clause and end up going into care. However, if even one child is so affected, the Bill should not go ahead. The Government have not been able to give a figure for the number of children who could be affected. I tried to obtain the figure for Wales, which has far fewer asylum seekers than the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn). The Cardiff and District asylum network estimates that 511 families are seeking asylum in Wales, and that 576 children could be affected by this legislation: 576 children are likely to end up in families who have been refused asylum and had their benefits removed.
Mr. McWalter: Does my hon. Friend accept that the standard way of dealing with the issue is forcible removal? That is made clear both in current legislation
1666
and in the Minister's remarks to the Select Committee. Under current arrangements, families would stay together. albeit that they would have a 5 am call by the police.
Julie Morgan: I cannot accept that treating asylum seekers' children differently from any other children can be acceptable.
There are already problems with failed asylum seekers who are destitute and are single. There are delays in arranging for failed asylum seekers to return to their countries of origin, as a result of which they are existing without support. There are those who are deemed unable to return to their countries because of circumstances in those countries: Zimbabwe and Somalia have been mentioned, for example.
In such circumstances, people can apply for hard case support. but that is not available in Wales. People can apply in Wales, but there is no accommodation to which they can go. I was told this morning of a stateless man in Cardiff who has been refused asylum. He has no money and has nowhere to return to. The situation will become more difficult when more families are put in the same position.
Organisations in Wales are already concerned about the numbers of those who will be made homeless after failed claims. I know that the figures are very small compared with those in constituencies elsewhere, but in Cardiff, 81 people have been recorded this year as being evicted from National Asylum Support Service accommodation and many more have been evicted from private accommodation. The proposed legislation is likely to make the situation worse.
There is already concern about illegal employment and about people being able to return to their own countries. Resources are also likely to be under much pressure. The Association of Directors of Social Services has already been mentioned today, and it has said that
"if put into effect the proposals would put unacceptable pressures on what are already overstretched resources".
There are fears that women will seek refuge in women's aid hostels, even if they are not fleeing domestic violence, because they do not have anywhere else to go. In Cardiff, the black women's refuge provided by BAWSO — the Black Association of Women Step Out — is already under strain providing two places for women and their families without any recourse to public funds. Other women's aid hostels in Wales do not give places to women in that position because they lose the rent for the rooms and have to pay for food and clothes for the destitute families. The trauma of having to move those women and families on is almost too difficult for them to cope with. BAWSO receives 99 per cent. of its funding from public bodies, but has to raise money for the two families in the refuge without recourse to public funds. There is a queue of women waiting to get into the hostel. BAWSO greatly fears that the legislation will drive many women to try to get into a hostel such as the one that it provides. As it has no recourse to public funds for such families, its position will become much more difficult.
The needs of children should always be put first. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson), before I became an MP I was a social

1667
worker, and worked for the local authority and for Barnado's. We made every possible effort to prevent children from going into care, and always worked both to maintain the family and in the best interests of the child. The Bill contravenes a child-centred service, and possibly contravenes the UN convention on the rights of the child, particularly article 3 on the best interests of the child, and article 9 on separation from parents.
As I mentioned in an intervention, Wales has a Children's Commissioner, who is required by the Welsh Assembly to have regard to the UN convention on the rights of the child. The commissioner's functions need to be seen in the context of the convention. He is a champion for children in Wales, and I am sure that he will be a champion for the children of failed asylum seekers. As I have already said, the office of the Children's Commissioner for Wales has expressed concern about the Bill. It believes, as many Members have said, that every single child matters. Their rights and welfare, rather than the circumstances that have led to their being in the country, are important. The child impact statement by the National Children's Bureau, prepared for the all-party group on children, cites the recommendation made by the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child in October 2002 that the state should ensure

"that refugee and asylum-seeker children have access to basic services, such as education and health, and that there is no discrimination in benefit entitlements for asylum-seeking families which could affect children".
The proposals in the Bill, however, clearly affect children.
The NCB asks how we can determine whether someone has taken reasonable steps to prepare to leave. How do we determine whether someone is in a position to leave? What about women who are pregnant, and what is the position when there is illness in the family? It is important that those issues are examined in much more depth. The NCB believes that families will go underground or may even decide, as has been mentioned today, that it is in their children's best interests to go into care. We cannot criticise people for making that decision, because many Members have said in forceful terms that we cannot appreciate the desperation of people who want to do the best for their children, but have a different idea about what that entails from us. We cannot criticise their decisions, but we should not drive them into making them.
The UK's reservation about article 22 of the UN convention on the rights of the child has been criticised by the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child.
The UNCRC states:
"We recommend that the Government demonstrate its commitment to the equal treatment of all children by withdrawing its reservation relating to immigration and nationality."
That is the key issue. All children should be treated equally, and we are not treating asylum seekers' children equally. Failed asylum seekers' children should be treated the same as every other child in this country. A child is a child, and I do not see how we can have different provisions for different children. We breached that principle before this debate, when we decided that asylum seekers' children would not be able to go to local
1668
authority schools, but should be educated in the accommodation centres that have not yet been built. That was a bad decision, under which all children are not treated equally.
The Bill goes even further and may bring about circumstances in which children could be physically and emotionally harmed. I hope the Government will reconsider the measure, especially clause 7, which could be damaging and divisive. Many people in Wales have lobbied me about the measure. They feel that clause 7, in particular, threatens social cohesion and all the efforts that are being made to build a society that is diverse and in which we value people for their individual worth. Through legislation such as this, we are moving away from our concept of such a society.
I appeal to the Government to look again at the Bill and to think about why many of us came into politics. All of us on the Labour Benches came into politics to look after the interests of children — not just children indigenous to this country, but all children. I shall be pleased to support the amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre.
6.37 pm
Mr. Malins: With the leave of the House, and in the continued absence through illness of my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis), I shall say a few words to conclude the debate on behalf of the Opposition.
The Government are short of friends on their own Benches. I have listened throughout the afternoon to speech after speech from Labour Members criticising the Bill, much of that criticism coming from those who have experience of the asylum system, such as the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) and the hon. and learned Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews). They and others who know a little about asylum find the Bill illiberal and in many ways unfair. We have heard words such as "insidious" and "repugnant", and the Home Secretary will go away from the debate in the knowledge that he has little support on his own Benches for the measures that he is trying to put through the House tonight.
It is such a pity. If the Government had consulted at greater length and spoken to those who know something about the system and about how asylum works, it is entirely possible that a better Bill could have been brought to us. I shall confine my remarks to observations on comments made by hon. Friends, but I shall not let the occasion pass without thanking the right hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham), the Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee, who is not in his place, not only for producing a report so quickly, but for expressing in it some of the concerns that we all understand.
My hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) spoke of the many people who have no confidence in the Government's asylum policy. He was rightly critical of the Government's conflicting signals on the issue of taking asylum seekers' children into care and, reflecting the enormous amount of work that he has done in his constituency on these matters in the past couple of years, he reinforced the view that there is next to no support in his constituency for the siting of an accommodation centre in a rural area. He has certainly fought well on behalf of those whom he represents.

1669
My hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) spoke with knowledge and experience of schools and universities on the vexed question of clause 20, rightly referring to the lack of consultation with educational establishments and other interested parties. I think that it was my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) who referred to top-up fees or charges, and we shall have to consider that issue very carefully in Committee.
My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner), in a powerful speech, made the very true point that we should, in this House and elsewhere, be entitled to debate levels of immigration in a rational way, without being tagged as racist for so doing. Not unnaturally, given his constituency, he referred to the need for much more effective coastal controls.
My hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall), who has some experience of these matters through his constituency interest, made the point that asylum seekers must not be demonised. He was one of many speakers throughout the House today who rightly expressed concern at the potential cut in appeal rights to the Court of Appeal and the House of Lords.
The debate has been interesting, and I look forward to serving on the Committee. If I may say so to the Government Whips, I am sure that they will select to serve on the Committee many of the hon. Members who have spoken this afternoon, in order to obtain a balanced Committee and to ensure that the improvements to the Bill that we all want to see are made.
Mr. Heath: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?.
Mr. Matins:Only for a second, but I will.
Mr. Heath: I will take only a second; I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman. Having heard his words in opening and in summing up the debate, and the words of his colleagues during the debate, I would find it impossible to reconcile the views expressed with a decision on the part of the Conservative Opposition to do anything other than to oppose the Bill tonight. That would not be the act of a rational Opposition.
Mr. Matins: I have served with the hon. Gentleman on Committees before and he knows that in Committee we will table amendments to improve the contentious parts of the Bill, and we will be speak to them and vote on them. I say now to the Home Secretary that clause 2, which will criminalise many innocent people, clause 7, which deals with the withdrawal of support, and clause 10, which is perhaps the most contentious and which cuts down so much on the appeals that can be made, will all be looked at carefully by us in Committee and very carefully in another place.
The Bill must be improved in Committee. It sets out to achieve a better and more streamlined system, but in its present form it will not do that properly. It could achieve that if it is properly amended in Committee. If we can make progress in Committee on those contentious issues and others, the Home Secretary will have our support. If not, and judging by the mood of the House and of many outside, when the Bill comes back on Report and Third Reading, he will not have it.
6.43 pm
The Minister for Citizenship and Immigration (Beverley Hughes): We have had an energetic and considered debate, and I am grateful for the contributions from Members of the House on what is always — rightly always — a difficult, complex and emotive set of issues.
The Bill sets out our third planned phase of reforms to the asylum and immigration system and builds deliberately on the action that we took in the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 and the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002. Though I say it myself, the Government have made dramatic progress in reducing claims by half, reducing the backlog to an all-time 10-year low, removing record numbers of failed asylum seekers and processing 80 per cent. of more recent claims in two months. I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Redcar (Vera Baird) for recognising that. The Bill represents the next essential stage in completely transforming and reconstructing the asylum system. I agree with Members on both sides of the House who said that operational efficiency, accuracy and consistency are vital — that is why we have given the Bill such a high priority and will continue to do so.
Inevitably, the debate has focused on asylum, but it is important, not least for some Labour Members, to put our asylum reforms in the context of our wider policy on migration. There is a clear dividing line here. Conservative Members — we heard a little of this refrain in the contribution of the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner)— want to stem all immigration into this country. By contrast, this Government's progressive policy is to welcome migrants where that helps our economy and to give opportunities to people from less developed countries. We are committed to finding better ways of integrating refugees here and helping genuine refugees worldwide. That includes our work with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees to identify refugees abroad and to bring them directly into settlement in the UK. Those are the forgotten people — the refugees who can never make it to the west in the back of a lorry because they cannot afford the traffickers who fuel that movement, and who languish instead in camps in poor countries across the world. Our commitment lies in managed legal migration and in more help for refugees.
We cannot, however, expect to make the case for managed legal migration and more help for refugees unless we deal with the misuse of the asylum system and return it to the purpose for which it was intended— the protection of people fleeing persecution, not the provision of a route into settlement for those seeking a better life—understandable though that is. I never speak negatively about asylum seekers, and neither do my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary or my colleagues, but that is not the purpose of the asylum system. If we are to have a system that makes fair decisions, regulates the process and returns asylum to its proper purpose, we must enforce he outcomes of those decisions fairly and properly.
Ms Sally Keeble: Does my hon. Friend agree that a good deal of illegal entry into this country and abuse of the system has been carried out by traffickers who have deliberately brought people into the country for benefits scams, servitude and other purposes, and that the Bill will help to clamp down on that abuse?.
Beverley Hughes: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. We have added to the Sexual Offences Act 2003, which penalises trafficking for sexual exploitation, by including in the Bill a measure that criminalises trafficking for non-sexual exploitation, domestic slavery, organ harvesting and labour exploitation. I am very much committed to that.
I have to say that I occasionally wondered in the course of the debate in whose interests some Members were primarily speaking, and where the views of their constituents came into play. It is vital that the public, who are our constituents, have confidence in the asylum and immigration system. We are introducing these measures because it is important to build that confidence. It is an ongoing process, however — we have to respond quickly and robustly to global migration trends and to the way in which organised criminals constantly try to find ways around the controls that we put in place. People have a right to know that the Government and Parliament are addressing their genuine concerns about the misuse of the process — otherwise, they will look beyond the established parties in this Chamber to the extremist policies offered by the British National party and others. That has already happened in Europe, and we cannot and will not allow it to happen here.
Public confidence in the system is crucial for the successful integration of refugees and to maintain cohesion in our communities in towns and cities throughout the country. We have a proud tradition of welcoming people; we are proud of modern Britain's ethnically rich and diverse society. We must not allow that to be soured by traffickers or people who misuse the system, for whatever understandable reasons.
We have made radical improvements to the controls, but no one can seriously say that nothing more can be done. The Bill shows that we are determined to take action further to improve our border controls, ensure that the systems continue to fulfil the purposes of enabling legal movement, encouraging legal migration and honouring our international obligations to offer protection to those in genuine need.
I shall try to respond to some of the specific points that hon. Members made. I welcome the response of the Select Committee on Home Affairs. My right hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham) made it clear that the Committee has not asked for any of the provisions to be withdrawn. He especially mentioned the figure of 16,000. He knows from his experience as a Minister that when a Committee Chairman asks Ministers for information, we have to provide it. That specific information was already in the public domain because we made it clear when we announced the ILR — indefinite leave to remain — exercise. Would that we could control some newspaper headlines, but I fear that we cannot.
1672
The hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) mentioned charging. We are about to embark on a full consultation on the first months of implementation of the current charging mechanism. All the issues that he raised will be open for people to comment on further. As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary made clear, the provision on charging is only an enabling power. Any proposals will be made through the secondary process and be subject to full consultation.
Hon. Members talked mainly about clauses 7 and 10. Clause 10 covers the proposals to create a single tier for appeals. Again, I agree with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Redcar that it is vital to have a proper, fair judicial system that is independent of the Home Office and the initial decision that takes place there. However, I disagree with her view and that of most of my hon. Friends who spoke on the matter that the Bill will not achieve that. It is important, for all the reasons that hon. Members mentioned — for example, the need to return people quickly when their claims fail — that we do not allow appeal after appeal. That is why we propose a single tier and a single body. We shall outline the proposal's operation in greater detail in Committee, and I hope that we can reassure hon. Members about some of their concerns.
Mr. John Burnett: Will the Minister give way?.
Beverley Hughes: I shall not take an intervention because the hon. Gentleman has heard hardly any of the debate. I am happy to take interventions from people who have been present.
A panel of three will hear complex cases. There will be a facility for either party to apply for review. A senior judge will undertake that review and can uphold, overturn or replace the decision or instruct a rehearing. The president can take novel and complex issues of law to the Court of Appeal. I fail to understand how that is tantamount to what my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews), my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard), and the hon. Members for Woking (Mr. Matins) and for Winchester (Mr. Oaten) described as removal of judicial oversight. It is not.
Mr. McWalter: As part of the process, will the published minutes of meetings be made available to Members of Parliament who might take an interest in such cases, even if they are not placed in the public domain?
Beverley Hughes: It is standard practice under the current mechanisms. Although it is a matter for the Department for Constitutional Affairs, I do not understand why it cannot be continued for adjudicators, and currently tribunal adjudicators, so that they produce a report that summarises their conclusions and the reasons for them. I imagine that that will happen.
Keith Vaz: My hon. Friend has correctly said that progress has been made at the immigration and nationality directorate, but is she seriously suggesting that the detail of how the appeal system will operate has

1673
not yet been worked out? Are we going to remove a whole tier of the appeal system without the Government having worked out the details?.
Beverley Hughes: No, my hon. Friend must have misheard me, or perhaps he was not listening for a moment, because I said that there would be more time in Committee for Ministers to explain the detail, which has been fully worked out. Indeed, we have involved the judiciary in that process, as he would expect.
Hon. Members have identified the quality of decision making at both stages, the initial decision and the appeal, and I agree that that is crucial—[Interruption.] I shall finish my point if hon. Members will allow me to. That issue is critical, which is why we have been working on it and will continue to work with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees to take the matter further.
Mr. Marshall-Andrews: Will the Minister be good enough to point to the part of the Bill, which I might well have missed, in which the appeal procedure—albeit within the tribunal — is set out, including the senior judge, and in which it is set out how the senior judge is appointed?.
Beverley Hughes: I should be happy to set out those details in Committee. I am not prepared to spend time in a Second Reading debate on a matter of detail for the Committee.
I acknowledge the concern of the many hon. Members who raised the issue of clause 7; I shall not take up time naming them all, because it involved nearly everybody. This is a difficult issue, and I repeat that our intention is not to put children into care as a result of this measure, contrary to the deliberate misinformation put out by some newspapers — [Interruption.] I would ask hon. Members to consider this point. We must face this difficult question—and it is a question for every Member of the House. When families have come to the end of the process and been refused, should we carry on housing them and paying them ad infinitum if they refuse to go home or to co-operate with the arrangements regarding re-documentation? That cannot be right.
Mr. Dawson: Will my hon. Friend give way?.
Beverley Hughes: No, I will not.
Most of our constituents would expect us to conclude that people must take responsibility for their position. and that parents must be responsible for their children. I understand the concerns —
Mr. Dawson: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Beverley Hughes: I have 15 minutes in which to respond to every Member. My hon. Friend has had 12 minutes for his own speech. I need to come to my conclusion.
The details of the way in which the process will operate are fundamentally important, and we shall
1674
articulate those details in Committee. The process will involve an interview and up to four letters explaining exactly what will happen, so that people will be under no illusions.
The Bill is the next essential stage in our programme of reforms to the asylum and immigration system, and it responds to the continuing and increasingly sophisticated abuses of that system. It also builds on the progress that we have already made. Genuine refugees have nothing to fear from the measures in the Bill. We are getting tougher on traffickers and on those seeking to play the system, to ensure that the public have confidence in that system. In turn, that will ensure that genuine refugees and legal migrants can continue to be welcomed here and valued for the important contribution that they make to life in the United Kingdom.
I recognise that this is a difficult issue, and we need to balance the rights and responsibilities of all those concerned in the process, including asylum seekers. In case my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) is under the illusion that I do not see any asylum seekers, I must tell her that I do, at every advice surgery. I am therefore putting forward these proposals with a full knowledge of the interests of both constituents and asylum seekers. The Bill is in the interests of our positive approach to immigration, of refugees worldwide, of the communities in Britain and, above all, of our constituents — the people whom we represent — who rightly expect us to have a fair system.
Question put, That the amendment be made: —
The House divided: Ayes 78, Noes 287.

Division No. 16]

[6.59 pm

AYES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Hancock, Mike

Allan, Richard

Harris, Dr. Evan (Oxford W &

Baker, Norman

Abingdon)

Barnes, Harry

Heath, David

Barrett, John

Holmes, Paul

Beith, rh A. J.

Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

Bennett, Andrew

Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead &

Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

Highgate)

Breed, Colin

Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

Bruce, Malcolm

Keetch, Paul

Burnett, John

Kennedy, rh Charles (Ross Skye &

Burstow, Paul

Inverness)

Cable, Dr. Vincent

Kirkwood, Sir Archy

Calton, Mrs Patsy

Laws, David (Yeovil)

Campbell, rh Menzies (NE Fife)

Llwyd, Elfyn

Carmichael, Alistair

McDonnell, John

Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Chidgey, David

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Connarty, Michael

Marshall-Andrews, Robert

Corbyn, Jeremy

Moore, Michael

Cotter, Brian

Morgan, Julie

Davey, Edward (Kingston)

Opik, Lembit

Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

Price, Adam (E Carmarthen &

Dawson, Hilton

Dinefwr)

Doughty, Sue

Pugh, Dr. John

Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

Ewing, Annabelle

Rendel, David

Fisher, Mark

Salmond, Alex

Foster, Don (Bath)

Sanders, Adrian

George, Andrew (St. Ives)

Sawford, Phil

Gidley, Sandra

Sedgemore, Brian

Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

1675

Skinner, Dennis

Vaz, Keith (Leicester E)

Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

Wareing, Robert N.

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

Webb, Steve (Northavon)

Kincardine)

Weir, Michael

Stuneil, Andrew

Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Williams, Roger (Brecon)

Taylor, Dr. Richard (Wyre F)

Wishart, Pete

Teather, Sarah

Younger-Ross, Richard

Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

Thurso, John

Tellers for the Ayes:

Tonge, Dr Jenny

Mr. Neil Gerrard and

Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

Mr. Kelvin Hopkins

NOES

Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

Clelland, David

Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

Alexander, Douglas

Coaker, Vernon

Allen, Graham

Coffey, Ms Ann

Anderson, Janet (Rossendale &

Colman, Tony

Darwen)

Cook, rh Robin (Livingston)

Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

Cooper, Yvette

Atherton, Ms Candy

Cranston, Ross

Bailey, Adrian

Cruddas, Jon

Cummings, John

Baird, Vera

Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

Banks, Tony

Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

Barron, rh Kevin

Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

Battle, John

Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

Bayley, Hugh

Davidson, Ian

Beard, Nigel

Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

Begg, Miss Anne

Dean, Mrs Janet

Benn, rh Hilary

Denham, rh John

Benton, Joe (Bootle)

Dhanda, Parmjit

Berry, Roger

Dismore, Andrew

Betts, Clive

Donohoe, Brian H.

Blackman, Liz

Doran, Frank

Blears, Ms Hazel

Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

Blizzard, Bob

Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

Blunkett, rh David

Eagle, Maria (L'poolGarston)

Boateng, rh Paul

Edwards, Huw

Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

Efford, Clive

Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

Brennan, Kevin

Farrelly, Paul

Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E

Fitzpatrick, Jim Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

Wallsend)

Flint, Caroline

Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

Flynn, Paul (Newport W)

Browne, Desmond

Follett, Barbara

Bryant, Chris

Foster, rh Derek

Burden, Richard

Foster, Michael (Worcester)

Burgon, Colin

Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings

Burnham, Andy

&Rye)

Burns, Simon

Foulkes, rh George

Burnside, David

Francis, Dr. Hywel

Byers, rh Stephen

Gapes, Mike (llfordS)

Caborn, rh Richard

Gardiner, Barry

Cairns, David

George, rh Bruce (Walsall S)

Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

Gibson, Dr. Ian

Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

Gilroy, Linda

Caplin, Ivor

Godsiff, Roger

Casale, Roger

Goggins, Paul

Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

Challen, Colin

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Chapman, Ben (WirralS)

Grogan, John

Chaytor, David

Hain, rh Peter

Clapham, Michael

Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

Clark, Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh

Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

Pentlands)

Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

Hanson, David

Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge &

Harman, rh Ms Harriet

Chryston)

Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

1676

Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil &

Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

Rhymney)

Marshall, David (Glasgow

Healey, John

Shettleston)

Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

Martlew, Eric

Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

Meale, Alan (Mansfield)

Hendrick, Mark

Merron, Gillian

Hepburn, Stephen

Michael, rh Alun

Heppell, John

Milburn, rh Alan

Hewitt, rh Ms Patricia

Miliband, David

Heyes, David

Miller, Andrew

Hinchliffe, David

Mole, Chris

Hodge, Margaret

Moran, Margaret

Hood, Jimmy (Clydesdale)

Morley, Elliot

Hope, Phil (Corby)

Morris, rh Estelle

Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E)

Mountford, Kali

Howarth, George (Knowsley N &

Mudie, George

Sefton E)

Mullin, Chris

Howells, Dr. Kim

Munn, Ms Meg

Hoyle, Lindsay

Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

Hughes, Beverley (Stretford &

Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

Urmston)

Murphy, rh Paul (Torfaen)

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

Naysmith, Dr. Doug

Humble, Mrs Joan

Norris, Dan (Wansdyke)

Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

Hutton, rh John

O'Hara, Edward

Iddon, Dr. Brian

Olner, Bill

Illsley, Eric

O'Neill, Martin

Irranca-Davies, Huw

Organ, Diana

Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

Owen, Albert

Jamieson, David

Perham, Linda

Jenkins, Brian

Picking, Anne

Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

Pickthall, Colin

Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn

Pike, Peter (Burnley)

Hatfield)

Plaskitt, James

Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

Pound, Stephen

Jones, Martyn (ClwydS)

Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

Jowell, rh Tessa

Prescott, rh John

Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

Primarolo, rh Dawn

Kaufman, rh Gerald

Prosser, Gwyn

Keeble, Ms Sally

Purchase, Ken

Keen, Ann (Brentford)

Purnell, James

Kemp, Fraser

Quin, rh Joyce

Khabra, Piara S.

Quinn, Lawrie

Kidney, David

Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

Kilfoyle, Peter

Raynsford, rh Nick

King, Andy (Rugby)

Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green &

Reid, rh Dr. John (Hamilton N &

Bow)

Bellshill)

Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

Robertson, John (Glasgow

Kumar, Dr. Ashok

Anniesland)

Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry

Lazarowicz, Mark

NW)

Lepper, David

Roche, Mrs Barbara

Leslie, Christopher

Ruane, Chris

Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

Ruddock, Joan

Liddell, rh Mrs Helen

Russell, Ms Christine (City of

Linton, Martin

Chester)

Love, Andrew

Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

Salter, Martin

Luke, Iain (Dundee E)

Savidge, Malcolm

McAvoy, Thomas

Sheerman, Barry

McCabe, Stephen

Sheridan, Jim

McDonagh, Siobhain

Shipley, Ms Debra

McFall, John

Simon, Sion (B'ham Erdington)

McIsaac, Shona

Singh, Marsha

McKechin, Ann

Smith, rh Andrew (Oxford E)

Mackinlay, Andrew

Smith, rh Chris (Islington S &

McNulty, Tony

Finsbury)

MacShane, Denis

Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe &

Mactaggart, Fiona

Lunesdale)

McWalter, Tony

Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

McWilliam, John

Smith, John (Glamorgan)

Mallaber, Judy

Soley, Clive

Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

Southworth, Helen

Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

Spellar, rh John

1677

Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

Ward, Claire

Steinberg, Gerry

Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

Stevenson, George

Watts, David

Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

White, Brian

Stoate, Dr. Howard

Whitehead, Dr. Alan

Strang, rh Dr. Gavin

Wicks, Malcolm

Stringer, Graham

Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)

Stuart, Ms Gisela

Williams, Betty (Conwy)

Sutcliffe, Gerry

Wills, Michael

Tami, Mark (Alyn)

Winnick, David

Taylor, rh Ann (Dewsbury)

Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster

Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

C)

Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

Worthington, Tony

Timms, Stephen

Wright, Anthony D. (Gt

Tipping, Paddy

Yarmouth)

Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

Wright, David (Telford)

Trickett, Jon

Wright, Tony (Cannock)

Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

Wyatt, Derek

Turner, Neil (Wigan)

Twigg, Derek (Halton)

Tellers for the Noes:

Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

Mr. Nick Ainger and

Walley, Ms Joan

Ms Bridget Prentice

Question accordingly negatived.
Main Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 62 (Amendment on Second or Third Reading):—
The House divided: Ayes 412, Noes 72.

Division No. 17]

[7:13 pm]

AYES

Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

Brazier, Julian

Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

Brennan, Kevin

Alexander, Douglas

Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E

Allen, Graham

Wallsend)

Ancram, rh Michael

Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

Anderson, Janet (Rossendale &

Browne, Desmond

Darwen)

Browning, Mrs Angela

Arbuthnot, rh James

Bryant, Chris

Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

Burden, Richard

Atherton, Ms Candy

Burgon, Colin

Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

Burnham, Andy

Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

Burnside, David

Bacon, Richard

Burt' Alistair

Bailey, Adrian

Butterfill, John

Baird, Vera

Byers-rh Stephen

Baldry, Tony

Caborn, rh Richard

Banks, Tony

Cairns, David

Barker, Gregory

Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

Baron, John (Billericay)

Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

Barron, rh Kevin

Capli, Ivor

Casale, Roger

Battle, John

Cash, William

Bayley, Hugh

Caton Martin

Beard, Nigel

Cawsey, Ian (Bngg)

Beckett, rh Margaret

Challen, Colin

Begg, Miss Anne

Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

Belhngham, Henry

Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping

Benn, rh Hilary

Bgmet)

Benton, Joe (Bootle)

Chaytor David

Bercow, John

chope Christ0pher

Beresford, Sir Paul

Clapham, Michael

Berry, Roger

Clark Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

Betts, Clive

Clark Dr Lynda (Edinburgh

Blackman, Liz

Pentlands)

Blears, Ms Hazel

Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

Blizzard, Bob

Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge &

Blunkett, rh David

Chryston)

Blunt, Crispin

Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

Boateng, rh Paul

Clelland, David

Boswell, Tim

Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

Coaker, Vernon

Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

Coffey, Ms Ann

Brady, Graham

Collins, Tim

1678

Colman, Tony

Hanson, David

Cook, rh Robin (Livingston)

Harman, rh Ms Harriet

Cooper, Yvette

Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

Cranston, Ross

Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil &

Cruddas, Jon

Fthymney)

Cummings, John

Hayes, John (S Holland)

Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

Heald, Oliver

Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

Healey, John

Curry, rh David

Heathcoat-Amory, rh David

Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

David, Wayne

Hendrick, Mark

Davidson, Ian

Hendry, Charles

Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

Heppell, John

Davies, Quentin (Grantham &

Hewitt, rh Ms Patricia

Stamford)

Heyes, David

Dean, Mrs Janet

Hinchliffe, David

Denham, rh John

Hoban, Mark (Fareham)

Dhanda, Parmjit

Hodge, Margaret

Dismore, Andrew

Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)

Djanogly, Jonathan

Hood, Jimmy (Clydesdale)

Doran, Frank

Hope, Phil (Corby)

Dorrell, rh Stephen

Horam, John (Orpington)

Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E)

Duncan, Alan (Rutland)

Howarth, George (Knowsley N &

Duncan, Peter (Galloway)

Sefton E)

Duncan Smith, rh lain

Howells, Dr. Kim

Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

Hoyle, Lindsay

Eagle, Maria (L'poolGarston)

Hughes, Beverley (Stretford&

Edwards, Huw

Urmston)

Efford, Clive

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

Humble, Mrs Joan

Evans, Nigel

Hunter, Andrew

Fabricant, Michael

Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

Fallon, Michael

Hutton, rh John

Farrelly, Paul

Iddon, Dr. Brian

Field, Mark (Cities of London &

Illsley, Eric

Westminster)

Irranca-Davies, Huw

Fitzpatrick, Jim

Jack, rh Michael

Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

Flint, Caroline

Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

Flook, Adrian

Jamieson, David

Flynn, Paul (Newport W)

Jenkin, Bernard

Follett, Barbara

Jenkins, Brian

Forth, rh Eric

Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

Foster, rh Derek

Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn

Foster, Michael (Worcester)

Hatfield)

Foulkes, rh George

Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

Francis, Dr. Hywel

Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

Francois, Mark

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

Gale, Roger (N Thanet)

Jowell, rh Tessa

Gapes, Mike (llfordS)

Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

Gardiner, Barry

Kaufman, rh Gerald

Garnier, Edward

Keeble, Ms Sally

George, rh Bruce (Walsall S)

Keen, Ann (Brentford)

Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis)

Kemp, Fraser

Gibson, Dr. Ian

Key, Robert (Salisbury)

Gilroy, Linda

Khabra, Piara S.

Godsiff, Roger

Kidney, David

Goggins, Paul

Kilfoyle, Peter

Gray, James (N Wilts)

King, Andy (Rugby)

Grayling, Chris

King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green &

Green, Damian (Ashford)

Bow)

Greenway, John

Kirkbride, Miss Julie

Grieve, Dominic

Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

Kumar, Dr. Ashok

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Laing, Mrs Eleanor

Grogan, John

Lait, Mrs Jacqui

Gummer, rh John

Lansley, Andrew

Hain, rh Peter

Lazarowicz, Mark

Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

Leigh, Edward

Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

Lepper, David

Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

Leslie, Christopher

Hammond, Philip

Letwin, rh Oliver

Hancock, Mike

Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

1679

Liddell, rh Mrs Helen

Page, Richard

Liddell-Grainger, Ian

Paice, James

Lidington, David

Paterson, Owen

Linton, Martin

Perham, Linda

Loughton, Tim

Picking, Anne

Pickthall, Colin

Love, Andrew

Pike, Peter (Burnley)

Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

Plaskitt, James

Luff, Peter (M- Worcs)

Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

Luke, Iain (Dundee E)

Portillo, rh Michael

McAvoy, Thomas

Pound, Stephen

McCabe, Stephen

Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

McCartney, rh Ian

Prescott, rh John

McDonagh, Siobhain

Primarolo, rh Dawn

McFall, John

Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

McGuire, Mrs Anne

Prosser, Gwyn

Purchase, Ken

McIntosh, Miss Anne

Purnell, James

McIsaac, Shona

Quin, rh Joyce

Mackay, rh Andrew

Quinn, Lawrie

McKechin, Ann

Randall, John

Mackinlay, Andrew

Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

Maclean, rh David

Raynsford, rh Nick

McLoughlin, Patrick

Redwood, rh John

McNulty, Tony

Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

MacShane, Denis

Reid, rh Dr. John (Hamilton N &

Mactaggart, Fiona

Bellshill)

Robathan, Andrew

McWalter, Tony

Robertson, Hugh (Faversham &

McWilliam, John

M-Kent)

Malins, Humfrey

Robertson, John (Glasgow

Mallaber, Judy

Anniesland)

Mann, John (Basset/aw)

Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry

Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

NW)

Roche, Mrs Barbara

Marshall, David (Glasgow

Rosindell, Andrew

Shettleston)

Ruane, Chris

Martlew, Eric

Ruddock, Joan

Mawhinney, rh Sir Brian

Ruffley, David

May, Mrs Theresa

Russell, Ms Christine (City of

Meale, Alan (Mansfield)

Chester)

Mercer, Patrick

Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

Merron, Gillian

Salter, Martin

Michael, rh Alun

Savidge, Malcolm

Milburn, rh Alan

Selous, Andrew

Miliband, David

Sheerman, Barry

Miller, Andrew

Shephard, rh Mrs Gillian

Sheridan, Jim

Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton

Simon, Sion (B'ham Erdington)

Coldfield)

Simpson, Keith (M-Norfolk)

Mole, Chris

Singh, Marsha

Morley, Elliot

Smith, rh Andrew (Oxford E)

Morris, rh Estelle

Smith, rh Chris (Islington S &

Moss, Malcolm

Finsbury)

Mountford, Kali

Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe &

Mudie, George

Lunesdale)

Mullin, Chris

Smith, Jacqui (Ftedditch)

Munn, Ms Meg

Smith, John (Glamorgan)

Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

Soley, Clive Southworth, Helen

Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

Spellar, rh John

Murphy, rh Paul (Torfaen)

Spelman, Mrs Caroline

Murrison, Dr. Andrew

Spicer, Sir Michael

Naysmith, Dr. Doug

Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

Norman, Archie

Spring, Richard

Norris, Dan (Wansdyke)

Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

Steen, Anthony

O'Hara, Edward

Steinberg, Gerry

Olner, Bill

Stevenson, George

O'Neill, Martin

Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

Stoate, Dr. Howard

Organ, Diana

Strang, rh Dr. Gavin

Osborne, George (Tatton)

Streeter, Gary

Ottaway, Richard

Stringer, Graham

Owen, Albert

Stuart, Ms Gisela

1680

Sutcliffe, Gerry

Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

Swayne, Desmond

Watts, David

Swire, Hugo (EDevon)

White, Brian

Syms, Robert

Whitehead, Dr. Alan

Tami, Mark (Alyn)

Whittingdale, John

Taylor, rh Ann (Dewsbury)

Wicks, Malcolm

Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

Widdecombe, rh Miss Ann

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Wiggin, Bill

Taylor, Sir Teddy

Wilkinson, John

Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

Willetts, David

Timms, Stephen

Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)

Tipping, Paddy

Williams, Betty (Conwy)

Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

Wills, Michael

Tredinnick, David

Wilshire, David

Trickett, Jon

Winnick, David

Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster

Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

C)

Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton

Worthington, Tony

Kemptown)

Wright, Anthony D. (Gt

Turner, Neil (Wigan)

Yarmouth)

Twigg, Derek (Halton)

Wright, David (Telford)

Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

Wright, Tony (Cannock)

Tyrie, Andrew

Wyatt, Derek

Viggers, Peter

Yeo, Tim (S Suffolk)

Walley, Ms Joan

Young, rh Sir George

Walter, Robert

Ward, Claire

Tellers for the Ayes:

Waterson, Nigel

Mr. Nick Ainger and

Watkinson, Angela

Ms Bridget Prentice

NOES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Kennedy, rh Charles (Ross Skye &

Allan, Richard

Inverness)

Baker, Norman

Kirkwood, Sir Archy

Barnes, Harry

Laws, David (Yeovil)

Barrett, John

Llwyd, Elfyn

Beith, rh A. J.

McDonnell, John

Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Breed, Colin

Marshall-Andrews, Robert

Bruce, Malcolm

Moore, Michael

Burnett, John

Morgan, Julie

Burstow, Paul

Opik, Lembit

Cable, Dr. Vincent

Price, Adam (E Carmarthen &

Calton, Mrs Patsy

Dinefwr)

Campbell, rh Menzies (NE Fife)

Pugh, Dr. John

Carmichael, Alistair

Rendel, David

Chidgey, David

Salmond, Alex

Connarty, Michael

Sanders, Adrian

Corbyn, Jeremy

Sawford, Phil

Cotter, Brian

Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

Davey, Edward (Kingston)

Skinner, Dennis

Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

Smith, Sir Robert (WAb'd'ns &

Dawson, Hilton

Kincardine)

Doughty, Sue

Stunell, Andrew

Ewing, Annabelle

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Fisher, Mark

Taylor, Dr. Richard (Wyre F)

Teather, Sarah

Foster, Don (Bath)

Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

George, Andrew (St. Ives)

Thurso, John

Gerrard, Neil

Tonge, Dr. Jenny

Gidley, Sandra

Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

Vaz, Keith (Leicester E)

Harris, Dr. Evan (Oxford W &

Wareing. Robert N.

Abingdon)

Webb, Steve (Northavon)

Heath, David

Weir, Michael

Hogg, rh Douglas

Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

Holmes, Paul

Williams, Roger (Brecon)

Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

Wishart, Pete

Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead &

Highgate)

Tellers for the Noes:

Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

Mr. Alan Reid and

Keetch, Paul

Richard Younger-Ross

Question accordingly agreed to.
Bill read a Second time.

ASYLUM AND IMMIGRATION (TREATMENT OF CLAIMANTS, ETC.) BILL (PROGRAMME)
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Orders [28 June 2001 and 6 November 2003 (Programming of Bills)],
That the following provisions shall apply to the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Bill:

ASYLUM AND IMMIGRATION (TREATMENT OF CLAIMANTS, ETC.) BILL (PROGRAMME)
  Committal
  1. The Bill shall be committed to a Standing Committee.

  Proceedings in Standing Committee
  2. Proceedings in the Standing Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on 27th 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 that day.

  Programming Committee
  6. Sessional Order B (programming committees) made on 28th June 2001 shall not apply to proceedings on consideration and Third Reading.

  Programming of proceedings
  7. All proceedings on the Bill (including any proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments or on any further messages from the Lords) may be programmed.—[Mr. Jim Murphy.]
  The House divided: Ayes 308, Noes 133.

  Division No. 18]

  [7.29 pm

  AYES

  Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

  Brennan, Kevin

  Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

  Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E

  Alexander, Douglas

  Wallsend)

  Allan, Richard

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Allen, Graham

  Browne, Desmond

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale &

  Bruce, Malcolm

  Darwen)

  Bryant, Chris

  Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Burden, Richard

  Bailey, Adrian

  Burgon, Colin

  Baird, Vera

  Burnham, Andy

  Banks, Tony

  Burstow, Paul

  Barron, rh Kevin

  Byers, rh Stephen

  Battle, John

  Cable, Dr. Vincent

  Bayley, Hugh

  Caborn, rh Richard

  Beard, Nigel

  Cairns, David

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Beith, rh A. J.

  Calton, Mrs Patsy

  Benn, rh Hilary

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Benton, Joe (Bootle)

  Campbell, rh Menzies (NE Fife)

  Berry, Roger

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Betts, Clive

  Casale, Roger

  Blackman, Liz

  Caton, Martin

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

  Blizzard, Bob

  Challen, Colin

  Boateng, rh Paul

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

  Chaytor, David

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Clapham, Michael

  Breed, Colin

  Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

  1682

  Clark, Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Pentlands)

  Hendrick, Mark

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge &

  Heppell, John

  Chryston)

  Hewitt, rh Ms Patricia

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Heyes, David

  Coaker, Vernon

  Hinchliffe, David

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)

  Colman, Tony

  Holmes, Paul

  Hood, Jimmy (Clydesdale)

  Cook, rh Robin (Livingston)

  Hope, Phil (Corby)

  Cooper, Yvette

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Cranston, Ross

  Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E)

  Cruddas, Jon

  Howells, Dr. Kim

  Cummings, John

  Hughes, Beverley (Stretford &

  Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

  Urmston)

  Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

  David, Wayne

  Hutton, rh John

  Davidson, Ian

  Iddon, Dr. Brian

  Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

  Illsley, Eric

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Irranca-Davies, Huw

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Denham, rh John

  Jamieson, David

  Dhanda, Parmjit

  Jenkins, Brian

  Dismore, Andrew

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

  Doran, Frank

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn

  Hatfield)

  Doughty, Sue

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

  Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Eagle, Maria (L'poolGarston)

  Jowell, rh Tessa

  Edwards, Huw

  Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

  Efford, Clive

  Kaufman, rh Gerald

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Keen, Ann (Brentford)

  Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

  Keetch, Paul

  Farrelly, Paul

  Kemp, Fraser

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Kennedy, rh Charles (Ross Skye &

  Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

  Inverness)

  Flint, Caroline

  Khabra, Piara S.

  Follett, Barbara

  Kidney, David

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Foster, Michael (Worcester)

  King, Andy (Rugby)

  Foulkes, rh George

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green &

  Francis, Dr. Hywel

  Bow)

  Gapes, Mike (llfordS)

  Kirkwood, Sir Archy

  Gardiner, Barry

  Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

  Kumar, Dr. Ashok

  George, Andrew (St. Ives)

  Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

  George, rh Bruce (Walsall S)

  Laws, David (Yeovil)

  Gerrard, Neil

  Lazarowicz, Mark

  Gibson, Dr. Ian

  Lepper, David

  Gidley, Sandra

  Leslie, Christopher

  Gilroy, Linda

  Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

  Godsiff, Roger

  Liddell, rh Mrs Helen

  Goggins, Paul

  Linton, Martin

  Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

  Love, Andrew

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Luke, Iain (Dundee E)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Grogan, John

  McCabe, Stephen

  Hain, rh Peter

  McCartney, rh Ian

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  McFall, John

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

  McIsaac, Shona

  Hancock, Mike

  McKechin, Ann

  Hanson, David

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Harman, rh Ms Harriet

  MacShane, Denis

  Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil &

  McWalter, Tony

  Rhymney)

  McWilliam, John

  Healey, John

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Heath, David

  Mallaber, Judy

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Mann, John (Basset/aw)

  1683

  Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Sheridan, Jim

  Marshall, David (Glasgow

  Simon, Siôn (B'ham Erdington)

  Shettleston)

  Singh, Marsha

  Martlew, Eric

  Skinner, Dennis

  Meale, Alan (Mansfield)

  Smith, rh Andrew (Oxford E)

  Merron, Gillian

  Smith, rh Chris (Islington S &

  Michael, rh Alun

  Finsbury)

  Milburn, rh Alan

  Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe &

  Miliband, David

  Lunesdale)

  Miller, Andrew

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Mole, Chris

  Smith, Sir Robert (WAb'd'ns &

  Moore, Michael

  Kincardine)

  Morgan, Julie

  Soley, Clive

  Morley, Elliot

  Southworth, Helen

  Mudie, George

  Spellar, rh John

  Mullin, Chris

  Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

  Munn, Ms Meg

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Strang, rh Dr. Gavin

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Stunell, Andrew

  Murphy, rh Paul (Torfaen)

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Naysmith, Dr. Doug

  Tami, Mark (Alyn)

  Norris, Dan (Wansdyke)

  Taylor, rh Ann (Dewsbury)

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

  O'HIara, Edward

  Teather, Sarah

  Olner, Bill

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  O'Neill, Martin

  Thurso, John

  Öpik, Lembit

  Timms, Stephen

  Owen, Albert

  Tipping, Paddy

  Perham, Linda

  Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

  Picking, Anne

  Trickett, Jon

  Pickthall, Colin

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Pike, Peter (Burnley)

  Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton

  Plaskitt, James

  Kemptown)

  Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Pound, Stephen

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

  Prescott, rh John

  Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

  Primarolo, rh Dawn

  Vaz, Keith (Leicester E)

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Pugh, Dr. John

  Ward, Claire

  Purchase, Ken

  Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

  Purnell, James

  Watts, David

  Quin, rh Joyce

  White, Brian

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Whitehead, Dr. Alan

  Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Raynsford, rh Nick

  Williams, Betty (Conwy)

  Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

  Williams, Roger (Brecon)

  Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

  Wills, Michael

  Reid, rh Dr. John (Hamilton N &

  Winnick, David

  Bellshill)

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster

  Rendel, David

  C)

  Robertson, John (Glasgow

  Worthington, Tony

  Anniesland)

  Wright, Anthony D. (Gt

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry

  Yarmouth)

  NW)

  Wright, David (Telford)

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  Ruane, Chris

  Wyatt, Derek

  Ruddock, Joan

  Younger-Ross, Richard

  Russell, Ms Christine (City of

  Chester)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

  Mr. Nick Ainger and

  Salter, Martin

  Ms Bridget Prentice

  Sanders, Adrian

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Bellingham, Henry

  Bercow, John

  Ancram, rh Michael

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Arbuthnot, rh James

  Blunt, Crispin

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

  Boswell, Tim

  Brady, Graham

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Brazier, Julian

  Bacon, Richard

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Barnes, Harry

  Burnside, David

  Burt, Alistair

  Baron, John (Billericay)

  Butterfill, John

  1684

  Cash, William

  Malins, Humfrey

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Barnet)

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Chope, Christopher

  Mercer, Patrick

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton

  Collins, Tim

  Coldfield)

  Connarty, Michael

  Moss, Malcolm

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Murrison, Dr. Andrew

  Curry, rh David

  Norman, Archie

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham &

  Osborne, George (Tatton)

  Stamford)

  Ottaway, Richard

  Djanogly, Jonathan

  Page, Richard

  Dorrell, rh Stephen

  Paice, James

  Duncan, Peter (Galloway)

  Paterson, Owen

  Duncan Smith, rh lain

  Portillo, rh Michael

  Evans, Nigel

  Price, Adam (E Carmarthen &

  Ewing, Annabelle

  Dinefwr)

  Fabricant, Michael

  Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

  Fallon, Michael

  Randall, John

  Field, Mark (Cities of London &

  Redwood, rh John

  Westminster)

  Robathan, Andrew

  Fisher, Mark

  Robertson, Hugh (Faversham &

  Flook, Adrian

  M-Kent)

  Forth, rh Eric

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Francois, Mark

  Rosindell, Andrew

  Gale, Roger (N Thanet)

  Ruffley, David

  Garnier, Edward

  Salmond, Alex

  Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis)

  Selous, Andrew

  Gray, James (TV Wilts)

  Shephard, rh Mrs Gillian

  Grayling, Chris

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Green, Damian (Ashford)

  Simpson, Keith (M-Norfolk)

  Greenway, John

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Grieve, Dominic

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Gummer, rh John

  Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

  Hammond, Philip

  Spring, Richard

  Hayes, John (S Holland)

  Steen, Anthony

  Heald, Oliver

  Streeter, Gary

  Heathcoat-Amory, rh David

  Swayne, Desmond

  Hendry, Charles

  Swire, Hugo (EDevon)

  Hoban, Mark (Fareham)

  Syms, Robert

  Hogg, rh Douglas

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Horam, John (Orpington)

  Taylor, Dr. Richard (Wyre F)

  Hunter, Andrew

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Jack, rh Michael

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Tredinnick, David

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

  Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Key, Robert (Salisbury)

  Viggers, Peter

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Walter, Robert

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Waterson, Nigel

  Lansley, Andrew

  Weir, Michael

  Leigh, Edward

  Whittingdale, John

  Letwin, rh Oliver

  Widdecombe, rh Miss Ann

  Liddell-Grainger, Ian

  Wiggin, Bill

  Lidington, David

  Wilkinson, John

  Loughton, Tim

  Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

  Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

  Wishart, Pete

  Mcintosh, Miss Anne

  Mackay, rh Andrew

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Maclean, rh David

  Gregory Barker and

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Angela Watkinson

  Question accordingly agreed to.

  ASYLUM AND IMMIGRATION (TREATMENT OF CLAIMANTS, ETC.) 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 Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—
  (1) expenditure of a Minister of the Crown in connection with the Act, and
  (2) any increase attributable to the Act in sums payable out of money provided by Parliament under another enactment. —[Mr. Jim Murphy.]
  Question agreed to.

  ASYLUM AND IMMIGRATION (TREATMENT OF CLAIMANTS, ETC.) 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 Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Bill, it is expedient to authorise the charging of fees in relation to applications and processes under the Immigration Acts. —[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),

  JUSTICE
  That the draft Justice (Northern Ireland) Act 2002 (Amendment of section 46(1) and paragraph 7(2) of Schedule 8) Order 2003, which was laid before this House on 27th November, be approved. —[Mr. Jim Murphy.]
  Question agreed to.

PETITIONS

  Hockley Post Office
  7.42 pm
  Mr. Mark Francois: I wish to present a petition on behalf of the residents of Hockley, Essex, in protest at the proposed closure of the post office at Apex Corner in my constituency. The local residents, led by their councillors, Keith Hudson and Colin and Liv Hungate, are rightly concerned about the
  1686
  possible loss of that important facility, not least as the proposed alternative office is nearly a mile away, over uneven ground, and there is no direct bus route.
  Accordingly the petition states:
  To the House of Commons:
  The Petition of the Residents of Hockley, Essex
  Declares that the Petitioners are worried by the proposed closure of the post office at Apex Corner in Hockley, as the residents feel there is a need for such a local facility, particularly in an area with a significant number of elderly residents.
  The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons takes heed of their concerns and calls upon the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to help keep this important post office open.
  And the Petitioners remain etc.
  To lie upon the Table.

  Greenfield Development
  7.44 pm
  Mr. John Greenway: I beg leave to present a petition on behalf of more than 800 of my constituents who are residents of Osbaldwick, a rural village on the outskirts of York.
  The petition states:
  To the House of Commons
  The Petition of the Residents of Osbaldwick, York
  Declares that the proposed development by the Joseph Rowntree Housing Trust of green field land at Metcalfe Lane, Osbaldwick, originally part of the Greater York draft green belt, and owned by the City of York Council, will have an adverse impact on the surrounding area and is unacceptable in its present form because the Trust together with the City of York Council have failed to provide for a proper independent new access road in their plans.
  The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges that the Deputy Prime Minister as Secretary of State for Planning calls in the application and convenes a public enquiry in order that the planning application can be determined not by the City of York Council as owners of the land but by an independent planning inspector whose decision in regard to the application would command greater public confidence.
  And the petitioners remain.
  To lie upon the Table.

  Children at Risk
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. —[Mr. Jim Murphy.]
  7.45 pm
  Mr. John Baron: First, I thank the Minister and the Home Office team for fielding the debate. I am conscious that I am keeping the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues away from the office Christmas party.
  The Minister will be aware of the issue that I wish to raise with him, as we have corresponded on the matter. I have recently spoken with his office and e-mailed a summary of the key points that I will be raising this evening in the hope that he will directly address the issues at hand.
  My concern centres around the fact that some people on the sex offenders register, particularly those who have been cautioned rather than convicted, are able to offer themselves directly to the general public as home education tutors and to undertake one-to-one tuition without contravening any rules or regulations. What appears to compound the problem is that where tutors are not offering themselves through an agency but advertising directly to the public, parents have little or no ability to check their backgrounds independently of the tutor with any of the authorities.
  I am not suggesting for one moment that this is a wide-scale problem, but I believe that it is one of those situations which, should it go wrong, could go wrong in a big way. The issue was first brought to my attention by one of my local newspapers, the Evening Echo, which highlighted the case of a home tutor in south Essex who was still teaching despite having been caught with indecent images of children on his home computer. The individual was not charged but received a caution and was placed on the register for five years. Apparently he has continued to run his private education business through Yellow Pages and a website, and he is still not breaking any rules or laws.
  Since then, constituents have written to me about this issue and I have taken it up with the Home Office, the Department for Education and Skills, Essex police, Essex county council and the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children. The responses from the Home Office and the DFES have, in my view, not been satisfactory. That is why I have asked for this debate and for the Minister to answer a few questions. There appears to be a loophole in the law that needs to be plugged for the sake both of children and of vulnerable adults.
  Early written responses to my letters dated 8 September from both the Minister for School Standards and the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale, East (Paul Goggins), dated 5 and 13 October respectively, outline the present position very clearly.
  The sex offenders' register has a specific purpose — it is an administrative measure intended to aid the police in the monitoring of sex offenders in the community. There is nothing barring someone on the register from a particular type of employment. When society in general tries to protect children and vulnerable adults, it is essentially done through three filters. There is the
  1688
  Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000, list 99 and the Protection of Children Act 1999 list. Under the first Act, as amended, people who commit offences against children can be made subject to a disqualification order. List 99 has a wider application, this being a list of people who have been barred or have been restricted from providing education or carrying out work that involves regular contact with children under the age of 18. The Protection of Children Act list also does its bit to monitor people who are considered unsuitable for work with children.
  In all such cases both the Under-Secretary of State and the Minister for School Standards have confirmed that it is an offence for a disqualified person to apply for, offer to do, accept or do any work with children. This is all very well and understood, but the answers from the Home Office and DFES did not address my central concern. What about individuals who are on the sex offenders register because they have been cautioned, perhaps for possessing indecent images, and are therefore not disqualified from undertaking home tutoring? The position of people convicted of an offence is relatively straightforward — a disqualification order can be applied for and obtained, if that is thought necessary. However, people who have simply been cautioned escape disqualification orders, despite the fact that they are on the register. When I put that to both Departments, the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department eventually replied that the Home Office believes that the matters raised are the responsibility of the Department for Education and Skills, while the Minister for School Standards, in his letter dated 30 November, simply reiterated the contents of his previous letters. In my view, both failed to address adequately my central concern.
  My correspondence with Essex county council and Essex police was much more fruitful. Both believe that there is a loophole that needs to be closed. The police do everything in their power in their monitoring interviews to ensure that children and vulnerable adults are protected, but they accept that there are people on the register who are not barred from home tutoring. In addition, their intelligence-gathering activities are not subject to Home Office guidelines but are left to individual officers, which leads to variation in monitoring between police forces. Essex county council accepts that a loophole exists:
  "To date the DFES have not strengthened the statutory framework which remains with the LEA having a responsibility to monitor home education, but without the statutory requirements for parents to contact us. The proposal that you make is seen as long overdue, but this is a national and not a local issue and therefore the remedy lies with the Secretary of State."
  In addition, discussions with the NSPCC have confirmed its concern about the loophole. Work has been undertaken to address the matter in the past, but it remains concerned that not enough is being done. The police have additional powers to try to deal with the situation. For example, they have the power to issue a sex offender order to stop someone acting as a home tutor on a one-to-one basis, but as yet, to my knowledge, not one such order has been issued or used. The police also have the power to disclose to parents an offender's record if they think that it could prevent a crime from being committed. In both cases, good intelligence is essential, but can vary from one force to another. While

  1689
  people with cautions who are on the register and are undertaking home education are not breaking any laws, the measures that I have just mentioned are not fail-safe.
  Parents are limited in what they can do to check the background of prospective home tutors. That is particularly the case if a home tutor advertises his services without going through an agency. Parents wishing to make checks cannot gain access to, or check with, list 99, the Criminal Records Bureau or, indeed, the sex offenders register, although I accept that there are good reasons for the latter restriction. The general public cannot even obtain relevant information by going to the local education authority or county council. Indeed, LEAs have no formal or legitimised process to check on parents' behalf, and have no authority to do so. Even the most diligent parent can only rely at present on references supplied by the home tutor.
  In response to my inquiries, the Minister for School Standards suggested that parents could safeguard against appointing an unsuitable person by engaging a home tutor through a tuition agency. However, that does not address the fact that many home tutors advertise their services directly to parents without going through an agency. Many parents may, for example, believe that, having advertised in the Yellow Pages, the home tutor is credible and would have undergone various checks by the authorities, whoever they are. It is dangerous to assume that all parents are as aware of the various checks and balances as we are. Even if they are, their power to investigate is severely restricted. That assumption certainly underlies many of the responses from both the Home Office and the Department for Education and Skills.
  Changes are in the offing to make the CRB more helpful. For example, at present there is only a standard or an enhanced disclosure. Although such disclosures include spent and unspent convictions as well as those on list 99, they cannot be accessed by individuals such as parents or home tutors. After much delay, a basic disclosure will be available to individuals by the end of next year, as I understand it, but the information that it contains will be limited. For example, only current convictions will be included, and list 99 will be excluded. Theoretically, therefore, a home tutor who has served a sentence for previous convictions and has no unspent convictions at present would not show up under such a disclosure.
  More promising are the proposals for the establishment of vetting agencies, whereby individuals could get enhanced disclosures. I understand that that will be introduced in relation to disabled people by the middle of next year, with a facility available for those who work with children some time thereafter. I have been informed that such enhanced disclosures would, without question, include all individuals on the sex offenders register. However, with regard to both initiatives, the onus is on the parents to be aware of and to undertake the necessary checks. I hope that, particularly when the second initiative is introduced, the Government will do what they can through an advertising campaign and the like to make the public fully aware of the checks that are available. The checks will have little use if no one knows they exist.
  As to how we can plug the loophole, I ask the Minister to reconsider a number of suggestions. The first is a simple measure — to make it illegal for anyone placed on
  1690
  the sex offenders register for being cautioned in relation to children to undertake one-to-one home tuition with children or vulnerable adults. That would remain in force for as long as the said person was on the register.
  A further consideration would be to introduce a licensing scheme whereby all home tutors would need to register with a reputable body, perhaps the local education authority, in order to teach children. Essex county council believes that that is the right way forward. It states:
  "There is no statutory basis for a registration scheme.… intervention by the Secretary of State for Education and the Home Secretary on this point would be more than welcome in order that we can be empowered to take action in appropriate cases."
  If taxi drivers can be registered, there is no earthly reason why home tutors should not also be licensed.
  The Minister's written response to me suggests that the Government have no plans to license home tutors, however, and goes on to repeat that parents have the option of appointing a home tutor who is employed by an agency. I ask the Minister now to reconsider the position.
  In conclusion, there is no doubt that there is a loophole in the law. Non-Government bodies such as Essex county council, Essex police and the NSPCC have confirmed that. Those on the register, having been cautioned in relation to children, can and do advertise themselves directly to the public as home tutors without contravening any laws or regulations. There are insufficient checks to stop that happening.
  Parents have little or no ability independently to check the records held by the authorities on potential home tutors, and therefore rely almost exclusively on references supplied by the home tutor. It is accepted that the police have additional powers, but those are not fail safe for the reasons outlined— for example, not one sex offenders order has been issued to date.
  Changes are being made to the way the Criminal Records Bureau functions, but completion dates, if attained, are some way in the future. Meanwhile, the Government's continued insistence that it is the parents' responsibility to employ home tutors through agencies rests on a dangerous assumption that all parents are fully aware of the various checks and balances that exist and of where the system fails.
  As I said at the beginning, the problem is not widespread. Cases are relatively few and far between, but should such a situation go wrong, it could go wrong in a big way. I am concerned about the Government's apparent unwillingness to address the issue properly. Having been unable to get the Government adequately to focus on the issue through correspondence, I look forward to the Minister's reply in the hope that he will adequately address the issue.
  7.59
  Sir Paul Beresford: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mr. Baron) and thank him and the Minister for the opportunity to add a few words on the issue. We need an additional approach and the Minister will be aware of the direction I am coming from, because we discussed the matter in connection with the Sexual Offences Act 2003.
  The police have a requirement to monitor and risk-assess people, particularly paedophiles, on the sexual offenders list. But as the Minister will know — this is a

  1691
  difficulty, as I think my hon. Friend will agree — it is my belief that we, like many western nations, should allow right of entry to the police when they knock on the door to risk-assess such individuals. Unusually in the western world, British police do not have that opportunity, and the particular individuals about whom my hon. Friend speaks could be risk-assessed at any time by the police if they had the opportunity to enter.
  The Minister, in a letter to me, points out that the Association of Chief Police Officers reports that there is 90 per cent. compliance with the registration requirements, and that is fine, as I think everyone agrees, but that does not amount to risk assessment. The mere fact that offenders have filled in a form stating where they are and what they are doing to the limited extent required of them, does not give the police any opportunity to check.
  The Act contains a new power to which the Minister refers in his letter to me, which will
  "enable the information notified by registered sex offenders to be regularly checked against information held by other agencies."
  As the Minister knows, that is happening now, but it allows the police to check only the information that they already have and does not help with risk assessment.
  The Minister's letter goes on to talk about the multi-agency public protection arrangements, and to a fair degree they are already having an effect, but again the police say that they do not help them. Mr. Sarti, the detective chief inspector in charge of the Metropolitan police paedophile unit, who is known to the Minister because he escorted him round Scotland Yard and also presented the difficulties from the point of view of the police to the Committee that considered the Sexual Offences Bill, has sent me a considerable list of what he calls entrenched paedophiles who are not behaving within the spirit of the law, and that number is growing as it becomes apparent to entrenched paedophiles that the police do not have right of entry.
  I shall take just one individual who is categorised as medium risk. He was convicted of indecent assault on a male aged eight years and received three years' imprisonment. I shall not go into details because it is before the hour and I see that a few are observing and listening in, but whenever the police knock on his door he refuses to let them in or even face them at the door, and talks to them through the intercom. There is fair knowledge that he has a live-in girlfriend, but because he lives in a block of flats the police are unsure whether she has any children. They have tried to monitor him and assess the risk, but they have got absolutely nowhere because this individual knows that the police have no right to step any further.
  I should be grateful if the Minister could think about this again. I have an enormous list that I could provide him with, but he does not need it. He knows the situation, and I hope that even at this late stage there can be a rethink.
  Before I sit down, I should say that I am extremely late, not for the Home Office party, but for another event that I must attend, so with the permission of the House I shall disappear; but I will read the Minister's words with considerable interest, and I hope that I will not have to follow them up.
  8.3 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department(Paul Goggins): If the hon. Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford) has to leave, I know that it is not from a lack of interest in the issue: he and I served on the Committee that considered the Sexual Offences Bill, so I know of his long-standing interest.
  I congratulate the hon. Member for Billericay (Mr. Baron) on initiating this debate, so giving the House the opportunity to discuss this important subject, which, as he said, he has raised with me and with the Minister for School Standards.
  I welcome the way in which the hon. Gentleman has introduced the topic for debate and I am grateful for the prior notice that he gave me of the issues that he wished to discuss. He has put his finger on an important issue, which he describes as a loophole. I hope that some of the things that I say tonight will offer him some reassurance. I will consider the matter carefully, particularly the comments that he made at the end and the proposals that he put forward, and I look forward to having further discussions with him on the matter in the weeks ahead.
  I am sure he understands that there is no difference between us at all in our objective, which is to protect children from sexual abuse. I know that the hon. Gentleman understands these matters, but it may be helpful if I make some comments about the sex offenders register and how it works. Part 1 of the Sex Offenders Act 1997 requires those convicted or cautioned for certain sex offences to notify their name, date of birth and address to the local police, as well as any subsequent changes to those details. Such offenders are also required to tell the police if they intend to travel overseas for eight days of more or if they stay at another address in the United Kingdom for 14 days or more. Those provisions are to be tightened up as a result of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. It is important to emphasise that, as the hon. Gentleman said, registration is an administrative measure that is intended to help the police manage sex offenders in the community. It is an automatic consequence of a conviction or a caution for a specified offence — the courts have no discretion over who goes on the register. As registration is not therefore an additional penalty or punishment, applying prohibitions to the notification requirements would undermine that status
  It may also be worth mentioning that because registration is an administrative measure rather than a court disposal, it is not reflected in the disclosures that are provided by the Criminal Records Bureau, which show convictions and cautions for offences, not the fact that the person is a registered sex offender. All registered offenders would be covered by these disclosures, but that is because of their offences rather than the fact that they are registered.
  The notification process is commonly known as the sex offenders register, but there is no central register as such: instead, offenders are identified as being subject to the notification requirements by a marker on the police national computer. That will change next year when we introduce VISOR — the violent and sex offenders register. That, together with the multi-agency public protection arrangements, or MAPPA, which we have already put in place, will significantly improve the way

  1693
  in which police and probation services manage sex offenders living in the community. Those improvements in the management of offenders will mean, for example, that the police will be far more likely to be aware when an offender is operating as a private tutor.
  The purpose of the notification requirements is to ensure that the police know the identity and whereabouts of convicted sex offenders in their area. That helps the police in two ways. First, it helps them to manage sex offenders who are living in the community — for example, by enabling them to know when a sex offender is living next to a school or near a victim. Secondly, it helps in the detection of future sexual crimes, because the police immediately know the whereabouts of potential suspects. The notification requirements do not prohibit sex offenders from doing anything. They do not prevent them from moving house, from using another name or from travelling overseas — nor do they bar them from any form of employment. That has never been the purpose of the requirements, which are simply intended to enable the police to know where sex offenders are living and what names they are using.
  As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, part 2 of the Sexual Offences Act, which received Royal Assent in November, re-enacts and improves the provisions relating to sex offender registration. We have, for example, shortened the time scales in which offenders must make their notifications, and introduced a requirement whereby they must annually confirm their details to the police. We are also changing the period that they can spend overseas or at an address other than their home address before they need to tell the police; and providing a power to allow the police to photograph or fingerprint an offender each time they make a notification. Those changes will further improve the effectiveness of the register.
  Although registration is not a suitable means of prohibiting sex offenders from working as private tutors, it should be noted that, as the hon. Gentleman said, convicted sex offenders can be made subject to a sex offender order. Those orders are made by the magistrates court and place prohibitions on an offender's behaviour where such prohibitions are needed to protect the public from serious harm. If someone with a previous conviction or caution for a sexual offence against children were to set themselves up as a private tutor, and there was evidence that in doing so they might commit further offences against children, the police could apply for a sex offender order that would prohibit them from working with children in that way.
  There is therefore a way of stopping convicted paedophiles from working as home tutors. It could be used, for example, against someone who receives a caution or a fine for the possession of child pornography. The hon. Gentleman said that no such orders had been made in relation to private tutors, but we will make it clear in our guidance to the police that the orders can be used for that purpose. We will draw their attention to the use of that order, as he suggested.
  Let us consider disqualification from working with children, including working as a private tutor. A person can be disqualified from working with children in three
  1694
  ways. First, in the case of teachers or those who work in the education sector, there are established procedures for anyone whose conduct has given cause for concern to be referred to the Department for Education and Skills. Indeed, the hon. Gentleman referred to List 99, to which names can be added.
  Similarly, child care and other organisations are charged under the Protection of Children Act 1999 with referring to the Secretary of State for Education and Skills — previously to the Secretary of State for Health — the case of anyone who has been dismissed on grounds of misconduct, whether in the course of their employment or not, that harmed a child or placed a child at risk. The Secretary of State has the power to place such a person on the Protection of Children Act — POCA — list, which disqualifies a person from working with children.
  When a person is convicted of serious offences against children, the court can also make an order disqualifying them from working with children in future. The orders, which are known as disqualification orders, are made by the higher courts against a specified list of violent and sexual offences when a sentence threshold is met. The orders seek to minimise the risks that known child sex offenders present by depriving them of the opportunity to gain access to children through work.
  Mr. Baron: I thank the Minister for recognising that there is an issue to tackle. I have taken on board his comments about making the police more aware of the availability of sex offender orders with regard to home tutors. Despite the detail that he is providing, does he accept that there remains a loophole in the law, which could allow those cautioned and on the sex offenders register to teach as home tutors?.
  Paul Goggins: I admitted at the beginning of my speech that there was an issue. I am suggesting that there are several ways in which people who clearly pose a danger to children could be anticipated by police through the new powers that we have given them and with the some of the new procedures. However, I acknowledge that we do not have a perfect solution and I am prepared to reflect on the hon. Gentleman's comments and continue to consider the matter. I emphasise that we do not have a gaping loophole; we are further along the road than that. There are measures that can help.
  All three cases that I outlined are covered by the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000. Under that, it is an offence, punishable by up to five years in prison, for a person who is disqualified from working with children to apply for, offer to do, accept or undertake any work involving children, including acting as a private tutor. Private tutors who were caught in the circumstances that I outlined would face up to five years in prison if they even attempted to work as a private tutor. The fact that a person is disqualified from working with children would appear as part of an enhanced or standard disclosure from the Criminal Records Bureau.
  The hon. Gentleman is right that parents who employ a private tutor are unable to access higher level disclosures from the Criminal Records Bureau. That is because exemptions from the Rehabilitation of

  1695
  Offenders Act 1974 and the Police Act 1997, which govern the matter, are available only when people are considering someone's suitability
  "in the course of the duties of his office or employment".
  Clearly, that does not apply to parents who want to use a private tutor. We have no plans to change the law to provide that sort of access through the Criminal Records Bureau. Indeed, the body that reviewed the 1974 Act in 2001 –; 02 was not persuaded that it would be appropriate for the law to be changed. Clearly, there is a balance to be struck between, for example, privacy and protection, and confidentiality and rehabilitation.
  1696
  We continue to explore the possibility of organisations such as local authorities providing a service as a "vetting body" for those who cannot access the Criminal Records Bureau for themselves. I hope that that reassures the hon. Gentleman. Such organisations could access the system but would not relay to their clients the precise information that they received from the bureau. Instead, they would provide an assessment —
  The motion having been made after Seven o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at fifteen minutes past Eight o'clock.

  Deferred Division

    EXTRADITION
    That the draft Extradition Act 2003 (Designation of Part 2 Territories) Order 2003, which was laid before this House on 3rd December, be approved.
    The House divided: Ayes 243. Noes 43.

    Division No.15]

    AYES

    Abbott, Ms Diane

    Denham, rh John

    Ainger, Nick

    Dhanda, Parmjit

    Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

    Dismore, Andrew

    Alexander, Douglas

    Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

    Anderson, Janet (Rossendale &

    Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

    Darwen)

    Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

    Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

    Eagle, Maria (L'poolGarston)

    Atherton, Ms Candy

    Efford, Clive

    Austin, John

    Ellman, Mrs Louise

    Bailey, Adrian

    Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

    Baird, Vera

    Farrelly, Paul

    Barnes, Harry

    Field, rh Frank (Birkenhead)

    Bayley, Hugh

    Fitzpatrick, Jim

    Beard, Nigel

    Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

    Begg, Miss Anne

    Flint, Caroline

    Beggs, Roy (E Antrim)

    Flynn, Paul (Newport W)

    Benn, rh Hilary

    Follett, Barbara

    Bennett, Andrew

    Foster, Michael (Worcester)

    Benton, Joe (Bootle)

    Foulkes, rh George

    Blackman, Liz

    Francis, Dr. Hywel

    Blair, rh Tony

    Gapes, Mike (llford S)

    Blizzard, Bob

    Gerrard, Neil

    Blunkett, rh David

    Gibson, Dr. Ian

    Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

    Gilroy, Linda

    Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

    Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

    Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    Wallsend)

    Grogan, John

    Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

    Hain, rh Peter

    Browne, Desmond

    Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

    Bryant, Chris

    Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

    Burden, Richard

    Hanson, David

    Burgon, Colin

    Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

    Burnham, Andy

    Healey, John

    Byers, rh Stephen

    Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

    Cairns, David

    Hendrick, Mark

    Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

    Heppell, John

    Caplin, Ivor

    Hermon, Lady

    Casale, Roger

    Hewitt, rh Ms Patricia

    Caton, Martin

    Heyes, David

    Challen, Colin

    Hill, Keith (Streatham)

    Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

    Hinchliffe, David

    Chaytor, David

    Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)

    Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

    Hood, Jimmy (Clydesdale)

    Clark, Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh

    Hope, Phil (Corby)

    Pentlands)

    Hopkins, Kelvin

    Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

    Howarth, George (Knowsley N &

    Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge &

    Sefton E)

    Chryston)

    Hughes, Beverley (Stretford &

    Clelland, David

    Urmston)

    Coaker, Vernon

    Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

    Coffey, Ms Ann

    Humble, Mrs Joan

    Coleman, Iain

    Hutton, rh John

    Colman, Tony

    Iddon, Dr. Brian

    Cooper, Yvette

    Illsley, Eric

    Cruddas, Jon

    Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

    Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

    Jamieson, David

    Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

    Jenkins, Brian

    Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

    Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

    Darling, rh Alistair

    Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn

    Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

    Hatfield)

    David, Wayne

    Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

    Davidson, Ian

    Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

    Davis, rh Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

    Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

    Dean, Mrs Janet

    Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

    1698

    Kelly, Ruth (Bolton W)

    Prosser, Gwyn

    Kemp, Fraser

    Purchase, Ken

    Khabra, Piara S.

    Purnell, James

    Kidney, David

    Quinn, Lawrie

    King, Andy (Rugby)

    Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

    King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green &

    Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

    Bow)

    Reid, rh Dr. John (Hamilton N &

    Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

    Bellshill)

    Kumar, Dr. Ashok

    Robertson, John (Glasgow

    Lazarowicz, Mark

    Anniesland)

    Lepper, David

    Ruane, Chris

    Leslie, Christopher

    Ruddock, Joan

    Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

    Russell, Ms Christine (City of

    Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

    Chester)

    Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

    Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

    Liddell, rh Mrs Helen

    Savidge, Malcolm

    Linton, Martin

    Sawford, Phil

    Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

    Sheerman, Barry

    Love, Andrew

    Sheridan, Jim

    Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

    Shipley, Ms Debra

    Luke, Iain (Dundee E)

    Singh, Marsha

    Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)

    Smith, rh Andrew (Oxford E)

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Smith, John (Glamorgan)

    McCabe, Stephen

    Soley, Clive

    McDonagh, Siobhain

    Southworth, Helen

    MacDonald, Calum

    Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

    McIsaac, Shona

    Squire, Rachel

    McKechin, Ann

    Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

    McNulty, Tony

    Steinberg, Gerry

    Mactaggart, Fiona

    Stevenson, George

    McWalter, Tony

    Stewart, David (Inverness E &

    McWilliam, John

    Lochaber)

    Mallaber, Judy

    Stoate, Dr. Howard

    Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

    Stringer, Graham

    Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

    Stuart, Ms Gisela

    Sutcliffe, Gerry

    Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

    Tami, Mark (Alyn)

    Marshall, David (Glasgow

    Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

    Shettleston)

    Taylor, David (NW Leics)

    Martlew, Eric

    Merron, Gillian

    Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

    Michael, rh Alun

    Timms, Stephen

    Milburn, rh Alan

    Tipping, Paddy

    Miliband, David

    Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

    Miller, Andrew

    Touhig, Don (Islwyn)

    Trickett, Jon

    Moran, Margaret

    Trimble, rh David

    Morgan, Julie

    Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

    Morley, Elliot

    Turner, Neil (Wigan)

    Mountford, Kali

    Twigg, Derek (Halton)

    Munn, Ms Meg

    Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

    Naysmith, Dr. Doug

    Vaz, Keith (Leicester E)

    Norris, Dan (Wansdyke)

    Vis, Dr. Rudi

    O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

    Walley, Ms Joan

    O'Hara, Edward

    Wareing, Robert N.

    Olner, Bill

    Watts, David

    O'Neill, Martin

    White, Brian

    Owen, Albert

    Wicks, Malcolm

    Perham, Linda

    Williams, Betty (Conwy)

    Picking, Anne

    Williams, Roger (Brecon)

    Pickthall, Colin

    Winnick, David

    Plaskitt, James

    Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster

    Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

    C)

    Pound, Stephen

    Wright, Anthony D. (Gt

    Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham

    Yarmouth)

    E)

    Wright, David (Telford)

    Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

    Wyatt, Derek

    NOES

    Baker, Norman

    Chidgey, David

    Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

    Cotter, Brian

    Breed, Colin

    Davey, Edward (Kingston)

    Bruce, Malcolm

    Doughty, Sue

    Burstow, Paul

    Ewing, Annabelle

    Cable, Dr. Vincent

    George, Andrew (St. Ives)

    Calton, Mrs Patsy

    Gidley, Sandra

    Campbell, rh Menzies (NE Fife)

    Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

    1699

    Hancock, Mike

    Llwyd, Elfyn

    Heath, David

    Price, Adam (E Carmarthen &

    Holmes, Paul

    Dinefwr)

    Keetch, Paul

    Pugh, Dr. John

    Kennedy, rh Charles (Ross Skye &

    Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

    Inverness)

    Rendel, David

    Kirkwood, Sir Archy

    Russell, Bob (Colchester)

    Laws, David (Yeovil)

    Sanders, Adrian

    1700

    Skinner, Dennis

    Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

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

    Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

    Kincardine)

    Webb, Steve (Northavon)

    Smyth, Rev. Martin (Belfast S)

    Weir, Michael

    Stunell, Andrew

    Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

    Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

    Wishart, Pete

    Taylor, Dr. Richard (Wyre F)

    Younger-Roes, Richard

    Question accordingly agreed to.

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

Democratic Republic of the Congo
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Mr. Kemp.]
9.30 am
Ann McKechin: I am grateful for the opportunity to initiate a debate on an area of the world that rarely receives much media or political attention in the west, but that in recent years has been the scene of one of the most bloody and terrifying conflicts in world history, with huge loss of life and horrendous human suffering. The complexity of the conflict and the numerous players within it have led to its being called Africa's version of the first world war, but there has been little perception in the west of the sheer scale of the human misery that the conflict has caused. I am talking about an estimated 3.5 million deaths, some 3.4 million displaced persons and the almost complete destruction of an already weak state infrastructure and economy. The effects have been particularly severe on women and children. Sexual violence is endemic, and armed groups continue to recruit children as soldiers, porters and cooks.
The history of the Democratic Republic of the Congo since independence in 1960 has been marked by continual civil war and corruption. The regime of the late President Mobutu between 1965 and his overthrow in 1997 saw institutionalised corruption to such a level that it has been called the world's first kleptocracy. Despite the country's enormous mineral wealth, the infrastructure crumbled and the state lost any form of authority over most of the country. Only the steadfast support of the west during the cold war kept Mobutu in power but, following the end of the cold war, the United States lost interest, leaving the regime increasingly vulnerable.
In 1996, a rebellion broke out in the Kivus in the eastern DRC, led by Laurent Kabila and backed by the Rwandan and Ugandan armies. All those parties wanted to overthrow the Mobutu regime and neutralise the threat of the various foreign militias operating in the eastern DRC, which threatened conflict in the wider great lakes region. Although the rebellion was successful, problems of regional security continued. Relationships between the Kabila regime and its former allies of Rwanda and Uganda quickly deteriorated as the latter accused the Kabila Government of failing to deal with the militias and even of arming them.
In August 1998, a new conflict broke out, with the Rwandan and Ugandan Governments providing support to the Rassemblement Congolais pour la Democratie. Loosely attached to the RCD was the Mouvement pour la Liberation du Congo based in the province of Equateur. In response, the Kabila Government, claiming that their sovereignty was threatened, called on the support of fellow south African Governments. That led to troops being sent
252WH
from the Governments of Zimbabwe, Angola, Namibia and Chad, with Burundi joining to support Rwanda and Uganda.
After an attempt at a peace agreement in Lusaka in 1999, the front lines became relatively static, with the RCD and Rwanda controlling the east, the MLC and Uganda the north, and the Government and their allies the south and west. However, fierce fighting continued, with clashes breaking out between former allies Rwanda and Uganda, as well as fighting among the various militia groups.
In January 2001, Laurent Kabila was assassinated, bringing his son Joseph to power. That change in leadership led to much greater progress on a peace process and eventually to the inter-Congolese dialogue in March and April 2002. From then on, we have witnessed the first steps, we hope, to a genuine movement for peace in the great lakes region, with the official withdrawal of Ugandan and Rwandan troops from the DRC in the past 12 months.
This summer saw the inauguration of a two-year transitional national Government, who include members of the existing DRC Government and of the RCD-Goma and the MLC. The challenges faced by the transitional Government are immense, and the next year will be crucial in establishing a permanent peace in the area.
In that context, the full-scale involvement of the international community, and particularly the UK Government, is vital if the efforts for peace are to succeed. The transitional Government strongly believe that the UK can play a key role in the months to follow and in October they extended an invitation to the all-party group on the great lakes region and genocide prevention, of which I am vice-chair, to visit Kinshasa and meet Ministers and parliamentarians. Unfortunately, I was unable to join the delegation, but I am pleased to see that several of the delegates are present today; no doubt they can add their own comments on that important visit. Later today, the all-party group will publish its report on the visit. I hope to touch on a number of important issues that it considered to be priorities for future UK policy.
In the words of a recent report from Amnesty International, all sides need
"to bridge the reality gap between their aspirations for reconciliation, justice and security and the devastating cycle of violence and human rights abuses, which continue to affect the east and threaten to bring these aspirations to nought"
The UK needs to intensify its political support for, and encouragement of, the transition. That is why I welcome my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's visit to the DRC just last week, and his commitment to providing substantial additional support over the next three years. I am sure that he would agree that it is more important than ever that we remain focused on the DRC until the proposed elections in 2005.
It is essential that the eventual elections at the end of the two-year transition be free, fair and well managed if they are to provide the necessary launch for a permanent Government. That is why I urge my right hon. Friend to ensure that we offer financial and material support for the preparation of the elections through the UN and the other international agencies, and that we offer support, training and expertise to the new Congolese

253WH
parliamentarians. Also, I hope that he will consider sponsoring a visit by Congolese parliamentarians to the UK as part of that. Having met one of the new senators a few days ago, I know that they would really appreciate the opportunity to engage with the international community.
I also welcome the Department for International Development's proposed engagement in supporting the transitional Government in their economic governance and, in particular, in enabling the DRC to clear its deficit with the African Development Bank. Can my right hon. Friend advise me on how soon our Government expect the transitional Government to benefit from relief under the heavily indebted poor countries initiative? Has the country reached the decision point in that process? As he will know, most of the debt was accrued, and most of the money squandered, under the Mobutu regime. The HIPC relief could eventually wipe out more than 80 per cent. of the debt, giving an added boost to basic health and education provision, which is crucial for the development of the country.
Even after debt relief, the DRC, by current forecasts, will need almost 40 per cent. of its revenue to service the remaining debt. Does my right hon. Friend agree that, given the very sad history of the country, there is a compelling argument for providing additional debt relief to allow it to work towards the millennium development goals? Also, can DFID support the customs agency, a vital element in tax collection for the nation, either directly or via a third-party agency?
The fragility of the peace cannot be ignored. The strengthening of the MONUC mission, with UN Security Council resolution 1493 covering all actions under chapter VII, is very welcome. After the massacre of civilians in Bunia in May, the UN Secretary-General, Kofi Annan, acted decisively in setting up an interim emergency multinational force and extending the MONUC mandate in July. Thankfully, for once the international community acted quickly in response to the appalling atrocities in that region.
The UN troops, led by the French, are to be congratulated on their efforts, which almost certainly prevented further massacres and human rights abuses. Among their biggest assets was their ability to speak French. That allowed them to communicate easily with the population and, just as importantly, to gather vital intelligence. I hope that the international community will learn the lessons from that exercise, particularly about the need for UN troops to be able to communicate directly with local populations whenever possible, and to be sufficiently powerful to effectively stop or slow the rate of violence in areas of conflict.
However, continued low-level conflict jeopardises the political process, with killings continuing in the Ituri district and the Kivu provinces. Amnesty International reported that, during its visit in October, 65 people were killed in a village near Bunia. The overwhelming majority of them were women and children. All the survivors that the organisation met bore horrendous injuries. Amnesty International also reported that the number of MONUC troops in the Kivus is so small as to make implementation of their mandate almost meaningless. It is worth noting that in Liberia, which is
254WH
one twentieth the size of the DRC, and which has a population almost seventeen times smaller, the UN mission has 6,000 more troops than MONUC has in the DRC. If the monitoring of rebel groups, as well as the policing of the arms embargo and the support of the enormous disarmament process are to be effective, it is essential that MONUC has the capacity that the task demands.
Mr. David Drew:My hon. Friend is making an excellent case. I declare an interest, as I was part of the delegation that included my right hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Chryston (Mr. Clarke) and my hon. Friends the Members for City of York (Hugh Bayley) and for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King).
I totally concur with what my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Ann McKechin) says about a lack of power. We were surprised at the limited number of British Army personnel that we saw in the DRC. I know that quality is important, and the people whom we met are of the highest standard, but their numbers are small. I hope that she agrees that if we are serious about keeping the peace in the DRC we should, through my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, talk to the Ministry of Defence about its obligations.
Ann McKechin: I entirely agree. Given the expertise of the UK defence forces, which has been drawn from conflict situations across the world over many years, they have a special contribution to make. I would welcome the Secretary of State's assurance that the Government remain willing to finance any necessary extension of funding to MONUC to allow it adequately to fulfil its mandate, and to consider with the MOD whether the UK armed forces can contribute to that very important task.
I also welcome DFID's support for the disarmament and demobilisation scheme and its commitment to spend £16.5 million on the programme over the next five years. My right hon. Friend will be aware that there are currently estimated to be about 200,000 armed men at large in the DRC. Some are from non-Congolese forces and will require repatriation to their country of origin. The disarming and resettling of 2,500 troops to date is a positive sign, but it is estimated that there are still up to 20,000 fighters from Rwanda, Uganda and Burundi in the jungles of the eastern DRC. The challenge of bringing them into the process is enormous.
If, initially, the remaining Congolese militias were to be enrolled in the armed forces of the transitional Government, the cost of paying, feeding and housing them would be huge and it would overwhelm the Government. Downsizing to the 40,000-strong army considered proportionate for such a country would then have to follow as a matter of urgency. As I am sure that my right hon. Friend would agree, in such circumstances it is particularly vital that the remaining troops who are offered a long-term military career are given a proper disarmament incentive, returned to their own province, fed and given a realistic opportunity of paid employment.
The all-party group has recommended a work-for-food programme, and I ask my right hon. Friend what discussions, if any, have taken place within the

255WH
international community about how to provide the necessary financial and logistical support for such a process. Would the UK Government be prepared to sponsor an independent work-for-food programme to spur others in the international community to contribute? If there is no offer of paid work for those men, we will inevitably see a return to banditry, rebel activity or lawlessness. It should be remembered that unpaid soldiers carried out widespread looting in the last years of Mobutu's regime. We must not repeat past failures that have caused so much misery.
Many child soldiers have also been recruited into the militias, mostly by force. A UN report in February estimated that in some cases up to 35 per cent. of frontline soldiers are children. I should be interested to hear whether DFID is able to offer any specialised assistance to rehabilitate those young people, many of whom have witnessed dreadful horrors during the years of conflict.
Earlier, I mentioned the involvement of Rwanda and Uganda and, to a lesser extent, Burundi in supporting rival militias in the eastern DRC. Substantial evidence exists to prove that foreign forces, together with groups in the DRC, have engaged in the systematic plunder of the country's natural resources and that the plunder was organised at the highest levels of state and military command.
Despite the formal withdrawal of troops from the DRC, there are numerous reports that Rwanda and Uganda continue to support, train and arm various militia and rebel groups still active in the DRC. Rwanda is also reported to be extremely close to the governors of North and South Kivu, both of whom are accused of building up substantial private armies.
In its last report published on 30 October, the UN panel of experts established that revenues from diamonds and gold, in addition to money raised at customs border posts, have enabled military and political actors to fund their military activities, including the purchase of arms. Amnesty International found that the warring factions committed serious human rights abuses, including unlawful killings, forced population displacement and torture, in order to control and profit from the DRC's natural resources. Congolese citizens, including children, have been forced to work in the mines as slave labour. International commercial traders, transporters and retailers, knowingly or unknowingly, have fed that cycle of abuse for their own profit and benefited from the lack of transparency in international business dealings in precious metals. The flow of arms, the exploitation and the continuation of conflict are inextricably linked. Breaking that vicious cycle will be the key to ending both the conflict and the illegal exploitation.
Given the existing partnership agreements and the level of aid flows to those countries from DFID, the UK Government are in a unique position of influence with regard to the involvement of both Rwanda and Uganda. As the Secretary of State will be aware, both countries have undertaken in their memorandum agreements to respect human rights and the sovereignty of the DRC. I urge the Government to use all their influence to stop those states from re-engaging in the DRC, either directly or indirectly through proxies, and to insist that they abide by the terms of UN Security Council resolution 1493, which imposed a military embargo on the areas.
256WH
Will the Minister assure the House that the UK Government will enforce aid conditionality linked to human rights obligations?
The report of the UN panel of experts identified at least eight British companies that may have breached Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development guidelines for multinational enterprises, and a number of dossiers have been forwarded to the Department of Trade and Industry to be followed up. I welcome the recent comments from the DTI as reported in The Independent on Sunday on 30 November. The report stated that the DTI has been in contact with those companies and is pressing them for information. It is vital that we set a strong example at home, and I urge the Government to issue at the earliest opportunity a comprehensive official reaction to the conclusions of the report and to ensure that appropriate action is taken to prevent future abuses.
Finally, I again emphasise the scale of the humanitarian crisis. It is essential that the Congolese population, who have suffered so much, see some quick gains if there is to be any hope of stability in the next couple of years. In last month's report on the DRC to the UN Security Council, Kofi Annan stated:
"Despite the strenuous efforts of the international community, the humanitarian situation is catastrophic. Much more work-and substantial funding-is required to ensure the implementation of the Transitional Government's road map for economic and social reunification and reconstruction".
For too long the international community has failed to provide the resources, and the political will and attention, to achieve tangible peace in this troubled area. For now, we have an opportunity to redress that deficit and I strongly urge our Government to continue and add to their efforts to secure progress for the Congolese people, who deserve our support, and who also deserve peace and justice.
The Secretary of State for International Development (Hilary Benn): On a point of order, Mr. O'Hara. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Ann McKechin) requested that the Government make a response to the UN panel report. The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), has today tabled a written statement to the House, which I understand has been available in the Library since 9.30 am. I have some copies with me. Would it be in order to circulate them to Members in the Chamber, if that would assist our debate?
Mr. Edward O'Hara: There are means within the Chamber of distributing the documents without interrupting the debate.
9.49 am
Mr. Tom Clarke:Although I shall be brief, I trust that I will be allowed a little injury time for that important intervention.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Ann McKechin) on obtaining the debate, on her excellent introductory speech and on allowing some of us time to make a contribution. She has done marvellous work in this field. I know that she would want to join me in thanking and congratulating

257WH
our hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King), who is unfortunately unable to be with us today, on the work that she has done on the all-party group and on leading the important delegation in which my hon. Friends the Members for City of York (Hugh Bayley) and for Stroud (Mr. Drew) took part. I am sure that they would agree that we were greatly assisted by the one-person secretariat, in the shape of Mr. Ben Shepherd. We all wish him well in his new responsibilities.
This is an important subject, and it is being raised at a significant time. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill that the regional problems that she described require regional solutions. Although it is right to analyse the problems and challenges in individual countries, it seems pointless simply to address what is happening in Uganda, Burundi or Rwanda, although I shall refer briefly to Uganda and Rwanda.
That point is underlined by the strong feeling that there is both a great challenge and tremendous potential in the region, which, if there is an international strategy, can offer hope for peace for the rest of the world. Britain is in a strong position to act because of DFID's excellent contribution. As a result of the resources that we are making available to individual countries in the region, as well as for other reasons, we are entitled to look afresh at the region's problems and challenges as the year ends, and at the opportunities for reaching a satisfactory conclusion.
I want to refer briefly to two countries that are pivotal in achieving that solution. We are looking forward to hearing from the Secretary of State about these matters, given his recent visit to the region. I was greatly troubled by comments reported in Ugandan and Kenyan newspapers on 14 November that were attributed to the United Nations official responsible for humanitarian aspects. I am sure that the comments were well informed and that the language was carefully chosen. We read that the UN Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs, Jan Egeland, said after visiting northern Uganda that the humanitarian situation was worse in the region than anywhere else in the world, including Iraq or Palestine. That is a profound view, and if it has an influence in the region, it is well worth considering now. We are entitled to ask what the UN's response is to the advice that it is undoubtedly receiving.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill said, we are at an historic moment of opportunity for the great lakes region. There is a transitional national Government in the region, and security appears to be slowly returning in the east. The largest Burundian rebel group has signed a peace deal and joined the Government. Rwanda held elections this summer, for the first time since the genocide. It has come an enormously long way since the terrible genocide in 1994—a point to which I shall return. Given that that situation has been reached, we should be proud of the support given by the United Kingdom.
Three issues relevant to Rwanda deserve to be mentioned. Manifestly, the international community failed Rwanda in 1994, allowing 800,000 people to be killed in three months. As a permanent member of the Security Council, the United Kingdom must bear a
258WH
burden of responsibility for that failure. Not only did the Government of the day fail Rwanda, but Parliament failed in its duty to hold the Government to account. It was not until six weeks after the genocide started that a debate about it was held in the House, by which time 500,000 people had already died. My hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Tony Worthington) called an Adjournment debate and, as he said at the time, it is unthinkable that an atrocity could kill half a million people, but not be debated in Parliament. It is to be hoped that Parliament will take the opportunity of the 10th anniversary of the genocide in April 2004 to recognise those failings. At the very least, there should be a debate in the House on the prevention of genocide and the events of 1994.
Secondly, Holocaust memorial day in January 2004 is to be partly dedicated to Rwanda, and that is to be welcomed. Efforts are also being made to commemorate the genocide on the 10th anniversary itself. The Aegis Trust, a British charity, is raising funds to increase awareness and educate people about the genocide. It is also raising funds to preserve five of the most important genocide sites in Rwanda, some of which my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill and others visited. They include the church at Ntarama, which lacks adequate funding and which the Inter-Parliamentary Union delegates visited in October 2002. Two sites are sponsored by donors, including the Governments of Sweden, Holland and Germany, and they will be ready by April 2004, in time for the 10th anniversary. The other three sites, including the church at Ntarama, are without a sponsor. It must be acknowledged that the Department for International Development provided £40,000 from the development awareness fund for educational materials, and that is to be welcomed.
However, it is a shame that a British charity, despite being supported by other European Governments, should receive such a low level of support from the United Kingdom. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office is considering giving £50,000, which is a positive step, but just £250,000 would preserve for ever the memory of the 5,000 people who died at Ntarama as well as allow the building of a facility to teach the children of Rwanda about their past. I hope that the Secretary of State will give some thought to that important matter.
Thirdly, Mr. Deputy Speaker—
Mr. John McWilliam: Order. We have not been appointed yet.
Mr. Clarke: I am very grateful to you, Mr. McWilliam. I keep saying that we learn something new in the House each day, and your advice is my learning experience for this morning.
Since 1997, the United Kingdom has been a loyal friend to Rwanda, and if we did not know that before we went to the Democratic Republic of the Congo, we know it now. Given the problems involved, we should he commended for that. However, being a loyal friend does not mean being uncritical. It is the reverse. Rwanda deserves the sympathy, attention and assistance of the world, but the international community should not turn a blind eye to concerns about that country's conduct.

259WH
Those worries are twofold. I refer first to this year's elections. Holding elections only nine years after the trauma of genocide is to be commended, and those elections were technically well organised. However, the monitors reported serious irregularities, which cannot be ignored. The EU monitoring team reported that the best placed opposition candidate was eliminated from the electoral contest before the start of campaigning and is currently in prison. Other opposition representatives simply disappeared. That is clearly unacceptable. Suggestions of ballot-stuffing, alterations of electoral rolls and intimidation on polling day are also extremely serious. The incumbent, Paul Kagame, won with 95 per cent. of the vote. That might be a convincing result, but I am sure that the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) would agree that not even his tremendous charisma would produce such an astounding result, which gives rise to questions about its credibility.
All those issues fit with allegations of increasing authoritarianism, control and the closing down of political space in Rwanda. One respected analyst spoke of
"a formal election painted on top of an increasingly totalitarian state."
That is very worrying in the light of the progress that can be made. Rwanda has unique social pressures, and fears about open political life are understandable. Such a backdrop is simply unacceptable, given that Rwanda is capable of moving much further and faster towards genuine and acceptable democracy. The UK is the largest donor and is entitled to make its views known, as my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill would agree.
My hon. Friend mentioned Rwanda's involvement in the DRC. The recent dêtente between Kigali and Kinshasa is very welcome, but reports continue to be received of the Rwandan army's presence in the east of the DRC. There are also continuing allegations of support for various armed groups in the Congo. We must get the matter sorted out. The situation was unacceptable when we visited the DRC. There must be much more transparency, and we are closely watching the role of the United Nations. If the transitional Government in the Congo failed or fell due to Rwandan engagement, the attendant chaos would be disastrous for Rwanda as well as the Congo. It is incumbent on the UK, as a genuine friend of Rwanda, to use all its influence to see that that does not happen.
I am grateful for the consideration that my colleagues have given me. I am deeply worried that many of the traumas, conflicts and aspects of warfare, which my hon. Friend so eloquently outlined in her opening speech, revolve around the great mineral wealth that is not being widely shared among the very people whom we have in mind when we seek to reduce poverty. Sadly, the situation will continue until we have a strategy that ensures that that wealth, be it oil, diamonds or copper, is used to benefit the many and not the few. There is, however, no reason why the situation should continue in a rational, well-informed world.
10.3 am
Mr. David Drew:I will keep my remarks brief, as I am sure that all of us who have been involved with the all-party group on the great lake
260WH
region and genocide prevention would like to leave as much time as possible for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to talk about his recent visit to the DRC. I am sure that it was as illuminating as our visit to the country a couple of months ago. I declare an interest as one of three hon. Members present who visited the DRC at the invitation of its transitional Government.
When one looks back on such visits, one realises how much one has to learn by visiting other parts of the world. I make no apology for following on from where my right hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Chryston (Mr. Clarke) left off and talking about the security issue. As he said, there was consensus when we met parliamentarians from the DRC, who overall were a very impressive group of people trying to effect a democracy where there has never been any opportunity to have one before.
At that meeting we were given a message in no uncertain terms: the parliamentarians perceive the British Government as being far too close to the Government of Rwanda and failing to appreciate how much the people in the DRC feel that they are still under the cosh because of Rwandan infiltration. My hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King) conducted herself very well in that difficult meeting. It is a pity that she is not present to hear that in person, but perhaps she will read it in Hansard. As parliamentarians, we are all used to difficult meetings, normally in our constituencies, but many of us have never experienced the intensity of feeling that was made abundantly clear at that meeting. However, we must move on from the security situation.
Jeremy Corbyn: In that meeting, were any questions asked about the relationship with Uganda or its alleged support for different movements in the Congo?
Mr. Drew: It could equally be said that there was Ugandan influence. It was interesting that the group of people who came along to lobby us were very clear about their attitude towards Rwandans, but one did not have to tear away much of the veneer to understand that the Ugandans were also involved but were influencing the situation in a slightly more subtle way. The simple fact is that we want all foreign troops, apart from peacekeeping troops, out of the DRC. I hope that the Secretary of State will deal with that point.
One thing that I took away from the meeting with the parliamentarians was how strongly they all felt about the territorial integrity of the DRC. One goes to Africa and expects to be shocked to some extent by the artificial constructs of the nations that have been created and to find that tribal or other loyalties are much more important than the nation state. In the DRC, however, we have to throw away the rule book, because its people are passionate about their country. They may have many differences, and not many months before, some of them were at one another's throats—that was inevitable, as they come from warring factions but they taught me that their nation mattered to them and that they wanted an independent nation that was not subject to influence from other countries, much as they welcomed the presence of the peacekeeping troops.

261WH
As I said in my intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Ann McKechin), the parliamentarians asked for more troops, to the extent that they wanted the border with Rwanda to be completely controlled by the British Army. We had to tell them that it was not likely that we could bring that to bear, given Britain's other obligations in Iraq and so on, but that we would certainly pass on the need for more support.
As part of the visit, we went to Kisangani in the eastern part of the country. There we met several people from the chamber of commerce. If one wants to meet business people who thrive in adversity, they are the ones; somehow, they keep the spark of enterprise going in the most impossible of situations. Again, the security issue came up, but another message was that the DRC is bedevilled by the lack of investment in basic infrastructure. The simple fact is that the only way to get to Kisangani—unless one goes in by aircraft, which is not, of course, within the means of many Congolese—is to use the river, but the river has been unsafe. The business people were pleading for the roads to be rebuilt. They are keen to re-open their businesses but it is almost impossible for them to get out their wares, and that severely constrains how they can operate.
The Secretary of State may want to talk about his experiences and about how we start to rebuild enterprise. We discussed other issues to do with rebuilding the tax system and giving the DRC macroeconomic assistance—measures that will enable its Government to re-engineer the economy. However, only so much help can be given through Government; individual enterprises must also be encouraged. That can be done only if ways in which we can support their infrastructure needs are examined.
My next point is a result of a visit we made on our last day in the DRC. We met some of the country's children. The sight of non-governmental organisations and the Church intervening in the most desperate situations is always heartening. We were able to make that visit because of an invitation from the War Child UK charity, which is doing very good work in the capital city, Kinshasa, and elsewhere in the country. We need to recognise that long-term peace will become embedded in that country only if we are able to find ways to support civil society. We went to see children who were orphaned either directly by the war or as a result of AIDS or the other things that afflict Africa, and in particular that part of the continent.
Frighteningly, we also came across the concept of child witches. Children had been expelled from their families because their families were undergoing bad luck. That got associated with one or a number of members of the family, and they were put out on the street. That is the sort of situation that War Child UK faces. It is supporting measures to get those children under a roof and to give them some form of education. We must appreciate that civil society in such countries can be rebuilt—or built, in some cases—only with a lot of support in the form of both money and people. That has to be the way forward.
Nobody would disagree that security is the most important issue at present, but the economy has to be given an opportunity, too. The DRC is probably the
262WH
richest country in the world—we can forget the United States. If the wealth in the DRC could be made to offer some form of national opportunity, many of its problems would be overcome. but for all the reasons that we know about, those resources are being pillaged and are not going where they should.
The third area that we must concentrate on is how we can help the civil society. Children and women must be helped in particular, and people must be brought back from the fighting and into civil society. Their future must be properly invested in.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. John McWilliam: Order. I have no power to impose time limits but, bearing it in mind that the object of the exercise is to allow the Minister to answer the debate, I would like Members to be brief.
10.13 am
Hugh Bayley:Like other hon. Members, I must declare an interest. In October, I went to the DRC with the all-party great lakes region and genocide prevention group. Although the programme was put together by our embassy—I am grateful for its support—the flights and accommodation were paid for by the DRC Government.
From the slave trade onwards, the Congo has been dealt a bad hand by history. The Belgian colonisation was particularly harsh. The first Prime Minister after independence was murdered shortly after he came to office. The country went through the Mobutu kleptocracy, and it has now emerged from five years of civil war. The establishment of the interim Administration is a fragile but precious moment in the country's history. They are the DRC's only hope of emerging from years of conflict and exploitation of its people by a succession of harsh and ruthless leaders.
We met President Joseph Kabila, who is intensely aware of the importance of maintaining the quadripartite alliance between the various groups that were until recently engaged in civil war. He knows that, were he to succeed in the elections in June 2005 and become elected as president of the country, he would need to find senior positions in a power-sharing Government for leaders of the other factions: Jean-Pierre Bemba, Zahidi Ngoma, Azarias Ruberwa and Abdoulaye Yerodia. Without the maintenance of that alliance between factions from different parts of the country, there is no hope for peace or for retaining the integrity of the Congo.
I would like our Government to provide technical assistance to the presidency—not just the president—so that all factions see that they are getting benefit and support from Britain. Technical assistance is required in three areas in particular: security reform, economic development and governance. Those of us who went to the Congo attended the state opening of the National Assembly and the Senate. This is a country with no tradition of parliamentary democracy at all; people arrived to represent the various factions in a grand Parliament building, built by the Chinese for the dictator Mobutu, without really knowing that the job of a Member of Parliament is to represent their constituency.

263WH
We in this House could give help through the Inter-Parliamentary Union and the Westminster Foundation for Democracy, and our Government could give help by bringing some Members of the DRC Parliament to London to work with us and see what a Parliament does. It is particularly important, before divisions emerge. to get MPs from the different factions working together in study groups and committees.
The single most important issue is the disarmament of the rebel groups. It would be extremely valuable, in terms of confidence-building, if Members of the Senate and the National Assembly from the different factions were brought together in a team and flown by MONUC, because that is the only way to get around the country, out to the east and north-east to see what is happening with disarmament and resettlement. They could then report back to Parliament, and people from one part of the country would see that others, formerly their enemies, are disarming under the MONUC umbrella. They could then return to their own part of the country with people from the faction to which they were formerly opposed, who would see that disarmament is happening there as well. That is a practical job for the new Parliament.
While I was in the DRC, I was surprised by the enormous communication difficulties. One third of the budget of the UN peacekeeping mission, MONUC, goes on air transport, which is the only way to get about the country. No roads or railways are left. The river is open, but it is not a highway from one end of the country to the other because parts of it are impassable. Rebuilding roads and the crucial rail links connecting the navigable parts of the river must be a development priority.
The most immediate priority must be disarmament. I spent time talking to a British official called Peter Swarbrick who works for MONUC on that issue. He has experience of disarmament in post-civil war situations in Africa. When he worked in Sierra Leone, he was able to offer cash as an incentive to ex-combatants to hand in their weapons. Indeed, he had a tariff and would pay more for a better weapon. For example, he would pay the same for a good rifle as for two grenades or 50 rounds of ammunition, and that encouraged people to bring in more weapons. If someone came with a clapped-out rifle he would send them away and say, "Come back tomorrow with something worth while."
Now, Mr. Swarbrick can offer people nothing more than a receipt, which most people do not find attractive because it does not help them to eat. Cash as a direct incentive would be helpful. US Aid has provided MONUC with $650,000, which is not a great deal of money given that there are 20,000 irregular fighters who need to be disarmed and returned to neighbouring countries such as Rwanda and Uganda. A relatively small sum, such as £1 million, provided by DFID as an incentive to hand in weapons would be money well spent.
I know that the Government provide the multi-country demobilisation and reintegration programme with $25 million of support. That is a larger-scale project dealing with the wider costs of demobilisation, and every cent is needed because those costs are high. When a small group of irregular forces from Rwanda come and give up their weapons, it is MONUC's policy, quite
264WH
rightly, to get those fighters out of the Congo as soon as possible within 24 or 48 hours before they change their mind. As there are no roads, the only way to do that is to charter an aeroplane, which costs $15,000 to $20,000 a time. The $25 million is therefore vital, and I hope that, if the disarmament process goes well and the money is used up, the Government will consider supplementing it.
Good progress has been made. When we were there in October, 2,600 combatants from neighbouring countries had been disarmed and returned to their countries. That figure is now 3,600. MONUC hoped to reach 4,000 by June 2004. That target will clearly be met, and I hope that it will be revised upwards to about 6,000. Peter Swarbrick thinks that once the figure goes above 5,000, people will begin to realise that MONUC means business and its credibility will improve.
I shall briefly say a word about AIDS. I was extremely impressed by the way that MONUC integrates attempts to combat AIDS into its work. Every soldier and civilian who works for it receives an AIDS policy identification card. Every military contingent that contributes to MONUC's forces is trained, before arrival, about the consequences and nature of AIDS in the DRC. Each unit is required to be properly supplied with equipment and must prepare to deliver at least one project working with the community to deal with the epidemic among the Congolese people. I recently read in the newspapers that Medecins sans Frontieres is carrying out a small-scale pilot scheme to treat HIV infection with antiretroviral drugs. If that can be done in rural, remote parts of the DRC, it can probably be done anywhere in Africa. However, treatment opportunities must not divert attention from work on prevention, without which the appalling epidemic will get much worse.
Finally, I shall make a comment about politics. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Chryston (Mr. Clarke) and my hon. Friends the Members for Glasgow, Maryhill (Ann McKechin) and for Stroud (Mr. Drew) said, there is great resentment in Kinshasa about the role played by irregular and regular forces from Rwanda and Uganda in destabilising their country. I am sure that in Rwanda and Uganda there is also resentment towards elements from the DRC that are destabilising their countries. It would be impossible to draw up an effective economic development strategy for the DRC unless it was compatible with the strategies for neighbouring countries, and vice versa. I therefore ask DFID and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to work with all the Governments in the region to draw up a joint strategy for the region to which they all subscribe.
Rwanda, for example, wants to boost tourism, and I wish it well, but it will not get tourists to visit unless it stops supporting irregular forces in the region. Rwanda would have something to gain from a joint strategy, as would all the countries in the region. A joint strategy would need to address first the issue of security, secondly, that of resource exploitation, and thirdly, the economic development of the region, because in parts of the eastern Congo the trade routes are not to the Atlantic but to the Indian ocean through neighbouring countries. Finally, such a joint strategy would have to address the question of human rights.
10.26 am
Jeremy Corbyn: First, I apologise to hon. Members for missing the greater part of the contribution to the debate made by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Ann McKechin). I will make a few brief points.
The history of the Congo is possibly one of the most tragic of all the tragedies in African history, going back to the Belgian royal family's personal ownership of the country, the appalling exploitation and enslavement of people from that country in the 19th century and early 20th century, and the brutality of the numerous civil wars and insurgent conflicts that have taken place since the beginning of the 20th century. Independence was finally achieved in 1960, and the assassination of Patrice Lumumba in 1961 was one of the great tragedies of African history he could have contributed so much to African development.
My constituency has a link to that history. After the death of Patrice Lumumba, some of his family fled to the UK and settled in Finsbury Park, in my constituency. There has been a significant Congolese community in the constituency ever since then. The community is still growing, and I meet its members regularly. I hold a monthly advice bureau in a local church, with French translation available, to do my best to assist them.
I have had a number of lengthy discussions with members of the local Congolese community, who are very well informed and knowledgeable about the history of their country. Many of those people are very well qualified. Some were teachers, lawyers, doctors or public servants and some worked in private industry, but all were forced out of the Congo by a succession of dictatorships. The behaviour of those dictatorships has moulded the history of the country, and it moulds the attitudes of a large number of people. The excesses, the brutality, the executions and the corruption of those regimes is now known, and a number of western Governments and companies were complicit in that corruption. There are no clean hands in respect of relationships with the Congo.
There are some specific points that I want to put to the Chamber, to which I hope the Secretary of State can respond. First, I thank him for a copy of the written statement tabled today by the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin). The statement is interesting and important because it deals with a number of issues that have been raised with me by members of the Congolese community.
I shall deal with those issues quickly. The first is the presence of European peacekeeping forces under the aegis of the United Nations. There is concern that there are not sufficient numbers of them. There is also concern about the longevity of the operation, and whether there is a serious commitment to bringing about peace and disarmament.
I have been asked by members of the community in my constituency to raise the question of the disarmament of child soldiers when the militia groups have been run out of Goma and other cities. I understand the need to run the militia groups out of the cities, but I think that child soldiers should be disarmed
266WH
and, if possible, taken into some kind of protective custody where they can rebuild their lives and get through the horrors of their experiences. I have met former child soldiers from Uganda; they live their lives with a series of flashbacks of being given guns at the age of eight or nine and told to go out and kill people. We have a specific responsibility to try to do something to rebuild the lives of those children.
I should like also to raise the question of the leakage of arms into the Congo from Rwanda, Uganda and Zimbabwe; it has been going on for a very long time. I welcome the Minister's statement and the intentions behind it. However, I wonder what will be done to police the operation effectively on the ground. It seems that the Rwandan and Ugandan Governments are sending out a series of mixed messages. They convey to the European Community and to western Governments the message that they are not in favour of intervention, that they want peace within the region and that they want to cooperate, but I suspect that the reality on the ground is very different. A blind eye is being turned to all kinds of insurgent groups, which are going into the eastern Congo and causing mayhem.
In the statement, the Minister specifically asks the UN to provide more detailed information about the link between the sale of natural resources from the Congo and the supply and development of arms in that country. I hope that that information can come to light. If specific, sustainable allegations can be made against any western companies, they should be vigorously pursued in the courts here and in the international and European courts. I suspect that that will not happen because the blue-chip companies that buy raw materials emanating from the Congo are not the exploiters. The exploitation is done by somebody else: the mining of gold, diamond and other minerals, and the logging that takes place, is done illegally by fairly shadowy groups that eventually sell the materials on to somebody far more respectable.
I have picked up a feeling from my local Congolese community that this is a war as much about minerals and exploitation as about anything else. That is the tragedy of the history of the Congo. At the end of a recent, lengthy meeting at the local church, one person laconically said to me, "This is the first war for mobile phones," and there is some truth in that. The minerals that the west craves, because they are so precious, are obviously extremely valuable to people in the Congo.
Although I welcome this debate and the statement, I get the feeling that we will have to go a lot further on the question. We must prevent the flow of arms into militia groups, prevent the continued destabilisation of the country and ensure that the minerals that we enjoy in this country have come here legitimately. We should ensure that the benefits from the sale of those minerals legitimately flow to the people of the Congo rather than to the shadowy world of middlemen, arms brokers and mineral dealers. That world is making a huge amount of money out of the horror, misery and devastation of a lot of very poor people in a country that has suffered so grievously over the last 200 years, largely at the hands of European exploiters.
10.34 am
John Barrett: I, too, shall try to be as brief as possible to allow the Secretary of State to respond. It has been an interesting debate and all the

267WH
contributions were of a high quality. I congratulate the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Ann McKechin) on her success. This is the third debate recently on the great lakes region. We have had two very thoughtful debates on Rwanda, and the contributions so far have been excellent.
I share the concern of the hon. Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn). Having read the ministerial statement, I think that the issues are clear: corruption is endemic and there are problems with the funding of arms. I hope that the Minister will explain what part DFID will play in taking western countries to court to proceed with a criminal investigation. I hope that we will not see a whitewash, with business as usual for many of the western countries that have contributed to the nightmare of the past. It is important to remember the scale of the task ahead.
I shall not dwell too much on history, because a number of hon. Members have already gone over that. The DRC has 52 million people spread over a land-mass the size of western Europe. Peace and democracy are being pursued against a backdrop of dictatorship and violence. Between 3 million and 4 million people have died in the past five years, owing not only to war, but to AIDS, disease and famine. A report by the United Nations humanitarian assessment mission issued last Thursday serves to remind us of the problems and challenges faced by the DRC. The Government and the international community should know that in the eastern region there is malaria, malnutrition, waterborne disease and, more worryingly, that in the southern regions there are ongoing, disturbing reports of the pillaging of crops, and rape and violence against women and young girls.
Although much has been done in the past, it is important to recognise that various efforts are making a significant contribution to the way forward. I warmly welcome the World Bank's announcement last Tuesday of a $100 million programme to tackle HIV/AIDS in the DRC. According to recent surveys carried out this year among organisations fighting AIDS, the epidemic could threaten more than half of the DRC's 50 million people in the next 10 years.
Like so many of its neighbours, the DRC is gripped by this crisis, but it differs from its neighbours in the prevalence of AIDS in young people, among whom the incidence is almost 20 per cent. higher than in any of the neighbouring countries. Infection begins very early—from just 10 years old. There is a requirement for better health care, but the stigma that surrounds AIDS must also be dealt with. The calls for abstinence and preaching against the use of condoms are not working, and a new approach will have to be devised. I hope to hear from the Secretary of State about what more we can do through DFID.
I welcome the commitments that the Government, and DFID in particular, have given to the DRC and the surrounding region. I also welcome the press conference given by the Secretary of State, which was mentioned earlier, and announcements of further support. The adherence to basic human rights and the disarmament, demobilisation and reintegration programme, about which we have heard much in the past hour, are all important causes that must be supported. We must move towards full democracy; the pressure must be kept up.
268WH
As with any country, there is also a role for civil society and, within that, a vibrant free press. There is some room for optimism here. The 2003 annual report of the national media watchdog, Journaliste en Danger, found an improving situation. Incidents of journalists being detained for more than 48 hours have fallen sharply, and this year has been particularly significant because, for the first time in six years, no journalist was imprisoned for their work. There is, however, further room for improvement. It will be interesting to see the response to any success by the new campaign to decriminalise press offences in the country.
There is clear consensus about the fact that the integration of various groups, whose battles have marred the DRC for so long, must be a priority. The DRC must be a country for all its people, not just any one group. People must be involved and consulted as part of that process. The commencement, just over a week ago, of the integration of former rebels into a new, unified force is a good example of that process in action; it must be replicated throughout the DRC and, more importantly, it must be sustained. There were clear symbols of reconciliation and good will in the ceremonies that were held: soldiers handed over the scarves that showed their subscription to various groups, specifically the Movement for the Liberation of the DRC and the Congolese Rally for Democracy. Many of those new soldiers will work with forces in Ituri, which is one of the most troubled regions. Other hon. Members have mentioned the problem of child soldiers, and I hope to hear the Secretary of State say what can be done to deal with that.
The importance of the DRC in Africa and the world, as has already been mentioned, lies not only in its geographical importance and mineral wealth but in the fact that it has borders with nine countries. Rather than being its strength, its mineral wealth its diamonds and gold-has too often been its weakness and has helped to fuel wars. Despite the official end of the occupancy of the eastern DRC by Rwandan and Ugandan forces, there are ongoing reports that troops remain for the exploitation of diamonds and other minerals.
Those concerns were shown to be justified by a leaked UN report, which accused both Rwanda and Uganda, as well as parts of the new transitional Government, of continuing to arm rebels to retain control over diamond and gold fields. That is highly damaging information that provides sobering evidence for all those interested in the DRC and its future. Perhaps worst of all are the reports that Etienne Tshisekedi is preparing a rebellion with the military and training support of Rwanda. There is evidence of arms shipments to the Congolese national army from Rwandan officers, in direct contravention of the UN arms embargo. Similar allegations have already been made about Uganda.
As with any new Government and new structures, much will be based on a foundation of trust. If the report that I mentioned is correct, certain elements in Rwanda continue to face problems from the past. We must look to, and be optimistic about, the future. We are all aware of the special relationship that seemed to exist between the previous Secretary of State for International Development and Africa, and we hope that that special relationship can continue.

269WH
Behind the politics, international relations and even the arms trade—if that continues—are the people of the DRC, who deserve a bright, more peaceful, and less impoverished future. For too long, they have suffered at the hands of war and disease. The investment being made in the DRC is a start, but we know that it depends on the success of democracy and the preservation of peace. The UK Government's role in helping the DRC with those two tasks is clear: they must put all their energies into that role.
10.42 am
Mr. John Bercow: In opening the debate, the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Ann McKechin) spoke with knowledge, authority and compassion. She was followed by the right hon. Member for Coatbridge and Chryston (Mr. Clarke) and the hon. Members for Stroud (Mr. Drew), for City of York (Hugh Bayley), for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn) and for Edinburgh, West (John Barrett), all of whom made wise and thoughtful speeches. I am keen, as is everyone else, to hear what the Secretary of State has to say, so I shall try to create a precedent of brevity.
There is a moment of hope, what with a transitional Government in the DRC, a peace deal in Burundi and elections last summer in Rwanda, but the fragility of that arrangement has already been commented upon. Of course, I would welcome an overview from the Secretary of State on what the Government are doing, both alone and in concert with others, to sustain that fragile peace.
In all, there have been four reports from the UN Security Council about the exploitation of natural resources. There is the all-party parliamentary group report on the subject, and a plethora of non-governmental organisation group reports, too. Until now, there has not been an official Government response. I welcome the fact that today there is a written ministerial statement on the subject, and I hope that the Secretary of State will not take it amiss when I say that there will almost certainly need to be a further airing of the issues in the main Chamber and an opportunity for parliamentary scrutiny.
In the terrible crisis that we are debating, Burundi has often been ignored, yet 300,000 people have been killed there in the 10-year civil war. The fact of the power-sharing deal between the Tutsi Government and Hutu rebel forces is welcome, but the Secretary of State will recognise that there is now a requirement for the demobilisation of former fighters and for the repatriation of some 800,000 Burundian refugees in Tanzania. There is, of course, an African Union presence, but that presence is both under-resourced and inexperienced. Many observers with knowledge of the subject believe that there is a need for a UN mandate and a UN force. I shall welcome the Secretary of State's comments on that point.
The all-party group on the great lakes region and genocide prevention has welcomed the report of the UN panel of experts on illegal exploitation of natural resources and other forms of wealth in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Will the Secretary of State give a commitment today that the Government will make a
270WH
statement on the subject and ensure—this is critical—that any report is acted on both by the European Union and the UN?
I urge the Secretary of State to commission evaluations of the implications for DFID country programmes of Ugandan and Rwandan involvement in the DRC. He will be well aware of the memorandum of understanding between the Rwandan and British Governments. Although aid is vital, and it would be chronically irresponsible to suggest its removal, it is both reasonable and sensible for the Government to use aid as a lever to ensure proper behaviour, including the nurture of democracy and respect for human rights.
Many of us believe that the UN should seek an expansion of its personnel and resources in the DRC. Faster demobilisation and resettlement in line with the example of the quick start programme is required and, of course, there is a need for a UN arms embargo on the entire region. I would welcome the Secretary of State's remarks on that front, too.
During the Secretary of State's recent visit, he referred to the $38 million that the UK Government are providing to fight poverty and counter disease. That is very welcome, and I certainly do not cavil at it for one moment but, for the purposes of clarification, I would appreciate it if he would make it clear whether that is the $38 million that has already been referred to on previous occasions or a new tranche of funding.
The Secretary of State will be aware—the hon.Members for Glasgow, Maryhill and for City of York referred to the matter—of UN Security Council resolution 1484, which was passed on 30 May, which demanded cessation of all support to armed groups and militias, in particular the provision of weapons and any other military material. What assessment has he made thus far of the effectiveness of the enforcement of that decree? Child soldiers have been referred to, and I also want an update from the Secretary of State on what progress has been made on that point.
Democracy building, the pursuit of good governance and respect for political pluralism are clearly of the essence; they are prerequisites of sustainable progress. I wonder whether, in addition to the idea of a delegation of Congolese parliamentarians coming to the UK, the Secretary of State would in all seriousness consider a group of ex-parliamentarians from this country—who perhaps have a little time on their hands—going to the DRC and making their expertise available. I know that he will take it in the proper spirit when I say that I can think of nobody better to lead that delegation than someone whose career in the House spanned half a century: his father. Natural self-effacement may prevent the right hon. Gentleman from responding to that point, but I hope that it will not, because I make a serious suggestion and I would appreciate his reply.
There is economic work to be done. I make two suggestions that have also been made by others. First, DFID should collaborate with the Department of Trade and Industry to fund a permanent representative at the UK embassy in Kinshasa to encourage direct British investment in the DRC. There are huge commercial opportunities if only they can be properly exploited. Secondly, the UK should offer its expertise in construction, surveying, engineering and road building

271WH
to help reconstruct the DRC's transport infrastructure. We all want to hear what the Secretary of State has to say—I certainly do—and I look forward to his reply.
10.49 am
The Secretary of State for International Development (Hilary Benn): I join hon. Members in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Ann McKechin) on securing this important debate. I echo what the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) said about the speeches that we have heard. They reflect the outstanding job done by the all-party group on the great lakes region and genocide prevention. I also join Members in paying tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King) for her chairing of that group.
The debate has shown clearly that the challenges facing the Democratic Republic of the Congo are, frankly, enormous. It has a population of about 55 million, is located in the very heart of Africa and has a miserable history of conflict, war, dictatorship, corruption and exploitation, often illegal, of its great national resources. It also has enormous levels of poverty.
One of the DRC's problems is that there are few reliable statistics. However, the best estimates are that 80 per cent. of its population live on less than $1 a day. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill set out with great clarity the history, which I do not intend to go back over. I will simply say that the level of suffering experienced by the DRC's people is hard for us to imagine. If, prior to the TV cameras entering Bunia, most people in this country had been asked to name the place where between 3 million and 3.5 million lost their lives over the last five years, I doubt that many could have identified the site of what has been described as "Africa's hidden first world war."
That history means that it is all the more important that the international community now offers support to the transitional national Government, whose inauguration in July brought together the different factions and was a significant event. They are working towards implementation of the global accord and particularly towards presidential and parliamentary elections in two to three years.
I learned very forcefully during my visit last week that the depth of the DRC's crisis over the past decade means that the scale of the challenges facing the TNG is too difficult for us to appreciate. My hon. Friend the Member for City of York (Hugh Bayley) was right to talk about the fragility of the situation and the "preciousness" of the TNG. That point was also made by the hon. Member for Buckingham. For the DRC to establish itself as a state and to be capable of bringing its people security, a concentrated long-term effort is required.
President Kabila said to me, and it was echoed in the debate, that it is not a question of restoring people's faith in the Government. He said that the task is to persuade people that there is such a thing as a Government, who can provide for them. It is not about rebuilding the country; it is about constructing a state for the very first time in the history of a place that is the size of western Europe and where many of the things that we take for granted as representing the signs and institutions of a functioning state do not exist.
272WH
Establishing those institutions, encouraging economic activity, weaving together a social fabric where one does not exist and ending the culture of impunity, which has been such a feature of the DRC's history, will take time. We must recognise that in dealing with that challenge the TNG must take on powerful and established interests that dislike change and will resist it.
On parliamentary links, the hon. Member for Buckingham made a serious point, as others did, about the importance of giving the benefit of our expertise and enabling parliamentarians in the DRC to learn how they might go about the job. Later this week I will meet the Westminster Foundation for Democracy, and I will put to it his extremely important suggestion.
Historically, the UK has not had a great presence in the DRC, but we are stepping up our involvement. We are looking to establish a long-term development partnership similar to those that we have developed with other countries in the region, such as Uganda and Rwanda, with whom we have had a close historical relationship. We recently finalised the DFID country engagement plan, which sets out our proposals. In a sense, we anticipated the all-party group's very good report, which will be formally launched later today. It asked the Government to step up their involvement in the DRC, and we have done so, as I said when I was there last week.
The size of our current programme is $38 million, or £23 million. That is on top of the approximately £70 million contribution that we make through multilateral institutions such as the EU, the IMF, the World Bank and others. We have already announced that, but we are looking to increase our involvement. When I was in the DRC, I described our involvement as support for success, because the international community, the TNG and the people of the DRC must march forward together, step in step, to address the country's problems.
Our work will involve two main tasks: ensuring a successful transition and helping the TNG to establish basic systems of governance. That means supporting the transition institutions, which we are doing, demobilising and reintegrating ex-combatants, which is fundamental to the country's future—I shall come in a moment to the subject of child soldiers—and reforming the army and the police.
We are offering specific support for peace-building. In the east, where there is no question but that things are extremely difficult, the UK contributed £3 million to the interim emergency multinational force. We also pushed for the inclusion in the UN resolution of text on blocking arms supplies, although I am the first to say that enforcement is difficult in a country where many state institutions do not exist. We are contributing about £2.5 million to support community-based peace-building programmes, including those managed by Christian Aid and CAFOD—the Catholic Fund for Overseas Development—in the eastern DRC.
On child soldiers, we are funding a UNICEF child disarmament demobilisation and reintegration programme to the tune of £2 million. We are doing that now, before the funding for the multi-country demobilisation and reintegration programme, which we will also support, kicks in.
My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill mentioned debt. The DRC has an interim poverty reduction strategy paper; that has reached decision

273WH
point, and we hope that it will reach completion point in 2005. The UK has agreed to write off the debts that it is owed, and we have also released the $4.8 million that we pledged towards an international financing package to enable the DRC to clear its arrears to the African Development Bank.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (John Barrett) alluded to HIV/AIDS. The infection rate is about 6 per cent., but, again, statistics are hard to come by. I visited a project run by Fondation Femme Plus in Kinshasa, which cares for women with HIV. The stigma that they experience is a real problem in the country, but the foundation does outstanding work. The visit was a very moving occasion. We are also funding a condom distribution programme.
A number of references were made to the UN panel report and to the written statement tabled today by the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), which sets out the Government response. I understand that hon. Members, having reflected on it, will wish to pursue some of the points in it. I simply say that the situation in the DRC has been a major problem, as everyone has identified. However, as the statement forcefully illustrates, one needs evidence to pursue those responsible and to deal with the culture of impunity—one needs a complainant and specific instances. Frankly, part of the difficulty with the UN panel report has been the lack of specific evidence.
Mr. Bercow: Is the right hon. Gentleman not able, in conversation with people in the UN, to elicit any commitment to provide such evidence?
Hilary Benn: We have repeatedly made that point to those who worked on the report. Everyone understands the problem, but there must be sufficient evidence to pursue specific individuals and companies. The problem so far has been the lack of evidence.
There has been a huge international effort to end the conflict, and it is important that members of the international community come together to consider the great lakes in a wider context. The great lakes conference, which is planned for next year, will provide a chance to do so.
I reassure my right hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Chryston (Mr. Clarke) and other hon. Members that, in our relations with Uganda and Rwanda, we make it very clear that, having withdrawn their forces, they should stay out because the DRC needs its integrity and stability. I also recognise my right hon. Friend's point about the serious situation in northern Uganda.
I met several people in the DRC. Expectations are very high but few people would have thought five years ago that we would have reached the point that we have today. That is why we should stick with the TNG. It matters that we should be involved, as there is now a window of opportunity to build a different future for the country. I welcome today's debate for all those reasons.

Mortgage Regulation
11 am
Mr. Barry Gardiner: This is not the first time that I have risen in the Chamber to speak in a debate called "Mortgage Regulation". I am sure that the Minister and her officials entertain the hope that it might be the last-a hope that I freely admit to sharing.
The subject of mortgage regulation is better when it is in the background. When it is to the fore, it almost certainly means that a large number of people are being taken for a ride. Only one central principle informs my remarks today: if it looks like a horse, smells like horse, bites like a horse and kicks like a horse, then it is a horse and should be treated like a horse. Applied to mortgages, the message translates like this: if it looks like a mortgage and loans money like a mortgage, and if that money is secured against a house like a mortgage and does not have to be repaid until some time in the future like a mortgage, then it is a mortgage and should be regulated like a mortgage.
My remarks relate mainly to the market for the financial products commonly known as equity release mortgages. That market requires comprehensive, simple and transparent regulation, because the products on sale are multifarious, complex and opaque. In short, this is a high-risk market. How and why has this market developed, and why does it present such a high risk of mis-selling? Let us consider the good news. Despite rises in house prices, inflation in the United Kingdom is the lowest that it has been for more than 30 years, and our interest and mortgage rates are the lowest for more than 40 years. That means that the average mortgage payer is saving £2,750 a year under this Government compared with the previous Conservative Administration, and is spending 10 per cent. less of its disposable income on housing costs.
However, all that has a dramatic effect on the market. As yesterday's Evening Standard reported on its front page:
"House prices in the south east of England are predicted to rise by 8 per cent. next year."
That phenomenon is not restricted to London. The front page of The Western Mail today predicts that prices in Wales will rise by an astonishing 14 per cent. next year. For anyone who is still upwardly mobile in the housing market, and who is buying a larger house, the money that they are saving on their mortgage payments does not go into their bank account, but accrues to them in the form of equity in their home. Only those who are static or trading down receive the full benefits of the reduced mortgage rates over time.
We therefore have a market in which the following have come together: a dramatic increase in property prices at the same time as a low in equity performance; an ageing population at the same time as a savings crisis of £27 billion; and increased confidence in the housing market just when confidence in the stock market has dipped. Those indicators all point to an increase in the equity release market, which appears to be the perfect solution to these problems and just what is needed for a property-rich but cash-poor older generation. Estimates put the unmortgaged equity of pensioners at some £459 billion, so it is clear that there is a market to be tapped.

275WH
The Council of Mortgage Lenders estimates that that market could be worth more than £50 billion over the next 10 years, from a starting point of what Prudential estimates was only £850 million taken out in equity release schemes last year.
It is clear that we are entering new territory. Who is entering that territory? It is not the young or even the middle-aged couple who still dream of moving up one more time to their perfect home, but the couple who have found that their pension pot did not quite buy them the annuity that they had imagined it would. They may be the victims of pension mis-selling or of the Equitable Life debacle, who are finding that life in retirement on less than half their projected income is not at all comfortable. They have a lovely big house but they cannot afford its upkeep.
Equity release is then suggested, perhaps to people who are getting on in years, who may be impatient with long forms or contracts and complicated explanations. Some may have got to the stage in life where they are not as sharp as they once were, and are therefore vulnerable to those who would sell them a product that does not correspond to their real needs. Equity rich, cash poor and slightly senile: the perfect victim for a whole new generation of financial service vultures.
My attacks are not aimed at the industry as a whole. Equity release is a valuable product, and in a carefully regulated environment with informed consumers, it is a worthwhile one. It can be a good and efficient way to ease financial worry for those in retirement who want to top up their pensions and for those with additional savings who understand the dangers associated with the product. Disreputable companies are in the minority, but we are discussing high-risk products, and with such products a proper regulatory structure is essential. That structure is even more important when it is clear that the industry will face great changes over the next few years.
We are on a new frontier with the equity release market. The next few years will see the industry drive hard into that territory. Increased longevity, an ageing population and a shortfall in pensions contributions make it a fertile land that is increasingly attractive for companies speculating on the fortunes that lie ahead. It is therefore essential to put in place a regulatory system that will prevent the cowboys from exploiting that market.
There is good news: the Financial Services Authority has already come to the rescue. Mortgage regulation by the FSA starts next year and lifetime mortgages will be included in it. I welcome that move. It will come as no shock to the Minister to hear me welcome the Treasury decision to hand over the regulation of mortgages to the FSA; she knows how hard I campaigned for it. Sadly, however, that is where my praise stops, for the simple reason that that is where the regulatory approach stops and where things start to get a little confusing.
Although the FSA will regulate lifetime mortgages, second charges, which consumers regard as no different from equity release products, will be regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974. Well, no, that would be too simple. If one's second charge is more than £25,000, I am afraid that for now and the foreseeable future, it will have no regulatory framework because there is a £25,000 limit in the 1974 Act. The bigger the second charge on one's home, the less regulation is in place for
276WH
one's protection. I am confident that the Department of Trade and Industry is committed in principle to lifting the limit, but since it requires primary legislation, we cannot expect to see it for some time.
In that time, we can expect to see many people fall foul of the cowboys and through the gaps in the regulatory system. There is an exception to that: where the second charge has been taken out through one of the main high street banks that are already regulated by the FSA, the constraint in the 1974 Act will not apply and those people will continue to enjoy the protection of the FSA. As far as second charges go, all is clear as mud. A transaction is not regulated by the FSA but by the 1974 Act, unless more than £25,000 is taken out, in which case it is not regulated by anyone, unless it has been done through a high street bank, in which case it is regulated by the FSA. That is perverse. Companies that have good reputations and wide public confidence are subject to the strict regime of the FSA for second charges of more than £25,000, but companies that do not have good reputations and are most likely to pose a threat to the consumer in a high-risk market are encouraged by being exempt from all regulation to pick off second charge customers.
Our story would be simple if it ended there. Sadly, it does not. We now turn to home reversion schemes, which are typically marketed at the elderly, whereby people sell a percentage of their property for an agreed amount. In return, they receive a lump sum, an income or both. On the death of that person, the company still owns a share in the property and will take it when the house is sold. The company will have benefited from any increase in property prices in the intervening years. Therefore, the transaction is largely predicated on an ever-rising property market, so that the equity released when the house is sold is greater than the initial money put in.
The great difficulty with such schemes is that there is no clarity about the true cost of the money that is released. Let me give an example. A home is worth £100,000. The owner agrees to sell to the reversion company 75 per cent. of the property for £30,000. He receives £30,000 now and, when he dies in 15 years' time, the property is sold for £200,000. The company takes £150,000—its 75 per cent. Share—and the estate receives £50,000. Against the company's notional profit of £120,000 must be set the interest on £30,000 for the 15-year period, which would he just over £47,000 at 6.5 per cent. interest. The company's true profit is just under £73,000. That is a terribly expensive deal when compared with interest-only or rolled-up interest equity release products. Of course, it depends on how house prices change during the intervening period. In principle, that is unknowable, but it makes for a product that is highly opaque.
Home reversion is regarded as a property sale and not akin to the standard equity release products, although it is based on similar principles. Sadly, it is not regulated in a similar way; in fact, it is not regulated at all. There is no regulatory structure for home reversion policies—no regulatory authority, no recourse for bad selling and no compensation.
We must remember that the target market for the product is the old and the infirm, who are often the most easily persuaded. That is pure cowboy territory. The current regulatory system leaves us with the good, the

277WH
bad and the ugly. The good is the properly regulated system for lifetime mortgages, which will come under the powerful gaze of the FSA next autumn. The bad is the patchwork regulation that is offered for second charge products. It is an over-complicated and under-regulated system. The ugly is the situation in which many people will find themselves if they turn to home reversion schemes, which fall under an unregulated part of the market that will, by its very nature, attract the less reputable and most despicable characters in the industry.
The attraction of home reversion schemes will only increase as the FSA rides into town to regulate lifetime mortgages and kick out the cowboys. Those cowboys will turn to the unregulated section of the market, in which there is no need to consider the consumer's needs and no recourse for consumers if they are offered the wrong product.
My customary role is that of a critic of the financial services industry for burying the details in the small print. Sadly, we are one step ahead of that today and I must criticise the regulatory system itself for its lack of clarity and transparency. How can the Government seriously turn to the industry and ask for clarity and transparency—the hallmarks of a properly regulated industry—if they cannot even create a regulatory structure that is simple, transparent and comprehensive?
My fear is that as the market grows, it will attract less reputable companies. We are talking about the least regulated areas of the market and clients who will be some of the most vulnerable people. We have seen that combination before and it is not a good mix. I share those views with many others, including the Council of Mortgage Lenders, which wants home reversion schemes to be regulated; Age Concern, which wants to see the elderly protected; and even John Tiner, the chief executive of the FSA. In a recent speech to the CML, John Tiner pointed out that
"confused customers are more susceptible to a heavy sales pitch."
He asked the rhetorical question:
"how many borrowers actually understand the value of the product features they have been sold?"
As the CML notes, the current regulatory regime is likely to lead to confusion among consumers, who will not appreciate the difference between regulated and non-regulated equity release products.
The Treasury is examining the area and has a consultation document on home reversion schemes, but to me it seems all too clear that all the products should be regulated as one under the same regulatory umbrella. If 77 per cent. of consumers complain about confusing advertising and 68 per cent. complain that they cannot understand the term "APR", how will they understand the regulatory structures of equity release products, let alone the products themselves? The products are allied to properties and the buying of properties. To the consumer, that is simple. If it looks, smells, bites and kicks like a horse, it is a horse and should be treated like a horse. If it looks like a mortgage and loans a person money like a mortgage., and if that money is secured against their house like a mortgage and they do not have to repay it until some time in the future like a mortgage, it is a mortgage and should be regulated like a mortgage.
11.18 am
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Ruth Kelly): I must congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Mr. Gardiner) on securing another debate on this important subject. I will respond to some of his more general comments before turning to the specifics of the regulation of equity release. He will acknowledge that, since the Government came to power in 1997, the new framework for regulation has been substantially and radically improved. The setting up of the FSA, which brought together nine sectoral regulators and created a single ombudsman scheme and a single financial services scheme, has clarified the landscape for the typical consumer and made it much easier to negotiate what used to be complicated decisions. We have moved a long way forward in the past six years.
Of course, it is always difficult to draw boundaries, and my hon. Friend points to the operation of consumer credit. He will be aware that, last week, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry launched the consumer credit White Paper, which introduces greater transparency and simplicity of rules on advertising. It will ensure that consumers understand credit agreements both before they enter into such an agreement and after one has been concluded. It will introduce standardised rules for calculating terms such as the APR. People will have the confidence of knowing the amount that they have to repay. It will enable, for the first time, the conclusion of on-line agreements, making the process much easier for consumers. It will introduce a strengthened licensing regime to enable the Office of Fair Trading to fine rogue traders and to establish whether a firm is fit and proper to be in the consumer credit market. The £25,000 limit will be abolished under the terms of the White Paper. I think my hon. Friend will agree that that will be a significant move forward and will clarify the existing situation.
Mr. Gardiner: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. The abolition of the £25,000 limit will make a difference, but can she shed any light on the time scale in which that will take place? One of the most worrying concerns that people have is that it may be long enough for some serious mis-selling to take place.
Ruth Kelly: As I am sure my hon. Friend is aware, the timing will depend on primary legislation. I could not possibly preempt the contents of any future Queen's Speech, but he will realise that this whole area is a priority for the Government. The Consumer Credit Act 1974 had not been reformed for 30 years. We spent considerable time working on the details of the White Paper to ensure that the proposals were sensible and workable, and that we got them right. As soon as parliamentary time allows, we will legislate. That will be a move forward for consumers.
My hon. Friend will also recognise that all banks and building societies are already regulated by the FSA. Irrespective of the value of the loan, consumers still have recourse to the financial ombudsman service. I hope that that goes some way to meet his point. He also, rightly, raised the issue of macro-economic stability, which brings huge benefits for consumers who are planning their future finances. Although the level of debt has risen in recent years, the level of assets has also risen sharply

279WH
and net household wealth is up by more than 50 per cent. since 1997. The household financial balance sheet has not slipped significantly into the red as it did in the late 1980s. The macro-economic environment is much more conducive to long-term planning.
I turn now to the specific points that my hon. Friend made about mortgages. Of course, he is right to point out that a mortgage is one of the biggest financial decisions that a consumer makes. Equity release falls into that category too. These are significant financial decisions. It is absolutely essential to protect consumers adequately. Indeed, I should point out that the FSA is the only statutory regulator in the world, as far as we aware, that has consumer protection as one of its statutory objectives. As he knows, there will be better protection for consumers when the regulation of mortgages and mortgage advice comes into force on 31 October 2004. The new regime will give the borrower greater confidence in the decisions that he or she is making.
Regulation of mortgages, alongside the regulation of general insurance, will also simplify the regulatory landscape by ensuring that there is a single regulator for mortgage advice, general insurance and retail investment business. As my hon. Friend said, the FSA will regulate the selling of mortgages by first legal charges on UK property where at least 40 per cent. is residential accommodation to be occupied by the borrower or their immediate family. That definition was derived following consultation and is designed to protect loans when a person's home may be at risk as a result of being sold an unsuitable product.
As my hon. Friend will know, equity release schemes allow home owners to release the value of their property above any amount owed on a mortgage, and as he pointed out, the market is not only fairly large at the moment, but is set to grow even further in the future. Many people would argue that that is good and that people should be allowed to release equity from their homes. Whether one agrees or not, it is probable not only that today's generation of the elderly will want to release equity, but that today's generation of young people will try to build up equity in housing as an alternative to traditional pension provision to secure a decent retirement income. That could prove a risky strategy, but as a Government we must acknowledge it and design sufficiently robust policy to ensure that if it happens, it does so in a secure environment.
As my hon. Friend pointed out, there are two basic schemes: mortgage-backed equity release schemes, which are also called lifetime mortgages, and home reversion equity release plans. The first type, lifetime mortgages, will be regulated by the FSA from 31 October 2004, but the second type, home reversions, are
280WH
sale and purchase arrangements rather than financial services products. As such, they fall outside the scope of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000.
The pensions Green Paper, "Simplicity, Security and Choice: Working and Saving for Retirement", which was published in December 2002, stated that the Treasury would be
"looking at options to create a level playing field for the regulation of equity release and home reversion plans to protect consumers and make the market work better".
In the wake of that Green Paper, my officials held a number of discussions with stakeholders in the first half of this year. Although stakeholders were unable to provide any evidence of significant consumer detriment at present, they were concerned about the projected expansion of the home reversion market and the potential for consumer detriment in the future.
It was in the light of those concerns that we announced that the Government would carry out an open consultation on whether home reversion equity release plans should be regulated by the FSA. We published our consultation paper on 11 November, and responses are expected by 13 February 2004. The primary purpose of the consultation will be to arrive at a more in-depth analysis of the costs and benefits of regulation. As I am sure that my hon. Friend knows, we never extend the scope of regulation without considering the costs and benefits extremely carefully.
We hope that the consultation will provide evidence on consumer detriment in particular, and on the basis of that evidence, we will need to establish whether regulation would be appropriate.
Mr. Gardiner: Does my hon. Friend accept that one of the most difficult aspects is that because the scheme's maturity is evident only when the person dies, ipso facto, no one who remembers what was said when the contract was made can make a complaint? In such a situation, it is much more difficult to show the fault.
Ruth Kelly: That is precisely the sort of issue that we hope the consultation will draw out. We are also interested in evidence as to whether the current system of voluntary protection works or whether, as my hon. Friend is suggesting, it does not protect consumers adequately. It is only right that we ask people to submit evidence so that we can make an informed judgment on the issues. He is right to draw attention to the issue, and in the interim period, the FSA is already working on information that it can provide to consumers on the pros and cons of engaging in equity release, so that they can make an informed decision without having to wait for any subsequent regulatory decision that the Treasury may make.
11.29 am
Sitting suspended until Two o'clock.

School Funding
2 pm
Mr. Adrian Flook: I commence by thanking Mr. Speaker for granting this most important debate. I know that that is much appreciated by many people involved with education and schooling and by communities as a whole.
As hon. Members will know, the Government announced their provisional settlement for local education authorities, and therefore for schools, at the end of October. They then added to what they had to say in the middle of November and added to that after the pre-Budget report. I am sure that the Government hope that they have learned the lessons from last year, after which most local education authorities, teachers and schools were left frantic with worry about how they were to balance their budgets.
I am sorry to disappoint the Minister, but in the south-west—England's most rural region—the LEAs still appear to be hard done by. There are two reasons for that. Traditionally, little account is taken of rurality in allocating the funding. I accept that some account is taken of rurality, but ministerial answers that I have examined about how the figure is arrived refer to a "sparsity factor" in the
"primary sub-block and LEA central functions sub-block"— — [Official Report, 8 December 2003; Vol. 415, c. 92W.]
whatever that means. I would appreciate it if the Minister could shed some light on that.
The other reason that the south-west appears to be badly served by this year's and previous years' funding is that, as the National Association of Schoolmasters Union of Women Teachers informed me, the south-west area attracts many experienced teachers who, by definition, are more expensive than younger teachers working in inner-city areas outside the south-west.
My county, Somerset, has particular problems. I shall examine in detail the settlement for Somerset in respect to education, which was very poor relative to other counties and LEAs. The county council referred to its funding level from the Government as being "on the floor", with overall funding per pupil at £2,832, compared with an English average of £3,097. There is no denying that, on Government calculations, Somerset was meant to spend £250 less per pupil than the national average in England and-believe it or not-this year it is expected to spend £265 less than the national average.
Last year, all moneys in Somerset LEA were passported, as they were meant to be, and I am pleased to tell the Minister that it has been decided that that will also be the case for the forthcoming year. He may be aware that there is a debate raging in our county about how well or efficiently the LEA spends the meagre money that it is given by the county. It is fair to say, however, that historically the county has spent more on education than it needs to. I hasten to add that that is at the cost of the quality of the roads, and it is to the tune of £20 million a year. However, that matter can be debated another time.
282WH
Some of us, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Liddell-Grainger), question how efficient the administration of central resources are in Somerset's LEA. However, I believe that that is also a debate for another time.
Mr. Ian Liddell-Grainger: My hon. Friend is being very kind in his words—I shall certainly not be. Does he agree that the Liberal Democrat-controlled county council has put up the cost of running county hall from £433 million two years ago to £549 million now? There are 500 extra employees. Those controlling the council are passporting the money because we have said that if they do not, we will make their lives hell.
Mr. Flook: My hon. Friend makes a good point about the fact that the Liberal Democrat-controlled council has seemed to be rather free with council tax payers' money. That said, there is all-party agreement on a number of aspects of funding in Somerset. Indeed, the Minister's party has joined my party and the Liberal Democrats in combating what they regard as a meagre funding settlement.
Apart from the low base level of funding that Somerset has had, there are severe pressure points, on which there is universal agreement in the county. Let us first consider transport, which is £8 million over budget. It looks as if inflation in the demand-led school transport budget will go up again next year, as new contracts negotiated between the county and the bus companies look as if they will rise by 16 per cent. Pressures elsewhere in transport also impact on the education budget.
Much work also needs to be done on special educational needs. As a hospitable county, Somerset seems to attract more and more youngsters with learning difficulties and severe learning needs. I am informed that the fact that the formula on which the Government rely includes information about children with low birth weight partly contributes to the gap between what the county is given and what the Government expect us to provide for. I point that out because a significant number of families move to Somerset from elsewhere and some have children with extreme levels of need. That means that the budget is estimated to have to rise by some 10 per cent. for next year.
With regard to the severe pressure points, Somerset has a problem with early-years funding. The Government are looking towards funding for three and four-year-olds. They are considering increasing the funding that they provide to some LEAs that have a large increase in the number of three-year-olds who are expected to be funded. Somerset has a large increase, but it is not quite large enough to qualify for the grant that some LEAs are receiving.
Lembit Opik: I apologise to the Minister because I may have to leave the debate early as a result of unbreakable commitments later today, but I shall make a fairly non-controversial point. Does the hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Flook) agree that one problem is that rural areas have to cope with the existence of small schools? They are very important to local communities and perhaps contribute to their

283WH
economic regeneration. Nevertheless, all the economic regeneration benefit comes from the education budget. It sounds as if his constituency might be experiencing the same sort of pressures as in Powys.
Mr. Flook: One could add that there is a fourth pressure point, although it is only on the horizon in Somerset; it might already be there in Powys. Two small schools in my constituency—Langford Budville and Nynehead—which are on the edge of a smallish town, Wellington, are being asked to consider whether they can justify having 26, 27 or 30-odd pupils. The hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point about rurality. Both schools provide a focal point for their community. He is right to say that the community receives that benefit from the education budget.
One way of making education part of the community is through the use of computers. I am told that although one of those schools has an excellent computer suite, something is missing. Initially, the villagers were keen to get involved and to go to the school and learn about computers. As time goes on, more and more families have computers, but they treat them purely as typing machines or use them only for internet surfing, although much more can be done with them. Local authorities could consider how to provide intermediate and advanced courses and enhance the skills of people in rural areas. That would be very important.
There is a further point on the rurality angle, and the hon. Gentleman's constituency may also suffer from this problem. Both the villages I mentioned are close to a town. They are lovely villages, but young families cannot afford to live in them even though their parents still live there. The children of those families use those schools, however, not because the schools in Wellington are poor, but because they get an extra element of child care by being in the same village as their grandparents. A large social element would be destroyed if those schools were closed down. The hon. Gentleman's main point is a good one.
Mr. Roger Williams: I too apologise for the fact that I may have to leave the debate. On the issue of rural schools, does the hon. Gentleman agree that much of the cost of educating children in small schools is enlarged because of the overheads of bureaucracy? Innovative schemes could be put in place to cut the overheads and the cost of education in small schools.
Mr. Flook: That is true. I am sure that there are many innovative schemes whereby a number of small schools could club together. They could put in an administration level for all the schools involved and therefore justify a top-quality professional management. I am sorry to say that, with the large amount of paperwork that the Department for Education and Skills hands out, it is difficult for heads to process that paperwork and find time to teach. I know that that happens in Somerset and, I am sure, in the hon. Gentleman's local education authority as well. I am aware that the Government are making money available, but it would be helpful if the Minister could explain—perhaps not in this debate, but in writing to me—how initiatives are working in the south-west. I should appreciate that.
284WH
As I said earlier, we all welcome the fact that the funding announcement was made earlier in the financial year than was the case last year. The very late funding announcements last year meant that schools up and down the country suffered problems. Schools were unable to deal efficiently with the budget problems that arose. I appreciate that the Government have said that they do not want to re-run those problems, and I do not blame them. Judging by the amount of humble pie that the Secretary of State has had to eat in recent months—his Ministers too, I assume—when apologising for the problems of earlier this calendar year, I can understand why the Government do not want a re-run of the funding fiasco. They trumpeted an 11.6 per cent. increase last year; on anyone's terms, that looked generous. However, according to the independent study conducted for the National Union of Teachers, half of all primary schools and two thirds of secondary schools lost staff. That is 9,000 teachers and 12,000 support staff—21,000 trained individuals taken off of the total school staff roll.
This year, the Government estimate inflationary costs of 3.4 per cent. Last year, they estimated a similarly low figure, but it came out at 8 per cent. All hon. Members want to know how that level of miscalculation will be avoided this year. Schools had to prune expenditure on books, equipment, extra-curricular activities, special needs, training and maintenance. They used up their reserves and had to set budget deficits and use creative accounting. They launched fund-raising appeals among parents. That is a voluntary, localised stealth tax, as schools demanded more and more from parents, who thought that their children's education had already been paid for in their taxation.
Despite such fund-raising, according to the NUT, class sizes rose in half of secondary schools, numbers of lessons were cut, vocational courses were abandoned, and teachers taught subjects for which they were not best qualified. Senior teachers were replaced by junior teachers, purely for financial reasons. As someone who—was never very good at any of these subjects—I preferred to concentrate on history—I am sorry to say that science, modern languages and maths were the losers. I should hate to see someone with my lack of capability at those three subjects failing because, sadly, no effort in schools was put into those three main subjects. I think that we all accept that they are vital to this country's future economy.
This year's rescue package, as somebody unkindly called it, is a shuffling of the same pack of cards. Teachers that have left schools—certainly those in Somerset—will not return under the settlement, nor will classroom assistants suddenly return to the classroom. I am sure that the Government will protest that they have been generous with taxpayers' money, and have given what they could to LEAs and schools. However, the flat-rate funding in place will have a perverse impact. The more pupils that a decent, growing school attracts, the smaller funding increase it will receive.
Will the Minister explain what the letters sent to LEAs mean, and whether some of what has appeared in the press is scaremongering or fact? The Guardian, which is no friend of my party, has said that the way in which the Government have put together the formula is a return to old Labour, because it removes the incentive

285WH
for schools to build up their numbers and excel. One of the letters sent to LEAs on the 10 December acknowledges:
"We recognise there is concern in some authorities about appearing to reward schools with poor financial management, or penalise those who have taken harsh decisions to stay within budget this year".
The letter, which is on the website of the Department for Education and Skills, continues:
"It may be necessary in effect to write off parts of those schools' deficits."
That is most definitely a return to the old Labour style of running a Department. I am further intrigued by another letter from the DFES, which says:
"If any LEA can put forward a compelling argument that additional transitional funds are needed in the short term, then the Government will bring forward grant payments."
In the light of that, what is Somerset's position?
The impact on Somerset of the past few years' funding has been interesting and I have asked several questions of Ministers in the Department for Education and Skills. In 1997, 67 per cent. of pupils in Somerset achieved level 4 or above in English key stage 2. That figure is now 74 per cent. Even taking into account grade inflation, that appears to be good. However, the national average has risen from 63 to 75 per cent. In mathematics, the figures in Somerset have risen from 63 per cent. attaining level 4 or more, to 72 per cent. However, the national average has risen from 62 to 73 per cent. Therefore, we have gone from outperforming to underperforming.
I know that the relative decline is not due to the excellent teaching staff in Somerset—comparing LEA to LEA on a teacher-for-teacher basis, we have many more excellent, experienced teachers. It is certainly not due to the pupils or parents. It can be due only to the fact that Somerset receives below-average funding, which discriminates against it. That is also the case in many LEAs in the south-west.
The Somerset schools forum feels strongly that the problem is inadequate funding rather than poor budget management in schools. After six years, the institutionalised manipulation of funding levels is beginning adversely to affect Somerset. Calculations made by Somerset's LEA show that, although it will receive £10.2 million next year, the cost pressures on Somerset will leave it more than £2 million short. Only two other LEAs are in such a poor position. The Minister's settlement, which he has trumpeted as fair, has provided many LEAs with headroom. Unfortunately, Somerset has negative headroom. That cannot be allowed to continue.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. John McWilliam: Order. I have no power to limit the length of speeches, but hon. Members should remember that the object of the exercise is to give the Minister sufficient time to reply to the Member who began the debate.
2.19 pm
Mr. David Kidney: I congratulate the hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Flook) on securing a debate on what is an important subject for our constituents. A debate on school funding should start with the "thank yous". I visit schools in my constituency frequently, and in every school I see hard-working and dedicated members of staff doing tremendous work. I refer to the teachers, the growing numbers of teaching assistants, those who work in the schools' offices, which are still dreadfully under-resourced, caretaker staff and, if the school has kitchens, the kitchen staff. They all contribute to the quality of the education. I would also add a "thank you" to the pupils, who apply themselves and work hard, and their parents, who support them in their learning.
Sue Doughty: The hon. Gentleman mentioned classroom assistants, who do such a valuable job, so does he agree that the difficulties over funding have limited schools' opportunities to develop the careers of classroom and teaching assistants, some of whom want to go on to teaching? There is no money to promote them, pay them extra or even encourage them to stay in the job.
Mr. Kidney: I thought that the hon. Lady was going to ask me to thank Members of Parliament for their support for education too, which I am glad to do. Just a month ago, I asked a parliamentary question about the pay and training for teaching assistants, so she can see that I share her concern and endorse what she says. It is important that there is proper support in their training, pay—which is vital—and career path for the future.
I must not overlook the governors, who manage schools and wrestle with the difficult problems—which the hon. Member for Taunton mentioned—of balancing their budgets. I also add a "thank you" to the Government, and not only because I am a supporter. The capital increases in our schools are indisputably noticeable. Every school that I visit has received investment for new developments, and even teachers who give me a hard time about school funding give credit for that capital investment. A lot of that is traditional public sector spending on capital investment, but it is accompanied by innovative schemes for private finance initiatives. In my constituency, the brand new Sir Graham Balfour high school and the modernised Cooper Perry primary school are prime examples of delightful developments resulting from the additional funding provided by PFI.
Those are my "thank yous". I should like to add a "thank you" for the increase in the revenue budget for education, but that is where the wheel falls off and I join the other hon. Members who are going to complain about funding. Much of the problem is with the distribution mechanism that the Government use to send funding to local education authorities. I want to concentrate on that aspect on behalf of both Staffordshire LEA and all the local authorities that are at the bottom of the funding pile year after year, in particular the 40 worst funded authorities, which collectively call themselves the F40 campaign group for fairer funding.
Although we are disappointed with the distribution process, the change in formula this year represented some success for the F40 campaign. We asked for a

287WH
minimum funding for each pupil wherever he or she is educated, and we have that now. In next year's budget, wherever a pupil goes to school in England, the basic funding will be £2,111.59 per primary pupil and £2,826.23 per secondary pupil, unless the pre-Budget report takes those figures slightly higher. Those figures can be found in a written answer from the Secretary of State on 11 December at column 609W.
The written answer also refers to some figures that the Secretary of State put in the Library, which helpfully give a breakdown of the average per pupil that each LEA has received on top of the basic amount for additional education need and in additional cost allowances and sparsity payments. That provides valuable source material for those who want to argue about the relative weights given to the additional factors.
That brings me to a second point on which the F40 campaign has already been successful. We argued for fewer add-ons to the basic amount and less of the complexity of the old calculation and, in that sense, we were successful. Many of the old add-ons were scrapped, and we now have only the three that I just mentioned: additional educational need, additional cost allowance and sparsity. What has gone wrong this year with the new formula, leaving aside other cost pressures, such as additional pension fund and national insurance contributions, is that, as there is a transition from an old system to a new system, the Government have slipped in some transitional measures, such as budget support grants, which have confused the situation. I believe that many such measures will fall out over time. The big debate for the future is whether the system of having floors and ceilings, so that no one gets below a minimum increase or above the maximum increase, will continue indefinitely or, again, fall out over time.
I would like to talk about Staffordshire and the complaint about how the formula is affecting us. On the overall settlement for the country, I still see, as is traditional, Staffordshire down near the foot of the table showing the richest and poorest authorities. However, the gap between the bottom and top is wider this year under the new formula than it was last year. That is a disappointing development. In the last year of the standard spending assessment, the bottom authority got 73 per cent. of what the top authority got; this year, under the new system, the bottom authority got only 66 per cent. of the formula spending share of the highest.
Of course, the complaint of hon. Members in the south-east is different to the complaint raised in Staffordshire. I would say that the south-east has had an advantageous funding system for 10 years; its complaint is that this year, under the new formula, it has lost that. The benefit went completely over the heads of those in Staffordshire, and went in the main to metropolitan authorities. Certainly, shire counties missed out on it.
In Staffordshire, I recently met all secondary head teachers in one group. Under the new system, they repeated the disappointment that they had expressed in previous years about poor funding, the difficulty that that causes them in managing their budgets, and the effect that that has on the morale of those who work in their schools. I give the Minister a couple of examples of what they are up against as a result of the new formula. We should bear in mind the fact that Staffordshire is next door to Stoke-on-Trent in the north and
288WH
Wolverhampton in the south, both of which benefit from excellence in cities funding, education action zones and specific grants. Stafford gets none of those.
I was told the following story by the head teacher of Walton high school, which, according to academic league tables, is the best public school—[Interruption.] Sorry, best public sector school in Stafford. Is not the terminology confusing? That school lost two young teachers this year, one to a Wolverhampton school, and one to a Stoke school, both of which offered additional responsibility allowances that the head teacher of Walton could not justify paying the new teachers on grounds of experience—they were brand new, although good, teachers. Equally, she could not match from her budget the figures offered and pay the extra. So the school lost two promising young teachers because of the additional funds that the next-door neighbours had.
I was told a shockingly worse tale—although I realise that it is just an anecdote—in which a head teacher went to see a neighbouring school in Stoke-on-Trent to look at its facilities. The head teacher was very impressed with the extra funding that the school had been given to develop its information and communications technology programmes. The other head teacher said, "Yes, we bought absolutely everything that we needed for our school's ICT requirements, and we still had some money left over from the Government grant, so we bought billiard tables for year 11." That shocking story was told to a head teacher who is struggling from one year to the next.
It is no surprise that, when schools were given the short-term ability to use money from capital funds in their current account to tide them over difficulties this year, 59 schools in Staffordshire took advantage of it, to the tune of nearly £1 million. The upper pay scale is encouraging for teachers' career development, but there are schools in Staffordshire that just cannot find the money for their contribution to the extra pay for teachers who get through the threshold and on to the upper pay scale. The national work load agreement is worrying schools that cannot make ends meet because they will now have to find more money soon.
The Minister should take back to his Department the complaints made in Staffordshire. That situation is replicated across the local authorities involved in the F40 campaign. The F40 group met at Lutterworth on 11 October to review the new formula and to decide whether it could announce that its campaign was complete and that all its members could retire from campaigning work. I am afraid that its members decided unanimously that the new arrangements were not good enough, so the campaign goes on, as my hon. Friend the Minister for School Standards well knows from the correspondence that he has received since then.
F40 would like not just a minimum funding increase—that, effectively, is the floor at the moment but minimum funding, with a reduced, and not expanded, gap between the highest and lowest-funded authorities. F40 will now work on a model to try to achieve that, so that when the Government are next willing to look at changes to their formula, the arguments of F40 can be fully taken into account. I hope that the Minister finds that constructive approach appealing. In the meantime, I ask him to look at the

289WH
examples of unfairness that I have given him, and see what can be done this year, and for each of the next three years, to try to stamp them out.
2.30 pm
Mr. Peter Luff: May I begin by expressing my appreciation of my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. Flook) for securing this important debate and for opening it so skilfully? I thank also the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) for his remarks.
I will need to read the record carefully, but I think that I agree with almost everything that the hon. Member for Stafford said. I certainly agree that there has been a significant increase in capital expenditure in Worcestershire—which is appreciated. The Minister knows that I am a fair man, and that I do not want to score party points where there are none to be scored. Where the Government deserve congratulation, I shall offer it. I appreciate the increase in capital expenditure, which has borne significant fruit in my constituency. I say "thank you" for that.
I should also like to thank the Government for this year's settlement for schools, which removes the appalling pressure that schools were under last year. Budgets this year will be a great deal easier to manage.
It was a little galling to sit through Prime Minister's questions today, however, and hear a Warwickshire Member pay tribute to his schools' achievements. If we in Worcestershire were given the extra money that Warwickshire gets, there would be similar improvements in Worcestershire schools. I entirely agree with what the hon. Member for Stafford has just said: the distribution of resources simply is not fair and does not work.
Last year, there were particular difficulties—there are party points to be scored here. The Government's problem was that although they gave a generous cash increase to school funding, their own changes put up costs even further. Instead of saying that it was a generous settlement, Ministers should have said, "We've given you quite a lot of money—all that we can afford—but we know that your costs have gone up too. It is going to be tough this year. but bear with us." They did not say that, but tried to pretend, as Ministers have done under different Governments, that their settlement was frightfully generous. It was not generous given the extra costs that schools had to bear.
I freely acknowledge that this year is a bit different. This year, there is real-terms growth in funding in my county. I shall not make unfair points, but the basic problem remains—as the hon. Member for Stafford said so clearly during his very fine speech—that a number of counties, particularly shire counties, are being left behind.
A few weeks ago, I was at a meeting of head teachers in my constituency, and we heard a story of a teacher who had moved from Birmingham to a local first school. On the first day, the teacher asked, "Where are the laptops for every member of my class?" The head teacher said, "We can't afford laptops for every member of the class." On the second day, the teacher asked, "Where is my laptop?" The head teacher said, "I'm
290WH
afraid you'll have to buy it out of your salary." The third day, the teacher asked, "Where's my classroom assistant?" The head teacher said, "There isn't one; we can't afford one."
Worcestershire is surrounded by better-funded authorities. Many of the teachers who teach in those better-funded authorities live in Worcestershire, and they write to me to say how much better funded are the authorities where they work. Teachers who teach in Birmingham tell me that they do not know what to do with the money that they have got for their schools. I see a look of disbelief on the Minister's face, but it is true and I can show him the letters. I could show him the article from The Birmingham Post a couple of weeks ago, which talked about the huge cash balances that many Birmingham schools have. Worcestershire schools, however, do not have huge cash balances; they have run them down over the past couple of years because of the severe financial pressure from which they suffer.
We find it difficult to understand why we are so uniquely disadvantaged in Worcestershire. There are national pay scales, except of course for London where there is a particular issue about weighting, which I fully accept. It is quite right that London schools should get significantly more money than schools elsewhere in the country—I have no argument with that. Employment costs are higher in London; teachers get London weighting and that is reasonable. However, teachers elsewhere get the same salary wherever they are because national pay scales apply. The ancillary costs related to education for things such as textbooks, heating, lighting and the building are broadly the same. The national curriculum also had a big impact on levelling authorities' expenditure on education over their historical levels. I accept the case for London Weighting—I do not challenge it for a minute—but there are some interesting questions for the Minister to answer about area cost adjustment.
Sue Doughty: I apologise to you, Mr. McWilliam, because I am not able to stay until the end of the debate.
There are also problems in the high-cost areas. For example, in Surrey housing costs are as much as, if not more, than in some parts of London. We are losing 25 per cent. of our staff every year. Surrey is a training county without a training budget. Additional costs accrue to such cliff-edge areas. We are spending some £50 a year on training alone—and yet we have to do all those things.
Mr. Luff: I am interested in what the hon. Lady said. I half agree with it. I acknowledge that the Audit Commission said recently in its review of local government finance that the Government had shifted resources from the south-east to elsewhere in the country. I agree with that finding, I have read that report, I am interested in it, and it is true. Counties like Surrey have suffered. They have, however, received an area cost adjustment for a long time. Teachers' salaries are modestly higher in my constituency than in the hon. Lady's—although I should not make too much of that.Nevertheless, they are certainly in line with the salaries paid in Surrey. I accept that in the hon. Lady's constituency higher salaries still are, perhaps, needed to

291WH
retain teachers. The actual costs incurred by schools are marginally higher in Worcestershire and Staffordshire than in counties in the south-east.
My theory is that the area cost adjustment is a device used by civil servants to favour their own schools. This is not and should not be a party political debate. Civil servants live in the south-east of England and they want their schools to be well funded for a long time. Ministers of both Conservative and Labour Administrations have gone along with that for too long. It is time to recognise that schools outside the south-east deserve a fairer deal than they have had so far.
Ministers in debates like this often respond by saying that similar children in similar circumstances get the same level of funding—I suspect that that is in the Minister's script today—but that is not true or right. It is, perhaps, true of the basic funding formula, but school funding does not stop there. Funding is also affected by the area cost adjustment and the other top-up sources of funds from central Government, which the hon. Member for Stafford enumerated during his speech, which was good. The problem in Worcestershire is that historically, before the days of the national curriculum, the Conservative-controlled Administration were able to spend relatively low sums on education, compared with elsewhere in the country, and deliver an adequate outcome. However, with the national curriculum, the pressures on education have changed all that. If the Conservative Administration of the 1980s had faced the problems of the 21st century, they would have spent a great deal more money.
The old funding formula reflected historic patterns of expenditure. A history of low spending would be used as the base on which the percentage increases were built. A new funding formula was introduced last year. I was delighted about that. Sadly, however, that has enshrined the old status quo. I am not normally cynical, and I apologise to the Minister for being so, but my cynical judgment is that the per pupil entitlement and the deprivation-sparsity top-ups were rigged to deliver roughly the same outcomes as the old formula. Therefore, Worcestershire did not benefit from the new formula as it should have. The gap between our neighbours and us has grown in cash and relative terms since 1997. Although I chose that date quite arbitrarily, the Minister probably appreciates its significance. The gap has grown because the formula has not been amended as I had hoped it would be, because top-ups—which we do not get—have been paid from central funds to neighbouring authorities, and because of the area cost adjustment.
It is important to recognise that the rules of compound interest apply to school funding formulae. In other words, if a school starts from a low base and gets 6 or 7 per cent., that is welcome because it eases the budgets. However, if the neighbouring authority—let us say Birmingham or Warwickshire—gets the same percentage from a higher base, they get more and the gap grows. Worcestershire is grateful for this year's settlement; it would not be bad if the county were an island. However, it is not. It is joined on every side by other local education authorities that are fishing in the same pool for teachers—and often, at the boundaries, for pupils. The LEAs around Worcestershire can offer a better deal on equipment and facilities for pupils and teachers alike. That is getting worse, and I am concerned about it.
292WH
I am delighted that the Minister for School Standards will meet a group of nine members of the Worcestershire head teachers forum on 27 January to examine the issues. The Minister listened to Worcestershire's case in a marvellous way, and I am grateful to him beyond words. He answered at length questions that were often bad-tempered—because we feel strongly about this matter in Worcestershire—and he responded with his usual intellectual honesty. l am grateful to him for that. However, we are getting to crunch time in Worcestershire. The gap between our neighbours and us grows and grows, making it increasingly difficult for Worcestershire to offer the quality of education that it should, compared with Warwickshire, Gloucestershire, Birmingham and the black country.
This is not the Minister's job, but the matter is made worse by the view of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister on resource equalisation: not only do we lose area cost adjustment because our salaries are apparently not high enough to merit that but, miraculously, our house prices are too high and therefore it is judged that we could raise more in council tax. To have an area of the country where house prices are high and labour costs are low is challenging to say the least. I read economics at university and although my knowledge of it is now a bit ropy I know that it is difficult to sustain high house prices on the basis of low wage costs. That suggests that what I have been saying to Ministers for some time is true: people live in Worcestershire but work in Birmingham—or Warwickshire or Gloucestershire. Many teachers do that.
House prices are high and labour costs are low, so we lose both ways. We lose about 10 million on area cost adjustment and £13.4 million on resource equalisation—a total of nearly £24 million a year. If the county were to get its hands on even some of that, it would make a big difference. The rules are not joined up; they are not delivering the right outcome for schools in my constituency and throughout the county.
I have expressed my reservations about the formula, which gives the wrong balance of weights—it gives too much to deprivation. That should be reformed. I have also expressed my views about area cost adjustment. The hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster) is interested in that, and it is a shame that he is not present because he has criticised Conservative Members for not attending past debates, but that is another matter. The Government have two choices: either area cost adjustment goes—which there is now a case for—and every LEA outside London, where there is London weighting, gets a similar level of resource and similar children in similar circumstances are truly valued equally, or Worcestershire gets it, because it is surrounded by counties that get it, and that is putting us at a huge disadvantage.
The other issue is top-up funds—excellence clusters, excellence in cities, leadership incentive grant, education action zones and pathfinder projects. I have tried to find out what these bring to the county. I have had two sets of answers from the Department for Education and Skills. One of them was about pathfinder projects, which promised that a table was enclosed but it was not. I have yet to see it so I do not know what the situation on pathfinder projects is. I am sure that that table will be produced. I raised the matter with the Department in a

293WH
question—reference No. 141463—asked on 8 December. I would love to know the situation with regard to pathfinder projects, but I do not.
I have asked questions on education action zones, excellence clusters, excellence in cities and the leadership incentive grant. The hon. Member for Worcester has taken me to task for not asking about specialist schools. I will be asking about them now. As for other direct sources of funding, I shall ask about early years, excellence challenge, behaviour and attendance, and standards funds moneys too, because I want to debate the facts.
Let us consider the answers that I received to questions on several issues—reference Nos. 141460, 141424, 141425 and 141426. I congratulate the officials who deal with the leadership incentive grant because they answered my question about it. The officials whose attention was drawn to the other three issues did not. The Minister should have looked before he signed the answer to the question. The information that I received was complete gibberish. The Table Office has allowed me to re-ask the question. I have asked the hon. Gentleman to respond to the points in the questions with reference Nos. 141460, 141424 and 141425, in the manner that was used to answer the one with reference No. 141426. I look forward to receiving that answer. Frankly, the answers had been stuck on a word processor without captions, titles or explanations and were not in the requested form. I received a scandalously inadequate response.
I am not a conspiracy theorist, but there are those of us in Worcestershire who believe that the answer was given in such a form to deny us information. That worries me. The matter is subject to revision when I receive the answers to the other questions, but the Worcester head teachers forum has considered the answers that I have received so far and about £300,824,000 is paid in top-up moneys, of which Worcestershire receives £375,000 under the leadership incentive grant moneys, which is 0.1 per cent. of the total. That destroys the Minister's argument that similar pupils in similar circumstances are funded similarly; they are not. Area cost adjustment of top-up funds makes a big difference.
In press releases, members of the governing party in Worcestershire say, "Funding gap closes again". I do not know how they reach that conclusion. The funding gap has not closed again; it has widened again. I have challenged the hon. Member who wrote the press release to withdraw it from his website, because his statement is not true. I have given the game away as there is only one male Labour Member in Worcestershire. The funding gap has widened. Yes, I am pleased about the extra money. Yes, I am pleased that school budgets will not be pressurised, but Warwickshire and Birmingham, in particular, have again done better than us. We cannot continue in such a way. Head teachers, parents, governors and pupils in Worcestershire are paying a heavy price for the steady erosion of Worcestershire's relative position in the funding table.
It is also true that the Labour party is trying to make such matters a party political issue in Worcestershire. I have tried to avoid doing so. Legitimate arguments can be advanced about how education is funded nationally.
294WH
I am willing to stand up and defend my position on the funding of public services, especially the health service. I had real worries about the Government's strategy of pouring in money without first reforming the service. Pouring money into Worcestershire's education service is a thoroughly good action to take. It needs more money to bring us up to the levels of the neighbouring authorities.
Party politics should not be involved. Yes, here in Westminster we should argue about the total quantum and how it is raised. We should argue about public-private structures, organisation and so on. As local Members of Parliament in Worcestershire, we should be determined and clear about the fact that our county deserves a fair share of whatever a Conservative, a Labour or—God knows—a Liberal Democrat Administration might offer. I say to the Minister that the situation is deteriorating day by day, year by year. Worcestershire demands and deserves a fairer deal.
2.49 pm
Dr. John Pugh: I congratulate the hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Flook) on initiating the debate, which will surely not be the last such debate. It is certainly not the first debate that we have had on school funding. The Government's reaction to the issue passed through three distinct phases. First, they were surprised that there was a problem. Secondly, they confessed that they had some part in the problem and had not expected it, and they currently want amendment of life and an intention to do better hence forward. There was a degree of repentance on their part. That is all very welcome. I will not rehearse the reasons why the problem arose in the first place, because all hon. Members present are fairly familiar with them. In a nutshell, they were a combination of unexpected school costs and a rejigging of the local authority formula.
As the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) mentioned, rejigging the local authority formula was a highly contentious act. It was an attempt to arrive at a more equitable and fair formula, but it clearly has not satisfied many hon. Members or their constituents. None the less, it was planned and its effects could have been anticipated, and the Government are remiss for not having done so.
Recently, however, the Government have given a great deal of reassurance in various ways over fixed periods. First, reassurance was given that the formula spending share was going to increase by between 5 per cent. and 6.8 per cent. per pupil, and a vigorous announcement was made that the local authorities would have to passport fully the schools' funds. The Minister made it clear that if that did not happen, he would ensure that it would. Subsequently, a ministerial announcement guaranteed broadly 4 per cent. per pupil. There are variations, depending on whether the school roll goes up or down, but the increase was good so far as most schools were concerned. The general figure seemed to exceed the headline figure that the Government gave for increased school costs.
There was also the reversal of the previous policy on standards funds and the restoration of standards funds to schools. There was the offer of transitional support-a limited, possibly insufficient amount-to areas that had especially difficult problems, and the opportunity

295WH
for local authorities to knock on the open door of the Secretary of State to ask for money if they really needed it and could not cope without it. I understand, however, that that was in the form of a loan rather than a direct grant. There was the promising development of an early settlement of all these finances so that schools could anticipate their financial situation, however good or bad it might be, and of an early, and fairly extensive, settlement of teachers' pay.
The Government have done much to give schools some of the reassurance that they did not have last year. However, fundamental uncertainties remain about the implementation of the workload agreement, and about exactly how schools will use their balances and how they used them last time. There are new rules about balances, which will affect how schools dispose of their funds. There is also the continuing and contentious nature of what we used to call the rate support grant, which has a greater adverse effect on county areas than on, say, metropolitan areas, which must be recognised. It must be recognised that county areas have a particular problem with that grant. None the less, the Government attempted to smooth things over with the local government settlement—more reassurance. They offered £300 million to authorities that would have specific problems in funding education in full without damaging other services. That was followed by the December pre-Budget statement, which promised extra money yet again.
On the face of it, it is hard to tell whether the Government have done the job that they intended to do. They have made certain moves, but the $64,000 question is, "Are they out of the woods and have they resolved their problems?" I suspect that the Government team will ask themselves that question over Christmas, and will continue to ask it until the school budgets pan out later in 2004. This is a nail-biting time for the Department for Education and Skills, which has taken steps to ensure that there is no repetition of 2003 but is not entirely sure that that will happen.
Mr. Kidney: The jury is still out on several matters. We can say with certainty that the Government have made all these announcements very early to help schools and LEAs this year and have done their best to indicate figures for two years, not one. Does the hon. Gentleman welcome those factors unequivocally?
Dr. Pugh: It is certainly preferable for schools to have an early statement about what their future financial affairs might be like. Bursars and head teachers throughout the country will be happier with the situation in 2004 than the one at the start of 2003. That can only be good, and the Government are to be applauded. However, it is fair to summarise what the Government have done as a series of ad-hoc adjustments. It has been a scissors-and-paste job. Schools, and everyone else, would like a permanent fix. I do not see how the Government can arrange such a permanent fix, although it may be broadening the scope of the debate to say that they are on the horns of a dilemma.
One solution, which would to some extent avoid a repetition of the same events in 2003, 2004, 2005 and 2006, is to move rapidly in the direction of new localism. The Government could roll things back, fix a generally
296WH
fair level of support for local authorities and let them get on with it. In other words, they could simply set standards and back out. I am sure that they have absolutely no intention of doing that because, like the previous Government, they seem to have decided that education, and certainly schooling, are far too important to be left to local authorities, and so they want more levers to direct and control the process.
Clearly, the Government could go in the reverse direction. They could go the whole hog and adopt a command-and-control version of education similar to that adopted in France. They do not want to go down that road either, and so they are left with a somewhat awkward system that is difficult to manage and which will never guarantee schools the financial stability that they would hope for and that would be the best possible scenario.
The system involves resources being channelled into education via local authorities—with disputes over whether that is done fairly—through various versions of school formulae, and could involve disagreement about whether the arrangements are as adequate as they could be. There is also a range of special schemes, as the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire mentioned. The effects of those schemes are difficult to assess and they can give rise to grievances in schools that do not benefit from them.
A high degree of central prescription underlies the distribution of resources, and a necessary consequence is that there will always be local anomalies and unjustifiable differences that people cannot defend intellectually—they simply observe that they occur. What the Government have done means that if a school had a windfall funding increase to deal with the circumstances of this financial year, that would be incorporated into its budget. If a school had an unfortunate variation this year that was not systematic, but occurred because of a temporary adjustment that it had to make, that would be bolted into its budget. That has been acknowledged and, in a sense, tolerated by Ministers.
Issues related to fairness. equity and the way in which the system pans out on the ground in areas such as Somerset and Worcestershire will always be around and will be almost unavoidable until the Government choose to empower local authorities as before and to introduce greater local discretion, or go in the other direction and divest local authorities of their residual powers.
Mr. Luff: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in Worcestershire the local education authority has already decided to spend more than the Government recommend? It is already spending above the formula spending share reckoned by the Government, and still the shortfall exists. There is some empowerment already, but at a heavy cost to the council tax payer.
Dr. Pugh: I quite agree. I have a lot of sympathy for what has been said about Worcestershire because I used to serve on a local authority that, unlike Worcester, traditionally and habitually, over decades, spent above what Governments recommended, and we found it extraordinarily difficult to maintain educational expenditure at the required level given the nature of the

297WH
rate support grant each year. Often other services had to be cut and reduced to maintain the funds for a school, and in some cases add to them.
I suggest that the Minister should seriously review the possibility of adopting a solution for the funding of schools that is something more than the scissors-and-paste job that we experienced this year, because, sure as eggs are eggs, the same details, data and offers from the Chancellor of the Exchequer and other sources will not be around in subsequent years. Schools genuinely want stability, continuity and a good level of funding for decades to come.
2.59 pm
Mr. Mark Hoban: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. Flook) on securing the debate and introducing it so eloquently. He spoke with real passion about the problems that affect his community in Somerset, the way in which the funding formula may have penalised that area and the impact that that has had on the local education authority. I was particularly interested in his comments about some of the central costs of LEAs, such as school transport costs, which are a real burden in many rural communities.
The hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) made a characteristically "yes, but" speech. He thanked everyone lavishly in the style of an Oscar winner, and then expressed his qualifications. I have a lot of sympathy with what he said. Representing a constituency in south-east England, I am perhaps a beneficiary of the delay in fully implementing the changes to the funding mechanism announced last year.
As a beneficiary, the question arises of when the transitional process will restart. This year it would appear that, given the narrowness of the gap between the floor and the ceiling, the process has stalled. When do Ministers expect the transition to be completed? If we are to plan staff numbers and the development of schools in the long term, we need a clear timetable for the completion of the transition. The hon. Gentleman also made a point about work load to which I will return later. He hit on an issue that affects many schools to which I have spoken over the past few weeks.
I turn to the remarks made with typical passion by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff), in which he expressed the concerns of Worcestershire and made some very telling points. His point about area cost adjustment is interesting because we should see whether the Chancellor extends his commitment to introduce regional pay bargaining in a national formula to greater issues arising on that front in the future. The distribution of funding causes many people concern because it is difficult to understand the disparity in allocation between neighbouring LEAs. It is a concern that we have heard expressed by Members up and down the country over the past year.
I was also taken by the numbers mentioned in the Department's allocation of direct funding to local schools to which my hon. Friend referred. I think that 0.1 per cent. of direct funding went to Worcestershire. There is a lot of concern that that money has been targeted away from shire counties and at inner-city
298WH
areas. There is also concern over whether schools in shire counties are receiving an adequate level of resources to improve educational standards.
Mr. Luff: I am sure that my hon. Friend would wish to confirm that we have no argument about schools in deprived areas receiving additional funding; it is the extent of the discrepancy that concerns us.
Mr. Hoban: My hon. Friend makes a fair point. We also need to remember that schools in those areas have had more funding, but that the gap between the best and the worst schools has continued to widen rather than narrow under this Government. I know that all too well, having looked at the numbers for the north-east of England—the area that I come from—and seen the increasing disparity between the best and worst schools and how even people in deprived areas are losing out.
The hon. Member for Southport (Dr. Pugh) made a very good summary of why we are currently where we are. He envisioned that as long as the system is in existence we would be trapped in debates about school funding for years to come. The Government know that next year they must have no repeat of the problems that have bedevilled the 2003–04 financial year.
I am the first to acknowledge that the Government have taken great steps to try to remedy some of the problems that we saw in 2003–04. The transitional funding of £121 million to help schools that are in deficit is an important aspect of that. The relatively high increase in the schools formula spending share per pupil is much higher than that envisaged by the Secretary of State when he made his announcement in October. The narrowness of the gap between the floor and the ceiling has greatly helped those LEAs that would lose out if the redistribution of funding were to happen again this year. My concern is whether that is enough.
One reason why we had so many problems in the 2003–04 financial year was that the Government underestimated the cost pressures facing schools. The Secretary of State referred to cost pressures of 3.4 per cent in his statement on 29 October. Some of the correspondence that I have had from schools across the country states that they believe that number to be optimistic. One primary school in Dorset said that it needed an increase of 6 to 7 per cent. but the formula spending share per pupil went up by only 5 per cent. in that county.
A high school in Norfolk—not in the constituency of the Secretary of State for Education and Skills, I am pleased to say—needs an increase of 7 per cent., yet the county's LEA increase this year is 6 per cent. In Northamptonshire, a senior school needs an increase of some 6.5 per cent., but the county's increase is only 5.8 per cent. Schools are uncertain whether the money that has been promised by the Government will be sufficient to cope with the cost pressures that they predict for the 2004–05 financial year.
Let me return to transitional funding, which is an important tool in the Government's armoury for trying to improve the deficit situation faced by so many schools. The hon. Member for Southport expressed concern that the transitional scheme will actually reward schools that have not managed their books properly. That is prompted by a comment that came out

299WH
of the questions and answers produced by the Department for Education and Skills at the time that transitional funding was announced. Schools that have taken steps to manage their way out of the problem need more support, but we are in danger of rewarding the poor performance of those schools that have not done that. I am not sure that any of us would like that to take place.
Transitional funding does not tackle the problems of schools that managed their way out of the current financial year's situation by using reserves or devolved capital expenditure. Let me give some examples: a school in Northamptonshire used £46,000 of its reserves to balance its books, but it will not benefit from the targeted transitional funding, which is meant to go to schools that had a deficit, and a community college in Northamptonshire has used £90,000 of reserves to tackle its problem. The list goes on and on. Many other schools have been identified. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Guildford (Sue Doughty) is no longer in her place, because schools in her constituency are affected as well. One primary school in Guildford had to use its reserves, as well as the capital expenditure that was earmarked for that year, to balance its books.
Surrey county council estimates that schools have used some £10 million of their reserves to balance their books, but they will not get any transitional target grants for 2004–05. It appears that there is no way in the forthcoming financial year to protect schools that have taken such action. Teachers in my constituency express to me their concern that, although they avoided redundancies and staff losses in 2003–04, the pain will hit in 2004–05 if the spending increase is not sufficient. That is a real concern for many schools that managed to tide their schools over this financial year because of prudent financial management in earlier years.
Let me raise a matter that is important to schools, although it may appear to be a point of detail. The Secretary of State announced that KPMG were to provide hands-on support to schools with budgetary problems. Will the Minister confirm that that will be limited to half a day per school? I believe that schools had originally been given the impression that there would be two days per school. Having worked for a firm of chartered accountants myself, I suspect that half a day will not be enough to get to grips with some of the complex issues affecting our schools.
The issue raised by the hon. Member for Stafford, to which I wish to return, is the work load initiative. There is a real concern that the money in the 2004–05 settlement will not be sufficient to implement some of the much-needed work load reforms that are so fundamental to retaining good teachers in our system. I shall repeat some remarks that schools have made to me. A school in Guildford said:
"We may have to cut some teaching jobs in the school in order to provide sufficient funding for the employment of Teaching Assistants to comply with the new Workforce Reforms."
What a perverse world we live in where, in order to make the work load reforms work, we must reduce the number of teachers in a school. I think that many people would scratch their heads and wonder whether the work load reform initiative has been properly funded.
A school in Northampton, which was a pilot for some of the reforms, pointed out that when its pilot money runs out on 31 March 2004, it will have to make
300WH
redundant some of the teaching assistants employed as part of the pilot project. I am sure that that is not the Government's intention, but it is the unintended consequence of the way in which funding works. It echoes the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire about the amount of money that is funded directly to schools from the DFES. Quite often, that money is for a finite period, but the expectation is that those schools will continue to provide that service once the initial pilot money has gone. In its submission to the next spending review, the Local Government Association said that it is difficult for LEAs that are on the floor of their settlement to envisage how they will meet the costs related to some of the work load reform initiatives proposed by the Government.
I want finally to touch on the implications of the formula for spending share per pupil—a methodology that the Government have set out. It is becoming more and more difficult for LEAs to devote additional resources to schools that have particular needs. Money cannot be transferred between schools as easily, if the expectation is that schools will get, in the example of Barking and Dagenham, some 5 per cent. extra per pupil. There are limits to schools' discretion. Perhaps we are witnessing a move by the Government to introduce national funding of schools. The fair funding formula, showing the average amount per pupil plus various allowances, would indicate that that may be where the Government are heading. Will the Minister comment on that? He has, perhaps, more time than he initially imagined to respond to hon. Members' queries.
As the hon. Member for Southport said, the Government are watching and waiting, having heard loud voices of complaint arising from the inequities of the 2003–04 spending review. It is clearly important for the Minister, as well as for schools, teachers, heads, governors and LEAs, that the spending formula is right. I am concerned whether the Government have understood, after last year's debacle, the problems of cost pressures facing schools. Have they properly appreciated that, if such pressures are not properly addressed, what might appear to be a minor shortfall of, for example, £20,000 on a school budget, means two thirds of a teacher? Have they tackled the issue facing so many schools of how to bail themselves out using their reserves or capital expenditure? Those problems might bite in 2004–05, not in the current financial year. It is a question that we cannot answer today, but we shall watch how schools respond to the financial settlement.
3.13 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills (Mr. Stephen Twigg): We have had a very good debate in a constructive spirit. Colleagues on both sides of the Chamber have sought, quite properly, to represent their constituency concerns and to raise some of the broader issues that we undoubtedly face on school funding. I should like to echo the comments of hon. Members who have spoken during the debate in thanking all those who work so hard in our schools: the teachers and head teachers, other school staff, and parents, pupils and governors. Regardless of party politics, there is much for us all to celebrate in the achievements that we see in our schools.
I shall seek to respond to some of the specific concerns that have been raised in the debate. I apologise to hon. Members if I do not address every concern, but I shall

301WH
endeavour to write to all those to whom I am not able to respond fully today. I shall then conclude by making some general remarks.
I join in congratulating the hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Flook) on securing this debate. He raised several important and challenging issues related to schools funding, with particular reference to the situation in his county of Somerset. My starting point in addressing what he said is that I do not underestimate some of the difficulties that have occurred this year.
Schools and LEAs in all parts of the country are confronted with a number of issues. Some of the cost pressures about which hon. Members spoke apply to both rural and urban areas, and to the north, the south and the midlands. However, the combined changes that were made last year have had a different impact in different parts of the country.
The hon. Member for Taunton spoke, in particular, about rurality, and about how to address the needs of rural schools. He was right to do so, although that goes some way beyond the specific focus of today's debate. He also mentioned the question of school transport. I am acutely aware of the cost pressure that that issue incurs, and of the frequent inequity for children and their parents in the system for getting access to school transport. That is why we announced in the Queen's Speech that we intend to publish a draft Bill to examine and address that specific issue.
I have responsibility in the Department for work with rural schools. We now have a rural schools group, which brings together head teachers from secondary, primary and special schools to examine particular issues, such as transport, and access to information and communications technology, to which the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) referred when making the contrast between the situation in his constituency and that in a city such as Birmingham.
The hon. Member for Taunton, in responding to an intervention, made a point about small schools. It is important that we have sufficient flexibility to recognise the particular circumstances of small schools, especially those in rural areas. That is why we introduced the important presumption against closure of rural schools. Earlier this year, I visited a school in Cornwall, which had only 17 pupils in the entire school. I was struck by the excellence in that school, and how that was achieved. I would prefer that we only closed schools in extreme circumstances, and accept the his point that one implication of that is that we need to examine the funding arrangements.
We said this year that we want to have a minimum per pupil increase in every school. Part of the reason for that is that we want to give a guarantee of stability. However, we also recognise that in many schools, and particularly in primary schools, pupil numbers are falling significantly. We want to ensure that sufficient flexibility is given to those schools for them not to suffer as a result of their decreasing pupil numbers. I endorse the point made by the hon. Member for Taunton about the importance of some of our initiatives, for example the relevance of specialist schools to rural as well as to urban areas.
302WH
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the undertaking that we have given that authorities can apply to bring forward future years' grant into this year, and asked whether Somerset would be eligible to do that. I understand that no approach has been made to the Department by the authorities in Somerset, but that there is still sufficient time for them to do so if they wish to make use of that provision.
In Somerset, there has recently been a significant increase in the numbers of teachers and of other staff working in schools. I want to strive for that position to be sustained in the future rather than being reversed. I understand that Somerset has an excellent record on education, which has been recognised in many ways by Ofsted and the comprehensive performance assessment process.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the fact that progress made in primary schools at key stage 2 is slightly behind national progress. However, at secondary level, good progress has been made in recent years. The figures for the five A* to C GCSE measure are above the national average. Somerset does particularly well in the value added measure between key stage 2 and key stage 3. I would be happy to examine that further, but I understand that the Department has a positive view of the progress that Somerset is making and we want that to continue.
Several hon. Members referred to the increases in capital investment in schools in recent years, and I appreciate the non-partisan way in which the issue was addressed. There has been significant improvement. Capital investment in 1997–98 in Somerset was just below £4 million, whereas this year it is just below £20 million. I do not underestimate the scale of the challenge that we face in ensuring that school buildings and equipment are fit for the 21st century. We must accept that all Governments over the decades have failed to address that sufficiently, but I am pleased that we are now seeking to do so
My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) raised several issues, including the ongoing F40 campaign. I understand his concern, which overlapped with the subsequent speech by the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire. It is clear that it is a difficult issue to get right. It would be difficult to address the problem with a national formula, but it would be equally challenging to leave it to local authorities and communities to determine for themselves. My hon. Friend rightly said that we have sought to identify a basic amount of money that everyone should receive, while recognising that further factors must be considered.
I acknowledge what my hon. Friend said about the contrasts between neighbouring authorities, such as Stoke and Wolverhampton, and he raised two specific issues, one of which was raised by other hon. Members. The first point was about the upper pay spine. We are acutely aware that head teachers are concerned about the affordability of the next stage of the pay reform. Following the School Teachers Review Body's announcement, we have been involved in discussions with head teachers associations and the Local Government Association on ensuring an outcome that is affordable, has clear criteria for schools, and rewards good performance by teachers so that they can make the desired progress.

303WH
My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford and the hon. Member for Fareham (Mr. Hoban) raised the issue of work load, and it is critical to get that right. There has been a fundamental change in recent years with an increase in the number of additional adults, such as classroom assistants or learning mentors, working in schools. Central Government must ensure that that trend can be sustained and afforded. Indeed, we hope that it can be increased, so that the terms of the national work load agreement can be implemented in schools and communities across the country. We are working with all signatories of the national work load agreement, including the majority of unions, head teachers associations and the Local Government Association, to see how to proceed most reasonably.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford and the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire passionately raised the position of their counties and drew contrasts with the positions of neighbouring authorities. I know that a delegation from Worcestershire is going to discuss its position with my hon. Friend the Minister for School Standards in January. I particularly appreciate that the hon. Gentleman acknowledged that there are additional costs in London that merit an uplift within the system. He also acknowledged that it is right to have a factor for deprivation, and he said that there should be a debate on how far that is weighted against others.
As hon. Members will know, the formula introduced this year is the product of detailed work that has attempted to get the combination of factors right. We have listened to the concerns of rural schools, hence the introduction of the sparsity element in the primary, central LEA part of the formula. We have listened to the concerns of urban schools about the impact of factors such as deprivation, pupil mobility, and pupils speaking English as an additional language, and incorporated that into the formula. I accept that it continues to leave gaps. I believe that we all accept that there will always be gaps in per pupil funding, for the reasons that hon. Members have acknowledged throughout the debate, but we need to continue to examine the implementation of that funding in future years. I very much appreciate the serious point made by the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire that the rules of compound interest apply. That aspect of the debate will continue.
I will ensure that the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire gets a proper and clear reply to his parliamentary questions. I understand that there are 15 specialist schools in Worcestershire, which clearly benefit from additional funding, in addition to the leadership incentive grant moneys to which he referred. In the past 12 months, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has said that we want every secondary school in the country that qualifies under the criteria to be able to be a specialist school. That will bring great benefit to Worcestershire, as it will to other parts of the country.
We are also considering how some of the projects that have been funded through schemes such as excellence in cities and behaviour support—the hon. Gentleman listed some of them—can be drawn out and applied to other parts of the country. Last week, I announced that the primary programme for excellence in cities is being extended to other primary schools with
304WH
a high level of deprivation. That will include some rural schools and schools outside the traditional excellence in cities areas. I appreciate the concern that a focus on areas of high deprivation can have several impacts, one of which is to ignore small pockets of deprivation in otherwise fairly wealthy areas. Again, we must debate that further.
The hon. Member for Southport (Dr. Pugh) said that this would be a nail-biting time for the DFES. Certainly, we are determined to get these things right. He described the future debate as being between new localism and command and control. I am tempted to use my remaining three minutes to respond to that, but that is a broader debate, which we will need to conduct elsewhere if I am to do justice to other points raised this afternoon.
The Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Fareham, talked about the importance of the Government recognising some of the serious differences between areas and the discretion that local authorities may or may not have. In all honesty, we have done a mixture of things. On the one hand, we have been more prescriptive by saying that there should be a minimum increase for each school, which obviously reduces some of the discretion that LEAs used to have. On the other hand, we have told LEAs that the remaining money gives them the headroom, as we describe it, to apply it, and more flexibility about how they do so. They need not necessarily apply it through the traditional local formula. They have that ability, and we strongly encourage them to use it, as we believe that it is important that such support is given.
The hon. Member for Fareham also made a very important point about the transitional support, which is the additional money that we have identified for the LEAs that received a relatively small increase this year and to whom we plan to give a similarly small increase next year. That will ensure that everyone receives a minimum increase of 12 per cent. across the two years. He asked whether that might reward mismanagement. We do not want to do that. We want to ensure that schools that have had to exercise certain short-term measures are given the support that they need for longterm stability. He is right to say that, in some cases, that will include schools whose budgets have gone into deficit this year. However, the money is not meant exclusively for those schools. It can be used to assist schools that have had to raid their reserves in the way that he described, if the LEA and the Government agree. It can also be used for schools that have had to divert money from capital into revenue. We do not want a school to have to make a permanent shift from capital into revenue because of the obvious damage that that could do to its ability to maintain its school buildings and to do other work required to provide capital support for the school.
I assure hon. Members that the Government recognise that we have a shared responsibility to learn the lessons from this year. We have found additional funds, including funds that the Chancellor announced last week for local government, which we believe will make a difference. We have reversed the cuts that were to be made to the standards funds for the coming year and the year after, and we believe that that will be beneficial. We have sought to give a basic guarantee to schools in all communities that they will receive an

305WH
increase that will enable them to plan for this year and the following year. Crucially, we have a two-year pay deal on the table which will make budgets far more predictable for all schools in the country.
We have had a good, constructive debate—I am sure that it will not be the last debate on schools funding in this Chamber—and I have been pleased to take part in it.

Kosovo
3.30 pm
Sandra Gidley: I am delighted to have the opportunity to raise the subject of missing persons in Kosovo.
As with so many things, the issue was brought to my attention by a constituent who came to my surgery. He had been involved for many years with the charity Hope and Aid Direct, which delivers materials and goods to Kosovo. Over the years, he has naturally become attached to some of the families that he has met. It was because he was so obviously emotional about the subject that I thought that it was worthy of a little more attention than a standard letter to the Minister and my thinking that I had discharged my duty by doing that.
The basic problem is this: the Office of Missing Persons and Forensics—that is a bit of a mouthful, so I shall now refer to it as the OMPF—which is a part of the United Nations Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo, stated on 12 November that there are 3,638 missing people in Kosovo, of whom 2,842 are believed to be Albanian. There are also about 1,000 missing Serbians.
I do not know whether the figures are entirely accurate, because I gather that the number of missing persons changes almost daily as previously unidentified remains are identified, the fate of those missing persons is established and, from time to time, new cases are reported. I understand that the number of remains exhumed and not identified is approaching the number of missing persons. The main problem appears to be that the pace with which bodies are returned is extremely slow. Obviously, people want to know what has happened to their loved ones and without proof of their fate many people cannot properly move on in their lives.
According to a statement published by Amnesty International in August, the OMPF's current priorities are
"the exhumation and examination of grave sites, and the return of positively identified bodies to their families for burial".
As most of the work on the former has been more or less completed, unless more sites are found, clearly the emphasis should be on identification.
On 8 May, the first group of remains that were identified using DNA analysis were handed over. The bodies are handed over to UNMIK at the administrative border between Serbia and Kosovo. The bodies had been identified, but were then handed over to the OMPF for further forensic examination, and even then the families had to wait until 1 August before they were able to bury friends and relatives. At that time, the families had been waiting for the first release of bodies for four years after the war had ended, and only 37 were released at that stage. Recently—early in December—there was a further handover of bodies, when another 44 were released.
The handing over of bodies in dribs and drabs is adding to the anguish felt by those families. I am told that each release has the effect of reawakening some of the old tensions. I may be wrong, but I am told that a lot of people go to the site where the bodies are released to check whether anybody they know or any family member is there. If not, it adds to the anguish. That may

307WH
not be the situation, but that is the way it has been put to me, and I should be interested to receive clarification from the Minister if possible.
To date, only 157 bodies have been returned to their families. It would be in the best interests of everyone if the process was speeded up in some way. Last week, my constituent and I met a couple of officials from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. The meeting was useful, but worryingly, it was apparent that no one really understood why all the bodies had not been transferred and what had caused the delay. I am pleased that officials undertook to try to establish where the blockages in the system are, the reason for them and any possible solutions. I therefore hope that the Minister will enlighten us further, but I understand that, because of staff changes, that might not be possible.
In order to understand why feelings are running so high, it is worth putting the matter in its historical context. Many of the bodies were originally found in mass graves. One of the most famous locations is Batajnica, where some of the graves contained as many as 300 bodies. The bodies were exhumed and examined, and the initial task was to try to establish the cause of death. The process included taking many photographs to help identification and gathering bone samples that could be used for subsequent DNA analysis. Much of that work took place more than a year ago. It is believed that the bodies in Batajnica were victims of atrocities committed in the Kosovo conflict two years earlier. The "clean-up", as it is sometimes referred to, is understood to have been organised by Slobodan Milosevic's officials to destroy evidence of the widespread massacres that Serbian forces committed in Kosovo in 1999.
Prior to that, a refrigerated lorry was discovered. It was pulled out of the Danube at Kladovo in eastern Serbia in April 1999. The Serbian Government tried to hush up the story, but the news spread very quickly as it was the first known incidence of Serbian atrocities. Admittedly, the Serbian Government set up a working group to investigate the matter, but that investigation met with only limited success. Several similar incidents followed, but according to the Institute for War and Peace Reporting, the Serbian Interior Ministry under Milosevic is believed to have blocked all investigations into the first lorry load of corpses.
Milivoje Srzentic, the prosecutor from Negotin, said that he asked the state prosecutor at the time why no investigation was taking place. Majstorovic apparently answered, "Because nothing has happened." It has since been reported that Vlajko Stojiljkovic, who was Milosevic's Interior Minister, and Vlastimir Djordjevic, then chief of public security, instructed the district chief of police to refrain from launching any investigation. They ordered him to transfer the bodies to Belgrade and the case was declared a state secret. However, evidence to The Hague tribunal shows that the day after the discovery of the lorry on 7 April 1999, the corpses were taken by truck to the police training compound in Petrovo Selo in eastern Serbia and destroyed by 30 kg of explosives.
The director of the Belgrade-based Humanitarian Law Centre, Natasa Kandic, condemned the affair as a heinous crime. She believes that the people in the freezer lorry were likely to have been on the list of Albanians who had been missing since the Kosovo conflict, and she has called for an investigation into the removal of
308WH
evidence. She stated that there were serious indications that the Serbian police and the Yugoslav army jointly destroyed evidence of atrocities committed against Kosovo Albanians during the NATO bombardment.
An investigation by Kandic concluded that between 24 March and 12 June 1999, the bodies of at least 800 murdered Albanians were transported from their initial burial sites to secret locations in Kosovo and Serbia, where the corpses were then burned or reburied. I stress that we are talking not just about active young men, but about old people, women and children. After the conflict, the Yugoslav army launched an investigation into the conduct of 245 soldiers. Charges for crimes were brought against 183 of them, but none of them related to the more high-profile cases—including those involving refrigerated lorries. Officers in the new regime and new members of the judiciary were expected to comment on the freezer lorry affair, but the Serbian Justice Minister and the Police Minister both declined to do so.
In May 2001, the Serbian Interior Ministry announced that a special police investigative unit had been set up to investigate the case under the guidance of Dragan Karleusa. Hopes were high that the names of those involved in the apparent cover-up would be revealed in days. Karleusa told a press conference at the end of May 2001 that his team had established that a working meeting was held in Slobodan Milosevic's office in March 1999 and that at that meeting Milosevic had ordered the then Interior Minister to take measures to cover up all traces of the crimes.
The working group questioned several police generals, but all of them denied involvement in or knowledge of the mass graves. Karleusa has not said whether efforts were made to interrogate Colonel Zivko Trajkovic, the Serbian SAJ police commander who was in command of the Batajnica and Petrovo Selo bases in which the mass graves had been discovered. Sadly, since those statements were made, some time ago, no arrests have been made, no charges have been pressed and the police force has turned a deaf ear to most questions asked. Understandably, there is a great deal of anger that the issues do not appear to have been adequately investigated, and the fact that the identification issues are still rumbling on is not helping matters.
It is known that the authorities can move swiftly when it suits them. It might be useful to point out the case of the Bitici brothers, Albanians who happened to have American citizenship. They were each sentenced to 15 days in prison for illegally entering Yugoslavia. They served their sentence but a year later their bodies were discovered in one of the two mass graves at a police training camp at Petrovo Selo. The bodies were wrapped in wire, there were blinds over their eyes, they had head wounds and they had clearly been shot. They were discovered on 8 July 2001 and their identity was determined very quickly, by August 2001. They were identified by FBI pathologists working at the Belgrade forensic institute, so admittedly they were part of a different system.
However, it is worth mentioning the speed of identification of those bodies in order to highlight the fact that the delays are not due to science. If suitable samples are available for cross-referencing—these are usually obtained easily—there is no scientific reason why the identification of the bodies is taking so long.

309WH
Indeed, this week, Saddam Hussein was positively identified within 24 hours, so identification is not always a prolonged process. All of this leads people to believe that the reasons for the delay are political. Allegations have been made that the bodies are being used as bargaining counters in some macabre political game. That is the nub of the issue, and it is what concerns me most.
I have visited Kosovo as part of the armed forces parliamentary scheme. Part of the reason for that visit was to witness the role of the British Army in peacekeeping. I visited at an interesting time, because the Queen's Royal Lancers were handing over their chunk of the country to a Czech peacekeeping unit. The different reactions of the public to the British and Czech soldiers were fascinating. It was very clear to me that some of the tensions in Kosovo are bubbling dangerously close to the surface.
As a result of that visit, I am aware of the great capability that the British forces have in providing the necessary infrastructure wherever they are. They are probably second to none in that respect, as I hope the Minister agrees. Even though there are now fewer troops in Kosovo, it strikes me that there is a great deal of expertise.
Clearly, the first step is to establish through UNMIK the precise reasons for the delay. In some respects, it is difficult to suggest what to do next if one does not know the reason. If the reason turns out to be infrastructure limitations, I would urge the Minister to try to use the resources that I have mentioned to provide the facilities to clear the backlog of bodies quickly. It could be that the delay is due to human resources, so it might be helpful to try to establish how long the process of identification takes for any particular individual, because I appreciate that with mass graves there is some sample contamination.
It might be helpful to come up with a clear timetable showing how many bodies can be released and by when so that expectations are not unduly raised and are managed positively. I ask the Minister to consider whether there is any expertise that we can lend to speed up the process and what could be done in that direction. The bigger picture is that Kosovo is a country that we went to war with for real humanitarian purposes, and so much has been done there already that this request seems almost like a drop in the ocean; but to the families, many of whom will be facing a fifth Christmas without their loved ones, the resources would be well spent, and very timely.
There might be fears that once the bodies were returned there would be immense political pressure to identify the perpetrators of the crimes. That may well be so, and I can understand that, but I sincerely hope that that is not being used as an excuse to duck the issue. It is too late to do anything for this Christmas, but I urge the Minister to do all that he can to ensure that there will not be a sixth Christmas of uncertainty.
3.45 pm
The Minister for Europe (Mr. Denis MacShane): This is an important debate on a fundamental issue, and I am grateful to the hon. Member for Romsey (Sandra
310WH
Gidley) for initiating it. She has visited Kosovo, and she has responded to a constituent much involved in that field of work who has come to see her. It is entirely to her honour as a hard-working constituency Member that she has found time to raise the issue.
The broader subject of forensic pathology and the identification of remains is, tragically, a pressing issue throughout the world. I have visited the forensic pathology laboratory in Guatemala City, which is partly supported by Her Majesty's Government. There, one sees young men and women examining the exhumed skulls and bones of people killed in massacres 20 years ago. I fear that there will be years and years of agony in Iraq as the victims of Saddam Hussein's torture and mass murder are exhumed from the mass graves into which he flung them.
Although not directly germane to that point, it is entirely to Britain's credit that we took the lead in using military force to free the people of Kosovo from the terror that they faced from Milosevic, and that we were prepared to use military force to free the people of Iraq from Saddam Hussein—in both cases, of course, without UN authorisation. However, I hope that, after this weekend's discovery, the whole House will unite in backing the Government and the Prime Minister, who showed courage in being prepared to use our authority and military forces in both Kosovo and Iraq to take things forward.
The hon. Lady raised many valid points about the continued suffering of the many families in Kosovo who lost relatives during the 1999 conflict. No one can fail to be moved by the humanitarian catastrophe and the blood shed across the Balkans and in the rest of Europe and our own country in the 1990s, and there can be no hon. Member who has not, in his or her constituency advice surgery, met asylum seekers and others displaced as a result of that violence, which was without parallel in Europe after the second world war.
Since becoming a member of the Government in 2001, I have sought to visit the Balkans regularly, and I am happy to report that each time I am struck by the fact that it feels less and less like a region that has suffered brutal repression and war. Real progress has been and is being made, not just in rebuilding economies, but in the healing and reconciliation process. For example, last week, another war criminal was sentenced for his part in the massacre at Srebrenice. A dialogue was launched between Belgrade and Pristina on 14 October 2003, and that was a key step in beginning the normalisation of the difficult relationship between Kosovan Albanians and the Serbs who live in Kosovo, as well as the Serbian nation and its capital city of Belgrade.
The war is still there, however. It continues for thousands of families who are unable to put the events behind them due to the simple fact that their husbands, sons and daughters were taken away and have never come back. In this country, we have a doctrine of habeas corpus, which we apply to arrests and criminal investigations, but there is also a sense that until families know the location of the body of a missing person to whom they were close, and until there is a body to grieve over, they are trapped in the continual emotional torment of wondering, "What if my son, my father or my uncle is still alive?" That is the tragic situation faced by many families from all ethnic groups and communities throughout the Balkans.

311WH
From the moment that the UN entered Kosovo in June 1999 and established its mission, UNMIK, it has been a key priority to try to find those who went missing in the conflict. That was never going to be an easy task, and until 2000 it was made more difficult by the fact that Milosevic was still in power in Belgrade. After the fall of Milosevic, UNMIK set up a dedicated Office of Missing Persons and Forensics to pool the expertise of those working on the task in Kosovo. The OMPF is creating a combined database of statistics and files on missing persons from the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia in The Hague, the International Committee of the Red Cross and police data. It also has an outreach office in Belgrade to facilitate closer cooperation with the Belgrade authorities.
The scale of the issue is immense. In June 1999, the UN estimated that 6,000 people of all ethnicities were missing as a result of the conflict in Kosovo. The latest version of the consolidated list of missing persons, issued by the OMPF on 9 December, states that 3,638 are still reported missing.
Missing persons is one of the most highly politicised and deeply divisive issues in post-conflict Kosovo. Obtaining accurate information about the location of mass graves is a problem. The wounds from the conflict are still very raw—we are only four years on from it. The hon. Lady referred to the tension that she could feel as one contingent of national troops replaced another. I have experienced that, too. There is still a sense of two communities finding it difficult to live in peace with each other.
It is possible that those who have information are afraid or unwilling to pass it on to the authorities. We therefore need to assist UNMIK and what is called its pillar which is responsible for law and order: any witnesses who come forward must be supported. That becomes logistically difficult if entire families have to be moved outside Kosovo. That is why we must work with the UN and the Kosovo provisional institutions of self-Government—the PISG, in the jargon—to build a safe and secure environment in Kosovo so that all its citizens feel protected.
A credible local police service is an important contribution to that. I have had the pleasure of meeting serving UK police officers in Pristina who are helping to train and lead the new Kosovan police service: 122 of our police officers are attached to UNMIK. That is an important British contribution to this work.
There is also the issue of the identification and return of remains to Kosovo. Progress has been made, but UNMIK and Belgrade have more to do on that. In 2000, the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia and the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe reported the existence of 4,392 bodies from the conflict in Kosovo. Since then, another 150 bodies have been found. So far, 4,019 bodies have been exhumed and 2,212 have been identified. In addition, approximately 800 bodies have been exhumed from the mass graves at Batajnica and Petrovo Selo in Serbia, the majority of which are unidentified, but 157 of those that have been identified have been returned to Kosovo.
The creation of the International Commission on Missing Persons for the Former Yugoslavia was announced long ago—at the G7 summit in Lyon in
312WH
France in 1996. However, delays in this process cause great distress to families waiting for news. There are harrowing descriptions of relatives arriving on the border with Serbia to try to find their relatives among the unnamed bodies returned to Kosovo. No one should have to go through that sort of trauma, but no one should have to suffer civil war either.
The hon. Lady asked why the bodies exhumed in Serbia cannot be returned to Kosovo more quickly. In fact, bodies need to be identified and returned not only in Belgrade, but in Kosovo. There have been long delays in returning the remains of loved ones who have been identified, which cause huge distress for the families. I confirm that as a priority I am asking our embassy in Belgrade and our mission in Pristina to call upon the ICMP and the OMPF to raise that. I have not yet received responses, but I assure the hon. Lady that I shall maintain pressure and write to her when I hear of developments.
A key obstacle to the process is the fact that the Serbian police did not begin to discover or exhume the mass graves in Serbia until March 2001, with the arrival of a reforming Government in Belgrade after the ousting of Milosevic. Further delays have arisen over the best way to identify the remains. Should one use traditional forensic techniques or DNA testing? DNA testing relies on matching the DNA of a family member with that of a victim. Post-mortem and ante-mortem data, such as physical characteristics, clothing and location, can provide crucial circumstantial information, which makes finding DNA matches easier.
That has now been resolved, and the ICMP and UNMIK signed a memorandum of understanding on 26 November 2003. I hope that we now move forward, and, in passing, I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Portillo), who has been heavily involved with other organisations working in the field of forensics and in identifying victims of the conflict in the former Yugoslavia.
Is there a problem with the fact that the identification process has to be carried out twice—once in Serbia, and once when the remains are returned to Kosovo? The difficulty is that the OMPF would not be complying with its formal obligations to co-operate with war crimes prosecutors if it did not carry out a forensic examination to determine the true cause of death. However, we must look again to see whether we can have one examination rather than two.
The next question is: why are not all the exhumed remains returned en masse from Serbia to Kosovo? I am told that one reason is that if the bodies were returned to Kosovo en masse before identification, there would be greater delays in their return to their families because the local capacity for identifying remains would be further overloaded. Indeed, those of us who visit Kosovo from time to time see that the state administration is limited in what it can do.
Since taking up ministerial office and during my visits to Belgrade and Pristina, I have regularly raised the issue of missing persons and returns. Most recently, I visited in April this year. I spoke to the families of Serbian missing persons in Belgrade, and I had extensive discussions with Prime Minister Rexhepi of the Kosovan provisional Administration.

313WH
The international community has to take the issue seriously. It is true that the Serbian Government have exposed to their people what Milosevic had done in Serbia's name during the Kosovo conflict. That came as a shock to many Serbians, who had been genuinely unaware of the scale of the attacks on Kosovar Albanians. I do not think that the Government were using the bodies that were discovered politically-as in Iraq, it is important that we understand the crimes with which people are being charged.
The UK Government have so far provided £750,000 to organisations working to locate and identify persons missing as a result of the armed conflicts in the Balkans. We will continue to play close attention to the matter, and I invite the hon. Lady to stay in contact with me on this issue on behalf of her constituents. I congratulate her again on placing this matter in the record of the House of Commons. It will be of great interest and perhaps some comfort that she is a champion of the families in Kosovo and Serbia who are seeking to come to terms with the great losses that they have suffered.

A180 Resurfacing
4 pm
Shona McIsaac: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise this issue in Westminster Hall today. People hear of many roads around the United Kingdom, including the M25, M1, A1 and M6. The A180 is not exactly top of the list of well-known roads, but it is the main dual carriageway to the wonderful conurbation of Grimsby and Cleethorpes, serving all the major industry and ports in that area. People should know of this road, because it must be one of the noisiest in the UK—it certainly is as far as I and the residents who live alongside it are concerned. Whether one is driving along the road or is a resident alongside it, the noise is very noticeable, to the extent that if my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) and I were in a car together, we would not even be able to hear each other speak. Mind you, there are times when we may not wish to hear each other.
People in our constituencies have been campaigning for many years to have the concrete surface of the road resurfaced with low-noise material. In the past, when the residents of the village of Habrough in my constituency and the residents of Great Coates in my hon. Friend's constituency were campaigning, there was no provision for funding of such a measure. I was therefore very pleased that the 10-year transport plan, which was announced in July 2000, stated that 60 per cent. of the trunk road network would be given lower-noise surfacing. That was good news for the residents of our areas. Following that, and having supported the residents' campaign for low-noise material, I embarked on a series of parliamentary questions to try to find out exactly what was happening.
I asked for a statement and, on 2 May 2001, Tim Matthews from the Highways Agency replied via the then Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, who is now my right hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning. He said that they were looking into the criteria. The answer states:
"It is anticipated that the final set of criteria will be announced this summer and will then be applied to determine the priority of concrete trunk roads, including the A180, for resurfacing." [Official Report, 2 May 2001; Vol. 367, c. 635W.]
At that point, we seemed to be getting closer to our objective.
We had further good news on 17 October 2001, when the list of priority roads was announced. My hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby and I were pleased that, according to the list, the A180 from Habrough to Stallingborough and from Great Coates to Pyewipe was due to be resurfaced with low-noise material. The list explicitly stated that those stretches of road were likely to be resurfaced in the following three years: 2002–03, 2003–04 and 2004–05. At least we knew that our roads were on the list and would be resurfaced and that the residents would at last have some peace and quiet.
However, every time that I asked further parliamentary questions about when exactly the A180 would be resurfaced, I found the replies increasingly confusing and sometimes evasive. We were never given a firm date—the answer was always, "It will be

315WH
sometime in this period if money is available and if we need maintenance to be carried out on the road." I praise the Government for making money available, but the excitement expressed by my constituents at the initial announcement has been dissipated. They were promised that the work would be done, but as time went on, it kept getting put back.
Mr. Austin MitchellI want to support both my hon. Friend's arguments and the efforts of the local people who have petitioned us both and kept up the pressure to get the noise reduction work done. I confess that I am a frequent maker of that noise, as I drive through my hon. Friend's constituency, although I always write to her as a parliamentary courtesy to tell her that I am doing that. The noise is a real problem, but there does not seem to be any sense of urgency in the Highways Agency's approach or in any of the developments that only a couple of years ago the Government led us to believe would be delivered.
Shona Mclsaac: As ever, my hon. Friend and neighbour from Great Grimsby encapsulates the essence of the debate in a couple of articulate lines. By the way, that is my Christmas present to him—being nice to him.
I received a parliamentary answer on 28 November 2002, and it demonstrates what my hon. Friend was saying. The errors in the answer were dreadful and astonishing. Habrough, one of the main villages in the area, was continually described as Harborough, which it is not. As we know, that town is represented by another MP. The answer said:
"Resurfacing of two concrete sections of the A180, between Harborough"—
which should be Habrough—
and Stallingborough and between Great Coates and Pyewipe, is due to be undertaken by 2001."
According to that, the work should already have been done, but I presume that it meant to say that work was due to be undertaken by 2010 under the 10-year transport plan. The answer then said that
"current indications are that maintenance work will not be needed between Great Coates and Pyewipe before 2005 and it is probable that this work will be undertaken later."—[Official Report, 28 November 2002; Vol. 395, c. 453W.]
Later than what 2005 or 2001? We could not tell.
The situation worsened when the then Minister of State for Transport, now the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for Worley (Mr. Spellar), announced the scheme to reduce traffic noise alongside trunk roads. That scheme was in the 10-year transport plan, but when we looked at the list of roads included, we found the A180 almost at the end, below nearly every other road in the UK. Furthermore, the stretches of road covered by the work had changed the A180 Habrough to Grimsby and the A180/M180 to Ulceby. A whole new section had been included, which I understand goes through the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole (Mr. Cawsey).
Mr. Ian Cawsey: The A 180 is the road that links my constituency to those of my hon. Friends the Members for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell)
316WH
and for Cleethorpes (Shona Mclsaac). These days, I use it largely to go to see Grimsby Town play at Blundell Park, and driving home on that noisy road can only add to the gloom and despondency that I feel after coming home from a football match.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes mentioned the M180, which runs into the A 180, and she will be aware that it has recently been resurfaced by the Highways Agency, improving the life of the people living in those villages. I received some letters from people in Belton to say how much better it is. Does my hon. Friend agree that it adds to local people's frustration when they see that one section of the road has been completed while the other end of the A180 remains to be done?
Shona McIsaac: My hon. Friend, and other neighbour, also expresses his point well. The M180 has been resurfaced, and my constituents tell me that the reduction in noise is such that it is almost as though their car engines have cut out. I am sure that they say that to my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby, and to my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole before his drive from his constituency to Grimsby to watch the football match. People drive on the A180, where everything is juddering and making a noise—and they cannot hear the radio or traffic announcements-but suddenly, on the newly tarmacked section, it is quiet. They wonder what is happening to the car. I am so unused to low-noise surfaces that I once took my car in to be checked because I kept not hearing the engine. When I was travelling on the newly tarmacked surfaces I thought that the engine was not running properly.
The fact that one bit is done but another is not increases people's frustration. It was depressing to see the two stretches of road in question at the bottom of the list. However, it was more depressing for residents to read that there was a programme for the resurfacing of concrete roads from 2007–08 to 2010–11. Given that we were initially assured that that was likely to happen in the financial year 2004–05, hon. Members can appreciate the sense of upset experienced by all the people who had previously rejoiced when they were told that the A180 was to be resurfaced. That sense is beautifully expressed in an e-mail that I received from John Specht, a resident of Habrough, who has campaigned on this issue for many years. He and other residents of the village, such as Ann Standland, have been stalwarts. The e-mail is headed, "WHAT ON EARTH IS GOING ON?" It continues:
"A report in this evening's local paper tells us that our road will not be resurfaced until 2007!! Or even 2011!! ….We have been promised for about 3 years now that the A180 would be done in 2004–5. A very good explanation needs to be forthcoming."
I should like the Minister to provide some explanations and guarantees. We want to know when this road will be resurfaced. My staff contacted the Department for Transport and tried to clarify what was happening. We received a reply, which suggested that some of the sections were to be done in 2004–05, but it was not clear. That date is riot to be found anywhere in the documents produced and put on the record in the House. That has not been corrected. If these sections of road are to be resurfaced, I want that fact and the date it will be done put on the record.

317WH
I received a reply following my attempt to ascertain—as my constituent Mr. Specht said—what on earth was going on. It said:
"A number of schemes for resurfacing of the A180 were combined in the recent announcement and included in the table for 2007–08 to 2010–11, which is when some of the later contracts will be carried out. We would not resurface the whole of the A180 in one contract and the schemes have been placed in the programme based on maintenance need, funding availability and network occupancy. It is planned to start resurfacing the A180 in 2004–05, subject to funding with the A180 Harborough-Stallingborough section."
Again, there is no mention of Habrough. I want my hon. Friend the Minister to confirm today that that will happen.
I realise that recent debates in this Chamber have been secured by other hon. Members who have experienced problems with noisy roads. I appreciate that when it is announced that money will be available for resurfacing, Members of Parliament representing their constituents will campaign for it to be allocated to their schemes. I hope that I have demonstrated that the residents who live beside this stretch of the A180 have been told for years that the work will be done. The Highways Agency has no sense of urgency, as my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby said. I hope that the Minister is able to tell my hon. Friends here today, the residents of that part of Lincolnshire and me that they will have their road resurfaced in the future.
As this is the last debate in the Chamber before Christmas, I would like to wish you, Mr. McWilliam, the Minister, my hon. Friends, our wonderful constituents and staff an absolutely wonderful Christmas. The Christmas present that I want for those residents in my constituency is a little more silent night.
4.16 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Tony McNulty): I start by replying to those felicitations for Christmas and heartily send them back to my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac) and our hon. Friends the Members for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) and for Brigg and Goole (Mr. Cawsey). I cannot do much about the appalling performance of Grimsby Town but let me try to put into context some of the matters raised. Having been a West Ham fan for far too long, pots and kettles spring to mind in my decrying Grimsby Town.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes on securing the debate and on her assiduous campaigning for the residents beside the A180. She could not have put the problems of her constituents more starkly I do not mean this in anything other than an endearing way when she described how, of all hon. Members, she and my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby could not hear each other in a conversation along the road. Knowing both of them, it tells me how noisy the road is on those particular sections.
Shona McIsaac: To further show how noisy the road is, I cannot hear the Minister on the "Today" programme.
Mr. McNulty: That may be a good rather than a bad thing. I must also say purely in passing and not to
318WH
offend anyone in the Highways Agency that the mischievous little "r" has crept into the map given to me too. When I subsequently talk about Habrough to Stallingborough, that is what I mean and not "Harbrough", as it is called on the map.
Let me start my speech back to front because I have loads of pages and on the last two, it says:
"I will now turn to the resurfacing that my hon Friend has raised on the A180 trunk road."
If I have time I will go backwards.
As my hon. Friend has said, the Secretary of State announced in April the timetable for the removal of all concrete surfaces on the motorway and trunk road network by 2010–11. The work to resurface the entire stretch of the A180 between Barnetby and Grimsby was scheduled for completion in six stages between 2007 and 2011. The six stages, with apologies for any misspelling or mispronunciation as I know that pronunciation gets dodgy when one goes north of Watford, are Barnetby le Wold to Croxton, Croxton to Ulceby, Ulceby to Brocklesby junction, Habrough to Stallingborough, Stallingborough to Great Coates, and the section to which my hon. Friend alluded—Great Coates to Pyewipe.
I am able to confirm—subject to funding—that we intend to deliver the Habrough to Stallingborough section in 2004–05. I will do my absolute level best into the new year to ensure that it does prevail.
I hope that my three hon. Friends will do their level best, by badgering me and the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson) who is currently in a Select Committee sitting and sends his apologies, which is why it falls to me to respond to ensure that at least the Habrough to Stallingborough section is delivered in the coming year if funds are available. Inasmuch as I can reciprocate and give a Christmas present to my hon. Friends from the area, I can say that to them. I hope that that section will be delivered next year. The Under-Secretary of State for Transport and I will do all that we can to ensure delivery of that element, if funds are available.
Shona McIsaac: In order that the Minister's colleague does not get an even worse earache from my lobbying, would the Minister advise the wonderful trio who are here today of anyone else who should be lobbied to secure the funding?
Mr. McNulty: It is not for me to tell such experienced parliamentarians where to direct their fire. As my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary is in Committee rather than here, I have been introduced to the wonders and delights of the A180. Although he is the Minister with responsibility for roads, not me, the stereo is in place. We would welcome any assiduous parliamentary colleagues, which my three hon. Friends are, keeping the pressure on us. If the funding is available, we will do all that we can to ensure that at least that part of the route is delivered, with the remaining sections being delivered between 2007 and 2011 as originally scheduled.
The six schemes to resurface the A180 with low-noise surfacing will bring benefits to my hon. Friend's constituents who live and work in the many villages along the route. I am grateful for the opportunity to

319WH
confirm, at least as far as I can, that the Habrough to Stallingborough part will be brought forward in 2004-05. 1 look forward to passing on my hon. Friend's concerns and campaigning to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, because the quieter roads programme is absolutely essential for some communities that are spread along key trunk roads. That was the key reason for the announcement of the programme in the first instance.
By the way, I take on board entirely—perhaps we can explore it afterwards—why the M 180 being thrown into the pot was another let-down and disappointment. Actually, it is quite the reverse. It does not belong in the element at all.
Shona Mclsaac: It is done.
Mr. McNulty: Precisely so. Why we are saying that it will not be done until some time between 2007 and 2011 beggars belief.
The matter is important not just because of civil amenities, quality of life and the other matters to which my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes referred. Roads such as the A180 are real lifelines. Such thoroughfares are of importance to communities in this part of the country, as elsewhere, which is why we recognise that the programme must be carried through to fruition by 2011.
I suppose that the listing of priorities on a year-to-year basis will always be something of a movable feast. Many roads across the network have been this is the wrong way to put it, but let me say it anyway lovingly neglected over time, given what they were originally built with and the adjustments and modifications that should have been made since. As a result, some are in a greater state of deterioration than first envisaged when inspected for this programme. Therefore, priorities shift somewhat.
However, we recognise that traffic noise is a concern for many people, and we gave a commitment in the White Paper "A New Deal for Trunk Roads in England", which stated:
"In future, whenever a road needs to be resurfaced, we shall ensure that the most appropriate noise reducing surfaces are used for those areas where noise is a particular concern."
My hon. Friend has gone through the criteria that we sought to employ to deal with that, and now the programme really is in place. It is essential that things should be delivered in the way that we anticipated. Some 5 per cent. of the trunk road network, at some 70 different locations, is constructed with a concrete surface. Clearly, given the scale of the problem, the work cannot be completed overnight. My three hon. Friends have the experience to know that.
We must ensure that cases are dealt with in order of priority hence the criteria and we must also ensure the effective use of resources to minimise disruption to road users. As my hon. Friend said, the Government announced the criteria in October 2001, bearing in mind need, funding and the use of the road, and we are working to ensure that things remain on schedule between 2004–05 and 2011. A number of roads have proved to be in a great state of disrepair and deterioration, to such an extent that safety as well as noise reduction has become an issue. Naturally, those roads have moved up the list of priorities.
320WH
As I said at the start, all three of my hon. Friends can be assured that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Transport and I will do all that we can—with the single caveat "subject to funding"—to ensure that the promise that the Habrough to Stallingborough section will be delivered in 2004–05 is stuck to. All three of my colleagues will seek to ensure that the promise is kept. I would ask them to keep their eyes firmly on the ball when subsequent priority lists come out, in order to ensure that the other five elements of the A180 scheme come to fruition between 2007 and 2011. Such roads are important in terms of their interconnectivity for all communities, as well as for the peace and quiet of those who live alongside or close to them. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes for raising the matter.
Shona McIsaac: Very briefly, does my hon. Friend accept that, apart from its importance to the communities that live alongside it, the road is essential for all the industry in the area? The Humber ports are the busiest in the United Kingdom; we have car importing and exporting and oil refineries. The road is used by many heavy goods vehicles and the volume of traffic is expected to increase. I felt as though the Minister was portraying us as a quiet little part of Lincolnshire, whereas we are the industrial heartland of the country.
Mr. McNulty: I am enormously grateful for the clarification; I did not mean to give that impression at all. A look at the map will remind us of the geography and topography of the region, and the relationship between Cleethorpes, Sunderland and the Humber area. The A180 is important; the interconnectivity of the route is vital far more so than that of similar routes for the industrial and economic lifeblood of the region. I shall try to ensure that Habrough, not Harborough, and Stallingborough, not Leninborough, retain priority for funding in the next year, and I know that my three hon. Friends will work together to ensure that that is done for their constituents
In absolute conclusion, I wish my hon. Friends very well for the break and the same to you, Mr. McWilliam, to colleagues and to staff of the House. I hope that everyone has a rest, because the only certainty is that we all need one. I know that those who live close to or alongside the A180 also need a rest and I shall endeavour to ensure, with colleagues and with the funding caveat, that they get one, at least between Habrough and Stallingborough, and subsequently in the other five sections.
Mr. John McWilliam: Order. I thank the Minister for his felicitations for the holidays on behalf of the staff and myself, and I thank the hon. Member for Cleethorpes (Shona Mclsaac) for her best wishes. In turn, as this is the last sitting of 2003, I wish all of you a very merry Christmas and a happy, prosperous and safe new year.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes past Four o'clock.

CABINET OFFICE

  Civil Service
  Mr. Stringer
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if he will provide figures for 2002 for civil service numbers, in the format of box 2.6 of the White Paper, "Your Region Your Choice", column 5511.[143766]

  Mr. Alexander
  The following table shows the number of permanent civil servants at 1 April 2002 in the format of box 2.6 of the White Paper, "Your Region Your Choice".

  Location of permanent civil service staff in the English regions—

  >2002

  Number

  London

  86,790

  South East

  57,330

  South West

  48,240

  East of England

  28,770

  East Midlands

  20,600

  West Midlands

  31,910

  Yorkshire and the Humber

  35,050

  North West

  57,440

  North East

  29,940

  England total

  396,070

  Note:

  Figures given include non-industrial and industrial staff and are full-time equivalents.

  Cabinet Office, Civil Service Statistics 2002.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Nuclear Fuel and Radioactive Waste
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what evaluation she has made of the European Commission proposal for a Council Directive (Euratom) on the management of spent nuclear fuel and radioactive waste (COM(2003)32). [142371]

  Mr. Morley
  The Government's views on the European Commission's proposed Directive were set out in Explanatory Memorandum 8990/03, a copy of which is in the Library. We remain opposed to the draft Directive and, jointly with Sweden and Finland, we have tabled an alternative text for a non-legally binding measure on spent nuclear fuel and radioactive waste management.

  Big Conversation
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what visits(a) she and (b) Ministers in her Department (i) have made and (ii) plan to make using public funds in
  900W
  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 she will make a statement. [143164]

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

  Chlorofluorocarbons
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many tonnes of chlorofluorocarbons had been converted into inert substances as of 1 October. [142596]

  Mr. Morley
  Since the implementation of EC Regulation 2037/2000, the total quantity of CFCs converted into inert substances are:

  Tonnes

  2000 (from October)

  38

  2001

  197

  2002

  386

  2003 (to October)

  352

  Total amount converted into inert substances since the implementation of the Regulation is 973 tonnes.

  Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what evaluation she has made of the report 0022/2003(CNS) for the European Parliament's Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy, dated 24 September, by Alejo Vidal-Quadras Roca MEP; and if she will make a statement on the recent recommendations of that committee on the proposals in so far as they affect United Kingdom policy.[142452]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 16 December 2003]: The report referred to by my hon. Friend is an early draft of the European Parliament's Opinion on a proposed Directive on the management of spent nuclear fuel and radioactive waste. The final version was issued on 1 December 2003, reference A5–0442/2003.

  The Government shares the European Parliament's opposition to the draft Directive. Our views are set out in Explanatory Memorandum 8990/03, a copy of which is in the Library. Proposals for developing a policy for the long-term management of solid radioactive waste in the UK were consulted on in 2001. The Committee on Radioactive Waste Management has now been established to assess all of the options and to make recommendations to Government.

  Emissions Trading
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and rural Affairs if she will make a statement on schemes for emissions trading which are
  901W
  compliant with EU legislation on emissions trading, with particular reference to the (a) energy and (b) aviation sectors.[143060]

  Mr. Morley
  The EU Emissions Trading Scheme is due to start in 2005 and will cover carbon dioxide emissions from certain industrial activities throughout the EU, including from the power generation sector. The UK is on course to meet the deadline of the end of the year to introduce the Regulations that will implement this scheme in the UK.

  The first phase of the scheme runs from 2005 to 2007. The scheme can be expanded in future phases to include other gases and industrial sectors. The European Commission is required to report to the European Parliament and Council by June 2006 on, inter alia, how and whether the scheme should be expanded to other sectors, including transport.

  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what studies the Government has made of(a) nitrogen oxides and (b) sulphur oxides trading schemes in those countries where such a scheme is operating. [143280]

  Mr. Morley
  The Government are aware of a number of emissions trading schemes around the world, including those covering nitrogen oxides and sulphur oxides such as the US Acid Rain Programme and the RECLAIM programme for nitrogen oxides and sulphur dioxide emissions in the Los Angeles basin. The consultants that worked on the UK's National Allocation Plan for the EU Emissions Trading Scheme had previously studied these programmes in the US.

  Defra is currently drafting the implementing regulations for the EU ETS and while doing so officials have assessed emissions trading schemes in other countries, including those mentioned above, to find examples of best practice in other schemes.

  Fisheries
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many speeches have been made by each Minister in her Department since 1 January on fisheries, excluding fresh water fishing, and what percentage this represents of the total number of ministerial speeches made by her Department's ministers in that time. [142727]

  Margaret Beckett
  Since 1 January, three formal speeches on fisheries issues have been given by Defra Ministers, and represent just under 3 per cent. of the total number of Ministerial speeches made on the Departments areas of responsibility, which also include: sustainable development; the environment (i.e. all water issues, air quality, local environment including noise, waste, climate change, biodiversity, energy efficiency and fuel poverty); all agriculture, including GM; food and rural affairs.

  Flood Defences
  David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much money was invested in flood defence schemes in the Yorkshire and Humber region in each of the past five years. [143306]
  902W
  Mr. Morley
  Defra provides grant aid to the flood and coastal defence operating authorities to support their capital schemes to reduce flood risk. These projects must meet specified criteria and an appropriate priority score to attract Defra funding but decisions regarding which projects to promote and their timing rest with these authorities. The principal operating authority for flood risk is the Environment Agency (EA) but local authorities (LAs) and, in areas with special drainage needs, internal drainage boards (IDBs) also carry out works on a much smaller scale overall.

  Investment in flood defence schemes in Yorkshire and Humber was as set out in the table. For the Agency, this represents their total capital expenditure; for LAs and IDBs the figures represent grant payments from Defra which form a proportion of the total grant eligible cost (25 per cent. (45 per cent. for tidal or sea defence schemes) up to April 2001 and 45 per cent. thereafter). Local authorities are eligible for further support for their balance of grant costs from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister through its local authority funding mechanism.

  £000s

  Year

  EA

  LAs and IDBs

  1998–99

  8,368

  125

  1999–2000

  8,320

  196

  2000–01

  9,108

  74

  2001–02

  15,482

  733

  2002–03

  23,733

  577

  Note:Maintenance and running costs for existing defences are incurred in addition to the above sums

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what guidance has been given to local authorities in receipt of DEFRA funding for coastal and inland flood protection projects on the use of timber from legal and sustainable sources; and if she will make a statement. [142229]

  Mr. Morley
  On 28 July 2000 the then Environment Minister, the right hon. Michael Meacher, announced the Government's policy that central departments and their agencies will actively seek to procure timber and timber products from sources independently validated as legal and sustainably managed. Mr. Meacher also wrote to all English Local Authorities in 2002 exhorting them to adopt responsible timber procurement policies.

  Concern over the use of tropical hardwoods was identified in the mid 1990s. In 1994 the Chief Engineer of the former Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, a predecessor of this Department, wrote to Maritime District Councils to encourage them to consider the use of alternative materials and to procure timber from well-managed and sustainable sources.

  The Department's Flood Management Division also organises an annual conference that is well attended by local government representatives. One of the papers in this year's conference was 'Responsible Use of Timber in Coastal and Fluvial Engineering' which covered the selection and procurement of timber and made the government position clear.
  903W

  Food Smuggling
  Mrs. Betty Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to introduce spot fines at all ports of entry against people who smuggle illegal food products into the country.[144585]

  John Healey
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Government has no current plans to introduce spot fines for people caught bringing illegal food products into the UK.

  GM Crops
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much genetically-modified maize has been imported to the United Kingdom to be used for(a) livestock feed, (b) poultry feed and (c) other purposes in each of the past five years for which records are available. [143211]

  Mr. Morley
  The Department does not keep records of this information.

  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) what advice her Department has(a) given and (b) received from the Food Standards Agency on a decision regarding the application for use of Bt 11 GM maize in food considered at the EC Standing Committee on Food Chain and Animal Health meeting on 8 December; [143476]

  (2) what discussions her Department has had with the Food Standards Agency regarding the application for use of Bt 11 GM maize in food considered by the EC Standing Committee for Food Chain and Animal Health meeting on 8 December. [143477]

  Mr. Morley
  The application for approval to market Bt 1 1 GM maize as food is subject to collective EU decision-making under EU Regulation 258/97 on novel foods and novel foods ingredients. The Food Standards Agency is the UK competent authority for this legislation and carried out an independent assessment. A UK position with respect to the authorisation of Bt11 maize in foods was agreed by relevant Government Departments, and the Agency represented the UK in the EC Standing Committee on 8 December.

  Mill Lodges
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what guidance she has issued to local authorities in respect of(a) the circumstances in which permission may be given to and (b) the procedures to be followed by landowners wishing to drain mill lodges; and if she will make a statement. [141212]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 10 December 2003]: In the absence of specific details about the area(s) of concern, it is not possible to say what if any guidance has been given to local authorities.

  In terms of drainage, under the Water Resources Act 1991 and the Land Drainage Act 1991, the consent of the relevant operating authority—the Environment Agency in relation to a "main River" or otherwise the local authority or Internal Drainage Board—must be
  904W
  obtained before any work is undertaken which is likely to affect the flow of a watercourse or impede any drainage work.

  Under the Water Resources Act it is an offence to remove deposits in watercourses which have accumulated behind a weir, dam or sluice and allow that deposit to be carried away in suspension without consent from the Agency. An example would be lifting a sluice and letting all the silt flow downstream, which might adversely affect the fauna.

  Other consents or licences that landowners might need include:
  A waste regulation licence, if they intend to backfill the pond;
  A need for a fish rescue consent to transfer fish from the pond; An abstraction licence;
  Under some circumstances an Environmental Impact Assessment may also be required.
  All these would depend on the circumstances. Landowners should therefore consult the relevant operating authority.

  Ozone Layer
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much it had cost to comply with the Ozone Depleting Substances Regulation as of 1 October. [142595]

  Mr. Morley
  When the Regulatory Impact Assessment was carried out in 1998 it was estimated that the total cost of compliance would be in the region of £370 million. However the actual costs are not known as most of the compliance is being achieved through industry self-regulation.

  The Government have provided around £46 million to local authorities to assist them to comply with the waste part of the EC Regulation on ozone depleting substances.

  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what environmental benefits have been achieved through complying with the Ozone Depleting Substances Regulation. [142597]

  Mr. Morley
  Through the continued efforts of the member states under EC Regulation 2037/2000 and other Parties to the Montreal Protocol on substances that deplete the ozone layer, there has been a decline in the amount of chlorine in the upper and lower atmosphere. This is a good indicator of when the stratospheric ozone layer will recover. At the present rate the ozone layer is expected to start recovering by the middle of the century.

  If action had not been taken under EC Regulation 2037/2000 and the Montreal Protocol the ozone layer would have continued to be destroyed, resulting in more ultra violet radiation reaching the ground, which would have had a detrimental affect on plant and animal life.

  In the UK, the increase in ultra violet radiation could result in increases in skin cancer and eye cataracts as well a damage to marine life, which also form part of the food chain.
  905W

  Primates (Imports from Israel)
  Mr. Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many primates, broken down by species, were imported from Israel into the UK in(a) 2002 and (b) 2003 to date; and if she will make a statement. [143915]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer given 15 December 2003]130 primates were imported from Israel in 2002 and 115 in 2003 to date. All the specimens in question were Crab-eating macaques (Macaca fascicularis).

  Primates may be imported only by a zoological or scientific institution under strict conditions. These are that the specimens are kept or bred exclusively for the purposes of educational display, conservation of the species or scientific research.

  The specimens referred to have been imported solely for the purpose of scientific research.

  Radioactive waste
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what research has been(a) commissioned and (b) assessed by her Department into the role of the synthesis of the

  Regulation

  Section

  Consultation commenced (not later than)

  Date regulations in force (not later than)

  Regulations regarding mapping of access land and consultation on draft maps

  Section II

  March 2001 [ended June 2001]

  1 November 2001

  Regulations regarding issue of provisional maps, appeals, and issue of conclusive maps

  Section 11

  November 2001 [ended 8 Feb 2002]

  29 July 2002

  Regulations regarding the establishment of Local Access Forums and the appointment of members

  Section 94 (Part V)

  July 2001 [ended October 2001]

  7 August 2002

  Regulations on correcting minor errors and omissions in provisional and conclusive maps

  Section 11(2)(1)

  October 2002 [ended 7 November 2002]

  21 July 2003

  Regulations regarding dedication of land for access

  Section 16

  January 2002 [ended 15 April 2002]

  1 September 2003

  Regulations relating to exclusion or restriction of access under Chapter II, including appeals (but not emergencies)

  Section 32

  December 2001 [ended 22 March 2002]

  17 November 2003

  Regulations on removal or relaxation of restrictions on access land

  Paragraph 7, Schedule 2

  July 2003 [ended October 2003]

  February 2004

  Regulations to exclude access in emergencies

  Section 31

  February 2004

  August 2004

  Regulations on appeals relating to notices

  Section 38

  February 2004

  August 2004

  Regulations on references to public places in existing enactments

  Section 42

  February 2004

  August 2004

  Regulations regarding review of conclusive maps

  Section II

  April 2004

  October 2004

  River Nene
  Mrs. Helen Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs whether the pollutant which caused the pollution incident on the River Nene earlier this year has been identified; what levels of the pollutant are still present; how much of the pollutant was discharged; whether the polluter has been identified; and what action is being taken. [143260]

  Mr. Morley
  The Environment Agency (the Agency) has not identified the pollutant that caused this incident. Unusually in this case no immediate impact, such as fish mortality, was observed and the effects of the pollutant were identified following routine monitoring of the River Nene by the Agency in May of this year. This makes it likely that considerable time elapsed between 906W
  biologically active genome of bacteriophage phi X174 in the reduction in the toxic impact of radioactive waste.[142922]

  Mr. Morley
  No research has been commissioned or assessed by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs into the role of the synthesis of the biologically active genome bacteriophage phi X174 in the reduction of the toxic impact of radioactive waste.

  Rights of Way
  Andrew Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will set out the timetable for the implementation of regulations under Part I of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000. [142945]

  Alun Michael
  The following table records the progress we have already made towards bringing the regulations into force as well as our timetable for completing the process. Since my Answer of 15 September, regulations relating to the exclusions or restriction of access have come into force, on 17 November. We have given priority of time and effort to completing these regulations, and now to working on associated guidance which needs to be in place in order for the exclusions and restrictions system to open for business. As a result of this, the timetable for the remaining regulations has been delayed, but we are firmly committed to ensuring the necessary regulations are made in time to allow the new right of public access under the Act to be rolled out as planned.

  the pollutant being discharged to the river and the environmental impact being observed. Under these circumstances, it is difficult to determine how much pollutant was discharged and to establish a link between a pollutant source and the incident.

  The Agency await a report from its Special Enforcement team on whether it is possible to link evidence obtained from a possible source with the incident. However this may not be possible due to the probable time lapse between the incident and detection.

  Mrs. Helen Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what mechanism there is to pass on to the polluter the cost of work to
  907W
  establish the (a) extent of pollution and (b) effect on biodiversity of the recent pollution incident on the River Nene.[143262]

  Mr. Morley
  The Environment Agency vigorously follows the polluter pays principle. However, in this case the polluter has not yet been identified. It has not therefore been possible to initiate action to recover costs.

  Sheep Identification
  Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, what her policy is on the European Commission's proposals on sheep identification.[139848]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The Government support the Commission's objective to improve sheep and goat identification but are very concerned that they have failed to take full account of the particular needs and requirements of the UK's stratified and extensive sheep industry.
  We are currently undertaking negotiations in the Council of Ministers and are pressing hard for a satisfactory outcome for the UK industry.

  Tidal and Fluvial Flooding Plan
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she will publish the plan for Tidal and Fluvial Flooding in England. [141451]

  Mr. Morley
  It is intended that the Lead Department Plan for Tidal and Fluvial Flooding in England will be made publicly available in the near future on the Department's website.

  Tropical Plywood
  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what action her Department is taking to reduce the amount of tropical plywood used in the United Kingdom.[143221]

  Mr. Morley
  The Government are committed to sustainable forest management and is playing a leading role in international negotiations on forests in a number of fora, including the Convention on Biological Diversity, and the United Nations Forum on Forests (UNFF). The Government are also playing a major role internationally to combat illegal logging and its associated trade, in addition to seeking to ensure that the import of endangered timber species is in compliance with CITES, the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species.

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  Water and sewerage companies

  Anglian

  215

  237

  242

  242

  240

  206

  190

  194

  224

  192

  Dwr Cymru

  387

  390

  413

  357

  329

  306

  288

  260

  245

  234

  Northumbrian North

  182

  187

  190

  192

  184

  171

  168

  164

  161

  153

  Northumbrian South

  95

  98

  90

  85

  82

  76

  73

  72

  73

  67

  Severn Trent

  614

  665

  632

  479

  399

  344

  340

  340

  340

  550

  South West

  152

  145

  142

  129

  101

  92

  84

  84

  83

  84

  Southern

  141

  133

  120

  113

  99

  95

  93

  92

  92

  92

  Thames

  930

  1,078

  1,109

  1,080

  906

  770

  662

  688

  865

  925

  908W
  Under EU law, a ban on the import of illegally logged timber can only be imposed at EU level. We are therefore playing an active role within the European Forest Law Enforcement, Governance and Trade (FLEGT) process. On 13 October the EU Council of Ministers adopted Council Conclusions providing a broad endorsement of the FLEGT Action Plan, which addresses development co-operation, trade in timber, public procurement, private sector initiatives, financing and investment safeguards, money laundering and conflict timber

  The Government are also keen to discourage consumers from purchasing illegally logged timber. For over three years UK central departments and their executive agencies have been required to actively seek to purchase their timber and timber related products from legal and sustainable sources. We believe the UK to be the first country to implement such a policy. The challenge is considerable and implementation has not been without difficulty, but already the effect is being felt in the UK and abroad. The UK Devolved Administrations and many local authorities in England have indicated that they have adopted similar policies or are considering doing so. Additionally, the UK Timber Trade Federation is developing a sustainable timber procurement policy for its members to consider adopting.

  Waste Management
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment. Food and Rural Affairs if she will list breaches of conditions of waste management licences relating to the Hartlepool Seaton Meadows Landfill (Licences CLE 223 and CLE 403) recorded by the Environment Agency since 1997; what the nature of each breach was; and if she will place copies of the relevant site inspection reports in the Library. [142437]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 8 December 2003]The relevant Regional Office of the Environment Agency is compiling the information, and I will write to the hon. Member shortly.

  Water Leakage
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the leakage rates of each of the water sewerage companies were in each of the last 10 years. [142301]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 8 December 2003]: Water company leakage data are published annually by the Director General of Water Services in the annual "Security of supply, leakage and the efficient use of water" reports, which are available from the Library of the House. The reported leakage figures for the period 1993–94 to 2002–03 in Megalitres per day were as follows:
  909W

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  United Utilities

  897

  874

  789

  666

  579

  510

  487

  463

  452

  465

  Wessex

  137

  140

  133

  129

  110

  100

  88

  84

  79

  75

  Yorkshire

  525

  546

  495

  430

  377

  342

  317

  304

  297

  296

  Water only companies

  Bournemouth and West Hants

  27

  28

  28

  29

  26

  26

  23

  23

  22

  22

  Bristol

  52

  59

  66

  65

  59

  56

  54

  55

  55

  53

  Cambridge

  16

  15

  16

  16

  14

  13

  13

  13

  14

  14

  Dee Valley

  13

  14

  15

  13

  12

  12

  13

  12

  11

  II

  Folkestone and Dover

  13

  12

  13

  12

  9

  9

  8

  9

  8

  8

  Mid Kent

  43

  40

  40

  38

  36

  30

  29

  29

  29

  28

  Portsmouth

  33

  33

  30

  31

  32

  30

  30

  30

  30

  30

  South East Water

  102

  105

  94

  99

  108

  98

  97

  85

  75

  72

  South Staffordshire

  89

  95

  93

  90

  82

  77

  76

  72

  71

  71

  Sutton and East Surrey

  31

  27

  26

  27

  26

  25

  24

  24

  24

  24

  Tendring Hundred

  6

  6

  6

  6

  6

  5

  5

  6

  5

  5

  Three Valleys

  190

  187

  200

  199

  172

  158

  145

  140

  157

  152

  Paddy Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list by water company the water leakage figure on the latest date for which information is available. [142448]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 9 December 2003]: Water company leakage data are published annually by the Director General of Water Services in the annual "Security of supply, leakage and the efficient use of water" reports, copies of which are available in the Library of the House. The reported total leakage figures in 2002-03 in Megalitres per day were as follows:

  Megalitres

  Water and sewerage companies

  Anglian

  192

  Dwr Cymru

  234

  Northumbrian

  North

  153

  South

  67

  Severn Trent

  550

  South West

  84

  Southern

  92

  Thames

  925

  United Utilities

  465

  Wessex

  75

  Yorkshire

  296

  Water only companies

  Bournemouth and West Hants

  22

  Bristol

  53

  Cambridge

  14

  Dee Valley

  11

  Folkestone and Dover

  8

  Mid Kent

  28

  Portsmouth

  30

  South East

  72

  South Staffordshire

  71

  Sutton and East Surrey

  24

  Tendring Hundred

  5

  Three Valleys

  152

  TREASURY

    Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Census)
    Nick Harvey
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the UK Government treats the 1991 Census of 910W
    Federal Republic of Yugoslavia as a reliable source of statistical information; and if he will make a statement. [144477]

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

    Letter from Len Cook to Nick Harvey dated 17 December 2003:
    As National Statistician I have been asked to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question concerning the 1991 Census of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.
    ONS has not used the 1991 Yugoslavia Census of Population, and therefore does not have a view on its reliability. For any information you might wish to contact the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe at: www.unece.org.

    GDP
    Mr. Stephen O'Brien
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what percentage of GDP was comprised of(a) manufacturing sector and (b) service sector gross capital formation in each of the last six years; [143434]

    (2) what percentage of GDP was comprised of gross capital formation in each of the last six years; [143435]

    (3) what percentage of GDP was comprised of (a) public sector and (b) private sector gross capital formation in each of the last six years.[143436]

    Ruth Kelly
    [holding answer 11 December 2003]: The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician, who has been asked to reply.

    Letter from Colin Mowl to Mr. Stephen O'Brien, dated 15 December 2003:

    The National Statistician has been asked to reply to your recent Parliamentary Questions about economic statistics. I am replying in his absence. (143429,143431,143432,143434,143435,143436)

    The information to derive the estimates that you have requested for the six years 1997 to 2002 is available from published sources accessed by the House of Commons Library. I have assumed that as the first three questions relate to net investment that the following three questions are concerned with gross fixed capital formation, excluding changes in inventories and acquisitions less disposals of valuables. This is consistent with the definition of investment used for the ONS Business Investment publication.

    GDP estimates are available in table 1.1 (both current prices and chained volume measures) of the ONS publication "Blue Book 2003". Estimates for capital consumption are also available

    911W
    for the whole economy in table 1.1, with information on gross fixed capital formation in table 1.2 (at current prices) and 1.3 (at chained volume measures).

    Estimates for gross fixed capital formation by sector are available in table 9.2 (at current prices) and 9.4 (at chained volume measures). Estimates for capital consumption by sector and industry, at current prices and at chained volume measures, are available in tables 3.1.1 to 3.2.2 of the ONS publication "Capital Stocks, Capital Consumption and Non-Financial Balance Sheets", available on the National Statistics website.

    Estimates for gross fixed capital formation for the manufacturing and service sectors are available for the period 1999 to 2002 in tables 1.11 (at chained volume measures) and 1.12 (at current prices) of the most recent ONS publication "Monthly Digest of Statistics". Earlier data for these series can be accessed using the 4 letter identifier (CDID) on PUBL, the ONS published electronic series also accessed by the House of Commons Library. The relevant CDID for each series is shown in the Monthly Digest publication.

    Barnett Formula
    Mr. Laws
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the contribution of Barnett formula consequences as explained in Appendix C to the Statement of Funding Policy to the allocations for(a) Scotland, (b) Wales and (c) the Northern Ireland Assembly were in each year from 2001–02 to 2003–04 reconciling the provided figures to the entries in Table 2.6 of PESA 2003–04 (Cm 5901) for each of the Devolved Administrations. [144377]

    Mr. Boateng
    Increases in the Departmental Expenditure Limits for 2001–02 to 2003–04 for the Devolved Administrations were announced in the 2000 Spending Review (CM 4807). The basis for the allocation was explained in the Statement of Funding Policy, published in July 2000.

    Mr. Laws
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish the levels of expenditure in(a) Northern Ireland, (b) Scotland and (c) Wales that is both within the assigned budget and within the scope of the Barnett formula for each year from 1998–99 to 2005–06, in the form provided in the analysis of 2002–03 provision in Annex C of the Third edition of "Funding the Scottish Parliament, National Assembly for Wales and the Northern Ireland Assembly: A Statement of Funding Policy". [144378]

    Mr. Boateng
    The Departmental Expenditure Limits for Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales for 2002–03 to 2005–06 were published in Table B 15 of the 2003 Pre-Budget Report (CM 6042). Figures for earlier years were published in the 2003 Public Expenditure Statistical Analyses (CM 5901). Changes in the DELs are determined in accordance with the Statement of Funding Policy.

    Gross Domestic Product
    Mr. Laws
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the Government's estimates were for aggregate revenues in each year from 1996–97 to 2001–02 expressed as(a) totals and (b) percentages of gross domestic product, attributable to (i)Scotland,(ii) Wales, (iii) Northern Ireland, (iv) England and (v) the Government Office Regions of England. [144380]
    912W
    Mr. Boateng
    Government estimates for aggregate revenues by country and region of the UK are not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. However, the Scottish Executive publishes its own estimates in Government Expenditure and Revenue in Scotland.

    Mr. Laws
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the Government's estimates were for net fiscal balance in each year from 1996–97 to 2001–02 expressed as(a) amounts and (b) percentages of gross domestic product, in (i) Scotland, (ii) Wales, (iii) Northern Ireland and (iv) each of the Government Office Regions of England. [144381]

    Mr. Boateng
    Government estimates of the net fiscal balance of regions and countries of the UK are not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. However, the Scottish Executive publishes its own estimates in Government Expenditure and Revenue in Scotland.

    International Financing Facility
    Mr. Lazarowicz
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the progress being made in the establishment of an international financing facility. [144696]

    John Healey
    The proposal to double global aid levels by providing an additional US$50 billion a year through an International Finance Facility is being taken forward in partnership with the international community. The Government continue to push for further international agreement to the initiative. The International Finance Facility will be most effective if all major donor countries are involved.

    The Facility received wide support from other countries at the Annual Meetings of the World Bank and IMF in September 2003. The Bank and Fund have been mandated to do further work on financing for development options, including the International Finance Facility, reporting back at the Spring and Annual Meetings in 2004.

    The Annual Meetings also agreed that developing and emerging market countries should be consulted. This process will include a ministerial conference on Financing for Development in spring 2004, chaired by the French Government.

    The UK Government continue to build the support in civil society necessary to make the initiative a reality. In February, the Treasury will be hosting a conference bringing together the President of the World Bank with representatives from faith groups, media, business, Government and non-governmental organisations from across the UK.

    Productivity Growth
    Richard Ottaway
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the productivity growth in the United Kingdom economy for each of the last 10 years. [144590]

    Ruth Kelly
    The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician, who has been asked to reply.
    913W
    Letter from Colin Mowl to Richard Ottaway, dated 17 December 2003:
    The National Statistician has been asked to reply to your recent question on productivity growth in the United Kingdom economy for each of the last 10 years. I have been asked to reply in his absence. (144590)
    The table below shows growth of output per job and output per hour for the UK whole economy from 1993 to 2002.

    Annual growth rate (per cent.)

    Year

    Output per job

    Output per hour

    1993

    3.5

    —

    1994

    3.9

    2.9

    1995

    1.8

    1.5

    1996

    1.6

    1.9

    1997

    1.5

    1.4

    1998

    2.1

    2.8

    1999

    1.1

    1.7

    2000

    2.4

    3.7

    2001

    1.1

    0.9

    2002

    1.4

    1.6

    Public Expenditure
    Mr. Laws
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the Government's estimates were for(a) identifiable public expenditure and (b) aggregate public expenditure in each year from 1996–97 to 2001–02 expressed as (i) totals and (ii) percentages of gross domestic product, in (A) Scotland, (B) Wales, (C) Northern Ireland, (D) England and (E) the Government Office Regions of England.[144379]

    Mr. Boateng
    Estimates of identifiable public spending on services by country and region were published in the Corrigendum to Chapter 8 of Public Expenditure Statistical Analyses (CM 5901). Estimates of aggregate public expenditure including non-identifiable spending by region and country are not readily available. Estimates of Gross Value Added by country and region were published by the Office for National Statistics in August 2003.

    Public Services (Ethnicity)
    Ms Buck
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the effect of a person's ethnicity on their access to public services.[143570]

    Ruth Kelly
    I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by hon. Friend the Minister for Race Equality, Community Policy and Civil Renewal gave to her on 15 December 2003,Official Report, column 633W.

    Savings Ratio
    Mr. Clappison
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the savings ratio was in each year since 1979. [144032]

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

    Letter from Colin Mowl to Mr Clappison dated 17 December 2003:
    The National Statistician has been asked to reply to your Parliamentary Question on the saving ratio. I am replying in his absence.
    914W
    The information requested is shown in the table below. The data are presented as annual values for 1979 to 2002.

    Household saving ratio

    Year

    Percentage

    1979

    10.9

    1980

    12.4

    1981

    12.1

    1982

    10.9

    1983

    9.0

    1984

    10.3

    1985

    9.8

    1986

    8.2

    1987

    6.4

    1988

    4.9

    1989

    6.7

    1990

    8.0

    1991

    10.2

    1992

    11.6

    1993

    10.8

    1994

    9.3

    1995

    10.0

    1996

    9.3

    1997

    9.6

    1998

    6.4

    1999

    5.3

    2000

    5.5

    2001

    6.7

    2002

    5.3

    The households' series used for these data are for the combined household and non-profit institutions serving households (NPISH) sectors. The accounts for the household and NPISH sectors are currently combined: separate estimates are not available. The above ratio represents households saving as a percentage of total resources.

    Textile Jobs
    Keith Vaz
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many textile jobs there were in(a) 2001 and (b) 2002. [144234]

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

    Letter from Len Cook to Keith Vaz dated 17 December 2003:
    As National Statistician I have been asked to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about jobs in the textile industry.
    The latest available data from the Annual Business Inquiry is for December 2002. At that time, there were 148,000 jobs in industries whose primary activity was the manufacture, wholesale or retail of textiles. The figure for December 2001 was 158,000. I have delayed the answer to your question to allow the inclusion of the above estimate for December 2002, which was released on 17 December 2003.

  INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

    Asbestos
    Mr. Clapham
    To ask the Secretary of State, Department for International Development, what plans he has to ban the use of(a) asbestos and (b) materials containing it in projects supported by his Department.[144412]

    Mr. Gareth Thomas
    Information as follows.
    915W

    1. My Department have had in place a policy for nonuse of asbestos in the UK for over four years.

    2. We have undertaken major refurbishment of both our UK offices during this period and the contracts have explicitly banned the use of any asbestos materials. During the refurbishment works we were able to remove (under controlled conditions) all materials containing asbestos and we are now confident that our UK offices are asbestos free.

    3. Where DFID directly engages in building activities overseas, strict measures are taken in dealing with existing materials containing asbestos; and no new construction contains asbestos products.

    HIV/AIDS
    Mr. Gordon Marsden
    To ask the Secretary of State, Department for International Development what assistance his Department are giving to programmes to combat HIV/AIDS in the developing world.[144413]

    Hilary Benn
    The UK is the second largest bilateral donor of HIV/AIDS assistance to developing countries. Our bilateral funding has increased seven-fold, from £38 million in 1997-98 to more than £270 million in 2002–03. The UK was instrumental in setting up the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, TB and Malaria and has committed US$ 280 million over seven years to ensure it has long term stability of funding. The Government published its Call for Action on HIV/AIDS on World AIDS Day, which emphasises the UK's commitment to AIDS and highlights the need for stronger political direction; better funding; better donor coordination and better HIV/AIDS programmes.

    James Purnell
    To ask the Secretary of State, Department for International Development what action his Department are taking to prevent the spread of HIV/ AIDS in Asia. [144420]

    Hilary Benn
    HIV/AIDS in Asia is a critical development issue. With 7.4 million Asians already infected, we are now seeing the epidemic spreading into previously unaffected areas and countries. If current rates of growth continue, there may be as many as 25 million people infected in India and 15 million in China, by 2010. Infections on this scale are of grave concern. If they continue at current rates and meaningful action is not taken, it is likely that by 2020 Asia will overtake Africa as the centre of the epidemic.

    DFID's strategy in Asia is to focus efforts on preventing the further spread of the epidemic. In most countries the epidemic is still concentrated in vulnerable groups, principally sex workers and their clients, injecting drug users, and men who have sex with men. The challenge is to prevent spread into the general population. We have seen some success in Thailand and Cambodia from which it will be important to learn.
    In addition to support through mechanisms such as the Global Fund for AIDS, TB and Malaria, and to e.g. vaccine research, DFID supports major HIV/AIDS control initiatives in eight countries in Asia. Current commitments are in excess of £260 million. Our focus at country level is on support to the development and implementation of effective national AIDS strategies and plans, in partnership with governments, civil
    916W
    society, the private sector, and other donors DFID also funds regional cross-border initiatives with vulnerable populations in SE Asia, and advocacy work by the Asia Pacific Leadership Forum on HIV/AIDS.

    Land Ownership Rights
    Mr. Gardiner
    To ask the Secretary of State, Department for International Development what discussions he has had with British companies about the support they could offer his Department in assisting developing countries to reduce the impediments to formalising land ownership rights for poor people in these countries.[144414]

    Mr. Gareth Thomas
    DFID has had contact with a range of British companies and other sources of expertise such as government-owned agencies, research organisations, universities and non-government organisations in the context of its work in Ghana, Guyana, Kenya, Malawi, Mozambique, Rwanda and Southern Africa (South Africa and Lesotho). Our contacts range from simple exchange of information to more detailed discussions about implementation of projects. We fully appreciate the skills and expertise that British companies bring to these programmes. We also endeavour to bring in developing country and international experience where appropriate.

    Palestinian Human Rights
    Huw Irranca-Davies
    To ask the Secretary of State, Department for International Development what recent assessment he has made of the impact of the security fence on the humanitarian situation of Palestinians.[144415]

    Hilary Benn
    The livelihoods of thousands of Palestinians have been drastically affected by the separation of villages from their agricultural land and water resources. The fence fragments communities and isolates people from vital social support networks. Residents are being cut off from schools, universities and medical care. According to the latest Israeli Government projections approximately 210,000 acres, or 14.5 per cent. of West Bank land, excluding East Jerusalem, will lie between the fence and the Green Line. This land is some of the most fertile in the West Bank and is home to 274,000 people. Of those, some 70,000 do not have Israeli residency permits and, as a consequence, may feel it necessary to move east of the fence in order to retain access to basic services.

    International Finance Facility
    Mr. David Stewart
    To ask the Secretary of State, Department for International Development what discussions he has had with developing country Ministers about the International Finance Facility. [144416]

    Hilary Benn
    Discussions with Developing country Ministers on the IFF began in January this year when my predecessor Clare Short and the Chancellor wrote jointly to Developing Country Finance Ministers about the IFF proposals. Discussions have continued throughout the year with groups such as NEPAD, African Finance Ministers, and HIPC Finance Ministers.
    917W

    Iraq
    Syd Rapson
    To ask the Secretary of State, Department for International Development what role his Department have in establishing a civilian government in Iraq by the Iraqi people. [144417]

    Hilary Benn
    The Department are playing an important role, in support of the Coalition Provisional Authority, in preparing for the planned transfer of sovereignty to Iraq's Transitional Authority in July 2004.

    DFID has seconded over 40 advisers to the Coalition Provisional Authority in Basra and Baghdad to support civilian government during the occupation of Iraq. We intend to commit substantial further resources from early 2004 towards strengthening the capacity of Iraqi central government Ministries to manage the country effectively Work to train members of the judiciary will also begin in 2004.

    We will also be prepared to consider support for the conduct of democratic elections in Iraq, and have agreed in principle to support civic education, and other initiatives to ensure that as many Iraqis as possible are equipped to participate in the process of political transition to a democratically elected civilian government.

    Mozambique
    Mr. McWalter
    To ask the Secretary of State, Department for International Development what estimate he has made of the monetary value of the support given by British engineers working on behalf of the Department in Mozambique since the 2001 floods; and if he will make a statement. [144418]

    Hilary Benn
    Several British engineering companies are active in Mozambique including for example Roughtons, Scott Wilson, and WSP.

    DFID has assisted the Mozambique Government both through support to the general budget and to specific flood-recovery projects. An example of the latter is a £7.4 million project to repair the main national road crossing the Limpopo valley which was washed away in the floods. Engineering consultants are contracted for post-flood recovery work by the Government of Mozambique under international tenders, and British companies have taken up many of these contracts.

    British companies have also been involved in post-flood recovery projects funded by the EC, to which the UK Government makes a significant financial contribution.

    India
    Dr. Francis
    To ask the Secretary of State, Department for International Development if he will make a statement on his Department's work towards poverty reduction in India. [144419]

    Hilary Benn
    DFID provided £161 million of bilateral development assistance to India in 2002–3. In the New Delhi Declaration of January 2002 the Prime Minister looked forward to expenditure of over £300 million.
    918W
    Our programme helps Government deliver pro-poor policies and services. We are working closely with four focus states committed to poverty reduction, including on their programmes of fiscal and public sector reform, increasing access to basic health, education, and urban services for the poor and empowerment of the marginalised We also support the efforts of the Union Government and civil society in these areas nationwide.

    Gender Advisers
    Mr. Gummer
    To ask the Secretary of State for International Development to which countries other than Iraq his Department has assigned gender advisers since 1997. [141825]

    Hilary Benn
    Gender equality and the empowerment of women are very important for the elimination of poverty. A large percentage of the poor in developing countries are women.

    All DFID staff have a responsibility to ensure that gender issues are addressed in development programmes. However, social development advisers work as part of teams in all DFID country offices and have special expertise in gender issues. They do this as part of their overall role which covers social issues as they relate to all poor people.

    Rainforest
    Mr. Wyatt
    To ask the Secretary of State for International Development, what changes the Government have made since 1997 to its programme aimed at preserving the rainforests in terms of(a) funding and (b) number of projects; and what the reasons are for such changes. [143220]

    Hilary Benn
    DFID accounts for expenditure on forestry but does not distinguish between different types of forests. The following figures apply to forests in general and not specifically to rainforests. They relate to bilateral expenditure and are exclusive of spending on research under the Forestry Research Programme, which has averaged about £2.5 million per annum since 1997.

    In financial year 1997–98 expenditure was £22.1 million, on 199 projects. In financial year 2002–03 expenditure was £20.6 million, on 99 projects. Expenditure was fairly constant during this six-year period but there was a steady decline in the number of projects. This is a consequence of a focus on a smaller number of larger projects, more directly in support of poverty reduction. In addition, the last six years has seen the closure of a number of smaller programmes, particularly in Latin America.

    £ millions

    Total gross public (bilateral)expenditure (exclusive of research)

    Number of projects

    1997–98

    22.1

    199

    1998–99

    19.7

    173

    1999–2000

    23.1

    129

    2000–01

    20.4

    112

    2001–02

    17.9

    99

    2002–03

    20.6

    99

    919W

    Research Strategy
    Tony Baldry
    To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what research is being undertaken on policies to help prevent failing states. [142646]

    Hilary Benn
    DFID's Policy Division has established a team on 'Poverty Reduction in Difficult Environments'. This team is developing innovative policy options for working more effectively in places where the state is unable or unwilling to take an active role in delivering poverty reduction. This includes states seen as 'weak and failing' as well as most conflict-affected states.

    Through a series of seminars, studies and workshops we are seeking to improve our understanding of the internal and external causes of states that do not focus their policies on poverty reduction. This includes whether it is possible to identify in advance potential problem states, and then use preventative measures.

    This issue is a high priority for the Department for International Development. We are also working closely with the Prime Minister's Strategy Unit to develop cross- Government policy on 'weak and failing' states. The Strategy Unit project seeks to work towards better coordination between different Whitehall Departments, and achieve improved policy coherence across Whitehall when dealing with weak and failing states.

    World Bank (Fast Track Initiative)
    Ms Drown
    To ask the Secretary of State for International Development for what reasons the UK has made no contribution to the World bank's Fast Track Initiative for countries with serious education needs and strong education plans. [144697]

    Hilary Benn
    The UK Government are committed to playing their full part in helping countries to achieve the Education for All goals. DFID is the fourth largest bilateral donor supporting basic education and the Department's investment is set to increase further over the next five years—to more than £1 billion—including substantial additional funding for FTI countries such as Ethiopia and India.

    At the Fast Track Initiative meeting held in Oslo on 20–21 November 2003 it was agreed that FTI funding will now be extended to all low-income countries that are working towards the EFA goals, and that most additional funding will be secured at country level rather than through a global funding mechanism.

    Accordingly, DFID will continue to channel our growing support to education through our bilateral country programmes in the form of long term, flexible and predictable funding in support of the Government's own development plans. We believe this is the best way to provide flexible financing, improve harmonisation and reduce transaction costs. We will continue to press for closer donor collaboration to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of all external education assistance. The FTI has an important role to play in this. DFID will continue to play an active role in the development of the FTI, and will take over chair of the initiative in 2004.
    920W

  TRANSPORT

    Gatwick Airport
    Lady Hermon
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport for what reasons passengers disembarking flights at Gatwick airport are having their photograph taken; what flights are involved; and how long he expects this measure to last. [140808]

    Beverley Hughes
    I have been asked to reply.

    Following the attack on the World Trade Centre on 11 September 2001 and consequential heightened security measures the Department for Transport instructed the British Airports Authority (BAA) to bring forward arrangements for the full segregation of arriving and departing passengers at the south terminal, Gatwick airport and other airports where this was not already in place.

    In order to prevent the circumvention of the immigration control under the new arrangements (by passengers arriving on international flights and leaving the airport via the domestic channel without passing through immigration control) the BAA agreed to adopt an IT system whereby barcoded photo-images of all arriving domestic passengers captured on leaving the aircraft were reconciled at the domestic arrivals channel.

    This system has been in operation by Gatwick Airport Limited (GAL) since 1 November 2001. There are no plans to change this system while arriving and departing passengers have access to the same secure areas within the airport.

    Hindhead Tunnel
    Virginia Bottomley
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when work will begin on the Hindhead Tunnel; and what the time scale for the project is. [143602]

    Dr. Howells
    Subject to the satisfactory completion of the Statutory Procedures and the availability of funds the A3 Hindhead scheme should be in a position to start construction in 2005 and the new road open to traffic in 2009.

    Pay-as-you-drive
    Mr. Battle
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the effects of encouraging pay-as-you-drive car insurance. [144612]

    Mr. Jamieson
    Some companies in the insurance industry are currently studying options for pay-as-youdrive car insurance schemes. At least one insurer plans to launch a trial scheme by spring 2004 and we look forward to hearing about any lessons learnt from their trial.

    Speed Cameras
    Mrs. Brooke
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much the Treasury expects to receive from each English police authority from safety camera fines in the next financial year. [142533]

    Mr. Jamieson
    [holding answer 8 December 2003]: The safety camera partnerships are in the process of compiling their operational cases for inclusion in the

    921W
    2004–05 programme. The deadline for submitting their operational cases is 31 December 2003. The national safety camera programme board will consider the cases early in 2004. The information requested is therefore not yet available.

    Mrs. Brooke
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much the Treasury has received from each English police authority from fines from speed safety cameras in the last 12 months. [142534]

    Mr. Jamieson
    [holding answer 8 December 2003]: Six partnerships trialed the netting off scheme in England between April 2000 and March 2002. A further six areas joined the scheme in October 2001. The surplus amounts passed from these 12 areas to the Treasury are given in the following table.

    Treasury Surplus

    2000–01

    Cleveland

    127,059

    Essex

    13,000

    Lincolnshire

    114,279

    Nottingham

    166,011

    Northants

    465,436

    Thames Valley

    413,481

    2001–02

    Cleveland

    368,589

    Essex

    520,357

    Lincolnshire

    542,862

    Nottingham

    34,104

    Northants

    719,802

    Thames Valley

    2,055,849

    Cambridgeshire

    21,660

    Derbyshire

    198,341

    Lancashire

    436,163

    Norfolk

    1272,960

    Staffordshire

    2,014

    Warwickshire

    1150,768

    1 Shortfall recovered during following year.

    Mr. Damian Green
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many fixed speed cameras there are on the(a) A537 between Macclesfield and Buxton, (b) A534 between Farndon and Nantwich, (c) the A682 between Barrowford and Long Preston, (d) the A54 between Congleton and Buxton and (e) A631 between Gainsborough and Glentham. [142918]

    Mr. Jamieson
    The information is as follows:

    (a) None

    (b) One

    (c) None

    (d) One

    (e) None

    These roads are some of those listed in the Euro RAP 2003 British Roads Results Survey as being "Britain's persistently high risk roads". They are single carriageway roads; some are remote Peak District areas. Where accidents and casualties are spread along lengths of rural roads, fixed location cameras will be of less value than mobile cameras or other traffic engineering and enforcement measures appropriate to the problem.

    Mr. Damian Green
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many fixed speed cameras there are on the(a) A134 between Thetford and the A10, (b) M73 between junctions 1 and 3, (c) A682 between the A56
    922W
    and the A646 Burnley, (d) A45 between Ryton on Dunsmore and Stonebridge and (e) A6 between Leicester and Derby. [142919]

    Mr. Jamieson
    This information is as follows:

    (a) None

    (b) None

    (c) One

    (d) Five

    (e) Two

    These roads are some of those listed in the Euro RAP 2003 British Roads Results Survey as being "Britain's most improved roads". They are a mixture of urban and rural roads, single and dual carriageway and one short motorway. Cameras will have been an appropriate casualty reduction technique in some of the cases, combined with other traffic engineering and enforcement measures appropriate to the problem.

    Mr. Drew
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what revenue has been received from all safety camera partnerships in each year since the first partnership was set up, net of the funds awarded to those partnerships in each of those years; [142207]

    what funds were awarded to each local Safety Camera Partnership in each year since they were set up. [142264]

    Mr. Jamieson
    Seven partnerships trialed the netting off scheme in England and Wales between April 2000 and March 2002. A further seven areas joined the scheme in October 2001. The amounts passed to these 14 areas and the surplus passed to the Treasury are given in the tables.

    2000–01

    Costs passed to partnerships (£)

    Surplus passed to Treasury

    Cleveland

    771,901

    127,059

    Essex

    1,846,480

    13,000

    Lincolnshire

    512,721

    114,279

    Nottingham

    622,371

    166,011

    Northants

    1,702,404

    465,436

    South Wales

    1,330,277

    236,723

    Thames Valley

    1,825,639

    413,481

    Total

    8,611,793

    1,287,967

    1 Shortfall recovered during following year.

    2001–02

    Costs passed to partnerships (£)

    Surplus passed to Treasury

    Cleveland

    486,891

    368,589

    Essex

    3,003,763

    520,357

    Lincolnshire

    516,818

    542,862

    Nottingham

    778,536

    34,104

    Northants

    2,247,838

    719,802

    South Wales

    1,749,573

    126,667

    Thames Valley

    2,617,031

    2,055,849

    Cambridgeshire

    113,760

    21,660

    Derbyshire

    455,659

    198,341

    Lancashire

    761,017

    436,163

    Norfolk

    433,100

    1272,960

    North Wales

    904,022

    1255,242

    Staffordshire

    629,246

    2,014

    Warwickshire

    355,068

    1150,768

    Total

    15,052,322

    4,347,438

    1 Shortfall recovered during following year.

    923W
    Mr. Drew
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many fixed speed cameras are operating outside Safety Camera Partnerships; and where they are located. [142237]

    Mr. Jamieson
    There are currently five police force areas out of a maximum 51 in Great Britain who are not yet participating in the safety camera netting off scheme. These areas do not recover their camera-related costs from fine income and therefore there is no obligation on them to inform central Government about camera activity or number of cameras in operation in their areas. We expect all but Durham to be part of the netting off programme by July 2004.

    Mr. Drew
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many people were(a) killed, (b) seriously injured and (c) slightly injured in the location of each fixed speed camera within a Safety Camera Partnership in (i) the year prior to its installation and (ii) each subsequent year. 42265]

    Change in average speed

    Change in 85thpercentile speed

    Mph

    Percentage

    Mph

    Percentage

    Percentage change in vehicles exceeding the speed limit

    Percentage change in vehicles exceeding the spend limit by more than 15 mph

    Lincolnshire

    -2.7

    -6.5

    -9.6

    -18

    -73

    -94

    Nottingham

    -8.0

    -17.4

    -4.0

    -18

    -

    -

    Northamptonshire

    -7.5

    -22.2

    -7.6

    -18

    -81

    -98

    Essex

    -5.7

    -16.3

    -7.0

    -17

    -78

    -92

    Thames Valley

    n/a

    n/a

    -5.7

    -16

    -65

    -98

    South Wales

    -7.9

    -22.7

    -7.1

    -20

    -56

    -97

    Strathclyde

    -3.3

    -10.1

    -2.3

    -6

    -61

    -61

    Average

    -4.5

    -12.2

    -6.8

    -17

    -67

    -96

    Partnership performance for 2003 will be detailed in the next report on the netting off programme which is expected to be published in March 2004.

    Mr. Chope
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list for each safety camera partnership the number of those(a) killed and (b) seriously injured in the partnership area (i) in the year to July 2003 and (ii) in the year to July 2002. [142498]

    Mr. Jamieson
    [holding answer 8 December 2003]: The data is not available in the periods requested. The data shown in the table is for the numbers of killed and seriously injured road accident casualties (KSIs) for the latest available calendar year in the eight safety camera partnership areas that were fully operational. For comparison the KSI averages are provided for the three years prior to the start of the netting off trial in March 2000.

    1997–99 average

    2002

    Safety camera partnership area

    Killed

    Serious

    Killed

    Serious

    Cleveland

    20

    239

    19

    234

    Essex

    90

    1,164

    92

    1,210

    Lincolnshire

    88

    680

    91

    645

    Northamptonshire

    64

    680

    62

    478

    Nottinghamshire1

    78

    978

    80

    833

    South Wales

    60

    344

    41

    408

    Strathclyde

    114

    1,780

    92

    1,316

    Thames Valley

    151

    1,143

    157

    1,379

    Total

    665

    7,008

    634

    6,503

    1 Nottinghamshire country joined late in 2002, data includes City of Nottingham.

    924W
    Mr. Jamieson
    The Government published information on 11 February 2003 about the performance of the eight areas that trialed the netting off scheme in the report "A cost recovery system for speed and red-light cameras—two year evaluation report." This showed that there had been a 35 per cent. reduction in those killed or seriously injured at camera sites. Partnership performance for 2003 will be detailed in the next report on the netting off programme to be published in March 2004.

    Mr. Drew
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what the average speed of vehicles was at each fixed speed camera within each Safety Camera Partnership in the year(a) prior to installation and (b) subsequent to installation. [142267]

    Mr. Jamieson
    The Government published information on 11 February 2003 about the performance of the eight areas that trialed the netting off scheme in the report "A cost recovery system for speed and red-light cameras—two year evaluation report." This showed speeds were affected in the seven areas where fixed site cameras were used in the following way:

    Mr. Chope
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what the policy of the Government is in relation to the reinvestment by safety camera partnerships of revenue from fines in(a) road safety education and (b) highway engineering improvements to improve road safety. [142499]

    Mr. Jamieson
    [holding answer 8 December 2003]: The rules for netting off allow fine revenue to be used only to fund safety camera activity which includes education about how effective speed management can improve road safety. Other aspects of road safety education and highway engineering improvement are funded separately in the usual way. The rules for netting off were designed to ensure there would be no benefit to the partnership for installing cameras at places where there were no casualty savings.

    Mr. Damian Green
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will(a) publish and (b) place in the Library the business plans of each camera safety partnership; and if he will make a statement. [142917]

    Mr. Jamieson
    Each safety camera partnership makes available locally for public scrutiny information about its operational case having taken regard to sensitive operational matters such as the speeds at which cameras are triggered to enforce the limit. Operational cases for 2004–05 are to be produced in common format to allow publication without compromising operational sensitivities.
    925W

    Teenage Cycling Safety
    Mr. Chope
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much his Department has spent on the teenage cycling safety campaign in 2003; how much was spent on preparing a television advertisement campaign on cycle helmets; and what plans he has to promote the wearing of cycle helmets by teenagers in 2004. [144544]

    Mr. Jamieson
    [holding answer 16 December 2003]: Expenditure on the teenage cycle safety campaign in 2003 was £123,000. Expenditure in financial year 2003–04 will be £173,000 in total once a TV public information film promoting cycle safety is completed.

    The Department has no plans to make a TV advertisement on cycle helmets separate to the public information film. We are however running advertisements in 40 secondary school homework diaries to promote cycle safety, which will appear until June 2004.

    In 2004, provisional plans include liaison with TV stations to show the public information film when they have a suitable gap between programmes; distribution of posters that promote cycle helmet wearing and the website cyclesense.net to road safety officers in local councils and maintaining the website cyclesense.net.

  CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

    Analogue Broadcasting
    Mr. Carmichael
    To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many households are unable to receive analogue television reception in(a) England, (b) Wales, (c) Scotland and (d) Northern Ireland. [144897]

    Estelle Morris
    According to figures given by the ITC, the percentage of households unable to receive BBC1, BBC2, ITV and Channel 4 or S4C via analogue reception are(a) England, 0.4 per cent., (b) Wales, 2.4 per cent., (c) Scotland, 1.9 per cent. and (d) Northern Ireland, 1.5 per cent. Analogue coverage for Five is not available on a per country basis, however, 20 per cent. of UK households do not currently have access to Five.

    Children's Broadcasting
    Mr. Boswell
    To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what action she is taking to encourage growth of children's broadcasting on radio. [144479]

    Estelle Morris
    I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) on 4 December 2003,Official Report, column 163W.

    Give As You Earn Scheme
    John Barrett
    To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many and what percentage of staff in her Department contribute to a charity through the Give as You Earn scheme; how much money is donated to charity per month by staff in 926W
    her Department through the scheme; and what steps she is taking to encourage greater participation in the scheme by staff in her Department. [143907]

    Mr. Caborn
    The number of staff contributing to charities through the Give as You Earn scheme is 20 which represents 4 per cent. of staff in DCMS. The current contribution is £181.99 per month.

    We are promoting the Give as You Earn scheme through our intranet and will be featuring the scheme in our staff newsletter in order to encourage greater participation.

    National Lottery
    Ms Walley
    To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what sustainable development objectives are taken into account when lottery distributors consider applications for grants for lottery-funded projects in relation to pleasure piers; and if she will make a statement. [144248]

    Estelle Morris
    The Heritage Lottery Fund (HLF) is the main distributor for lottery-funded projects relating to pleasure piers. HLF does not have separate criteria for assessing pier applications, but has a policy which states that:"in order to maximise its contribution to sustainable development, the environmental, social and economic sustainability of a project will be as central a criterion in the assessment procedure as value for money. To fulfil this, applicants will be encouraged to give full and proper consideration to the contribution of their projects to sustainable development". (November 1998).

  SCOTLAND

    Civil Service
    Annabelle Ewing
    To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland on what dates he has had discussions with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on civil service job dispersal to Scotland since he became Secretary of State for Scotland. [142723]

    Mrs. McGuire
    My right hon. Friend is in regular contact with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on a wide range of issues, including civil service job dispersal.

    Foundation Hospitals
    Annabelle Ewing
    To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what written representations he has received from the British Medical Association (Scotland) on the subject of foundation hospitals. [142732]

    Mrs. McGuire
    In common with all Members from Scottish constituencies, my right hon. Friend and I received representations from the BMA (Scotland) addressed to us as constituency MPs.

    Job Losses
    Mr. Lazarowicz
    To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he is taking in response to the loss of jobs in Scotland as a result of out-sourcing to other countries. [142710]
    927W
    Mrs. McGuire
    The Government consider that the best response to low cost overseas competition is to encourage the development of higher quality, added value services. Our economic policies are creating an environment where this transition can occur.

    The labour market in Scotland is healthier than it has been for decades. Employment is close to a record high and unemployment is around its lowest level since the 1970s. The prospects for the Scottish economy are good.

  TRADE AND INDUSTRY

    Supermarkets
    Mr. Drew
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what progress has been made on the Supermarket Code of Practice. [143653]

    Mr. Sutcliffe
    The Office of Fair Trading (OFT) is currently reviewing the Code of Practice governing supermarkets' relations with their suppliers. They have taken views from supermarkets, individual suppliers and trades associations representing suppliers. Once the OFT have delivered the results of the review to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, she will take whatever action is appropriate.

    Accountancy (Tax Avoidance Schemes)
    Mr. Austin Mitchell
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what information her Department has supplied to the US authorities in connection with investigations into accountancy firms' tax avoidance schemes in the past 12 months. [144184]

    Jacqui Smith
    The Government have not had any requests from the US authorities to supply them with information in connection with investigations into accountancy firms' tax avoidance schemes in the past 12 months.

    Age Discrimination
    Mr. Jim Cunningham
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and industry how her Department is working with the(a) EU and (b) Foreign and Commonwealth Office to ensure that all EU member states implement the law against discrimination in employment on the grounds of age. [143928]

    Jacqui Smith
    [holding answer 16 December 2003]: The European Employment Directive provides a general framework for combating discrimination in employment and vocational training, and lays down minimum requirements for outlawing discrimination on grounds of age, among other matters. It is for individual member states to decide how to implement the requirements in their own state.

    The Government are committed to introducing legislation to outlaw age discrimination that is clear and workable in the UK. In order to achieve this, we are working with all appropriate stakeholders across Whitehall and wider.
    928W

    Fibrecycle Waste Processing Method
    Mr. Keetch
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what her Department's policy is on the Fibrecycle waste processing method; [144368]

    what discussions her Department has had with Estech Europe Limited on the Fibrecycle waste processing method.[144369]

    Mr. Timms
    I am not aware of any discussions between the Department and Estech Europe Limited. The Department does not have specific policies relating to the Fibrecycle waste processing method.

    Free-fall Height Regulations
    Sir Teddy Taylor
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what the purpose is of the free-fall height regulations proposed by the EU; whether they are being considered by majority vote; and what assessment she has made of their impact on manufacturers of(a) rocking horses, (b) trampolines and (c) climbing frames; [143846]

    whether the free-fall height regulations to reduce the falling length for indoor activity toys will apply to (a) items located in domestic premises and (b) new sales of products. [143853]

    Mr. Sutcliffe
    [holding answer 15 December 2003]: The safety of toys is covered by the Toys (Safety) Regulations 1995 which are supported by European harmonised standards. A new part eight to the BSEN 71 series of toy standards, which introduced a maximum saddle height of 600mm for carousels and rocking activity toys, was recently agreed by the European technical committee which develops the standards. The primary intention of this measurement is to identify which toys need to undergo stability testing and it was not intended as a restriction on the maximum height of rocking horses. It has been accepted that an unintentional oversight has occurred and steps are being taken to rectify the matter. In the meantime, the DTI and LACORS (the Local Authorities Co-ordinators of Regulatory Services) have issued advice to local authority enforcement departments and testing laboratories on the current legal situation, emphasising that rocking horses with a saddle height greater than 600mm have not 'become' unsafe as a result of the new standard nor are any already on the market now unsafe for use.

    Although trampolines are not covered by the standard, it does specify safety requirements for toys incorporating crossbars eg climbing frames and swings.

    The BSEN 71 series of standards are a means of meeting the essential safety requirements of the toys safety Regulations. Those Regulations apply to all toys supplied on the UK market for use in play by children under 14 years of age.

    Gross Domestic Product
    Mr. Stephen O'Brien
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what percentage of GDP was comprised of net(a) private and (b) public investment in each of the last six years; [143429]
    929W
    what percentage of GDP was comprised of (a) manufacturing sector and (b) service sector net investment in each of the last six years; [143431]

    what percentage of GDP was comprised of net investment in each of the last six years. [143432]

    Ruth Kelly
    [holding answer 11 December 2003]: 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 Colin Mowl to Mr. Stephen O'Brien, dated 15 December 2003:
    The National Statistician has been asked to reply to your recent Parliamentary Questions about economic statistics. I am replying in his absence. (143429,143431,143432,143434,143435,143436)
    The information to derive the estimates that you have requested for the six years 1997 to 2002 is available from published sources accessed by the House of Commons Library. I have assumed that as the first three questions relate to net investment that the following three questions are concerned with gross fixed capital formation, excluding changes in inventories and acquisitions less disposals of valuables. This is consistent with the definition of investment used for the ONS Business Investment publication.
    GDP estimates are available in table 1.1 (both current prices and chained volume measures) of the ONS publication "Blue Book 2003". Estimates for capital consumption are also available for the whole economy in table 1.1, with information on gross fixed capital formation in table 1.2 (at current prices) and 1.3 (at chained volume measures).
    Estimates for gross fixed capital formation by sector are available in table 9.2 (at current prices) and 9.4 (at chained volume measures). Estimates for capital consumption by sector and industry, at current prices and at chained volume measures, are available in tables 3.1.1 to 3.2.2 of the ONS publication "Capital Stocks, Capital Consumption and Non-Financial Balance Sheets", available on the National Statistics website.
    Estimates for gross fixed capital formation for the manufacturing and service sectors are available for the period 1999 to 2002 in tables 1.11 (at chained volume measures) and 1.12 (at current prices) of the most recent ONS publication "Monthly Digest of Statistics". Earlier data for these series can be accessed using the 4 letter identifier (CDID) on PUBL, the ONS published electronic series also accessed by the House of Commons Library. The relevant CDID for each series is shown in the Monthly Digest publication.

    Industrial Tribunals
    Michael Fabricant
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many cases concerned with(a) disability, (b) sex and (c) race discrimination have been heard by an industrial tribunal in each of the last five years. [143830]

    Mr. Sutcliffe
    The following table shows the number of cases concerning disability, sex and race discrimination which were disposed of at hearing by employment tribunals in each of the last five financial years.

    Disability

    Sex

    Race

    1998–99

    415

    1,320

    1,140

    1999–2000

    456

    1,110

    771

    2000–01

    772

    1,258

    1,112

    2001–02

    618

    1,136

    829

    2002–03

    678

    1,121

    725

    930W
    Notes:

    1. The statistical information quoted for the past three years was published in the Employment Tribunals Service Annual Report and Accounts for those years.

    2. The data supplied relate to employment tribunal cases in England, Wales and Scotland (Northern Ireland has its own tribunals).

    Source:

    Employment Tribunals Service

    Norwich Union
    Dr. Gibson
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment she has made of the redundancies declared by the Norwich Union Aviva Group. [142504]

    Mr. Sutcliffe
    Although the Government very much share the concerns of those immediately affected by plans to offshore services work, the question of redundancies is a commercial matter for the Norwich Union Aviva Group. Earlier this month, Aviva said that it hopes that the bulk of job cuts will come through natural staff turnover or voluntary redundancies. However, we do nevertheless need to understand better what is happening, and to this end we have launched a consultation document and will hold a round-table seminar in the New Year, to help inform the debate on the impacts of offshoring.

    Photovoltaic Panels
    Norman Baker
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what targets were set for the installation of photovoltaic panels in(a) domestic and (b) commercial properties in 2002–03; and how many installations occurred. [143755]

    Mr. Timms
    Under the DTI's £20 million First Phase of the Major Photovoltaic Demonstration Programme, the target for Stream 1 (small-scale individual systems 0.5–5kWp) in 2002–03 was 300 approvals. This was later revised downwards to 200 approvals to reflect expected demand. This was confirmed by the fact that only 210 applications were actually received, of which 190 were approved. There is no annual target for Stream 2 (group housing and medium/large-scale non-residential buildings 5–100kWp), but the target for the three-year first phase is 140 projects, of which 45 were approved in the first year. 71 of the 190 approvals under Stream 1 were installed during 2002–03, but installation tends to lag three to six months behind approval. For Stream 2, no installations were completed in the first year as the time lag here tends to be six to twelve months from approval.

    Post Office Closures
    Richard Burden
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assurances have been received from Post Office Ltd. that there will be consultation with local communities on the strategic issues associated with area plans produced under the Network Reinvention programme as well as on individual closure proposals. [140723]

    Mr. Timms
    [holding answer 3 December 2003]: Proposals for closures of sub-post offices under the urban network reinvention programme are put out to public consultation in accordance with the code of

    931W
    practice agreed between Post Office Ltd. and Postwatch. In preparing closure proposals, Post Office Ltd. collect a range of information relevant to the provision of post office services in an area. This includes local authority plans, environmental and transport information, local shopping habits and other local developments and features. Post Office Ltd. is committed to taking full account of this information in preparing an area plan. With the move to area plans, the public consultation period has been extended from four to six weeks during which comments and representations, including new or additional information, can be submitted for consideration by Post Office Ltd. before they reach a final decision.

    Llew Smith
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment her Department has made of the impact of closing local post offices on the Government's programme to reduce social exclusion and poverty. [143507]

    Mr. Timms
    The Department have made no such study. But the Government regards it as most important that people have good access to postal and Government services and is committed to doing all we can to ensure a viable Post Office network for the future. For the rural network the Post Office has made a firm commitment to maintain the network and prevent avoidable closures. The Government have underpinned that with £450 million of funding. We have also made available an additional £2 million fund to support community post office initiatives.

    The urban reinvention programme is necessary to ensure the long-term viability of that part of the network. In return for Government investment in this programme, the Post Office has guaranteed that at the end of the programme 95 per cent. of people living in urban areas will be within a mile of a post office, and the majority within half a mile. Offices in deprived urban areas can only be closed in exceptional circumstances. In addition special arrangements have been put in place to help post offices in the most deprived wards and where there is no other post office within half a mile. The scheme in England provides grant for capital improvements of up to £50,000. Similar schemes have been set up in Scotland and Wales.

    Royal Mail
    Mr. Bellingham
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many items of mail(a) missed their delivery targets and (b) missed their delivery targets as a result of industrial action in each of the last five years. [142137]

    Mr. Timms
    The number of mail items that missed their delivery targets is an operational matter than falls within the day-to-day responsibility of the Royal Mail Board. I have therefore asked the Chief Executive to reply direct to the hon. Member.

    Research and Development
    Mr. Cousins
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the total expenditure and share of GDP on(a) civil and (b) defence research and
    932W
    development was in (i) 2000–01, (ii) 2001–02 and (iii) 2002–03; and what the Government share of expenditure was in each year. [144004]

    Jacqui Smith
    [holding answer 15 December 2003]: The latest data available for Gross Domestic Expenditure on R&D (GERD) are 2001. Data for 2002 will be available in March 2004.

    Expenditure(£ million cash terms)

    Proportion of GDP

    Percentage performed in the Government sector1

    Percentage funded by the Government sector1

    Civil R&D

    2000

    15.018

    1.56

    9

    24

    20012

    16,125

    1.61

    9

    24

    Defence R&D

    2000

    2,526

    0.26

    31

    58

    20012

    2,690

    0.27

    16

    64

    1Government includes the research councils and higher education funding councils.

    2Revised data for 2001 will be made available in March 2004.

    Source:

    ONS.

    Transtec
    Mr. Austin Mitchell
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when the Transtec inspectors were appointed; when they submitted their report; when the report was published; what it cost; and what the remuneration was of each inspector. [144186]

    Jacqui Smith
    Hugh Aldous FCA and Roger Kaye QC were appointed by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on 20 January 2000 under the provisions of section 432(2) of the Companies Act 1985. They submitted an interim report to the Secretary of State on 22 January 2001, which was published on 22 February 2001 and submitted their final report on 15 January 2003, which was published on 24 October 2003.

    Costs of the inspection (net of VAT) have been as follows:

    £

    Hugh Aldous FCA including support at RSM Robson Rhodes and disbursements

    2,555,873

    Roger Kaye QC including support in Chambers and disbursements

    1,025,183

    Total cost

    3,581,056

    Windscale (Decommissioning)
    Llew Smith
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on(a) difficulties encountered and (b) strategies adopted in the decommissioning of the Windscale pile number one at Sellafield; and what the cost of this exercise has been so far. [144506]
    933W
    Mr. Timms
    The Pile One reactor is considered by international experts to be one of the most challenging decommissioning tasks in the nuclear industry. The key challenges include:Limited knowledge of the extent of damage to the fire-affected core;
    Difficult access to some areas of the core;
    Ensuring a fire-free environment throughout the work; and
    Employing suitable remote-controlled machinery to remove hazardous material.

    Strategies have been adopted for two phases of the decommissioning. Phase One of the project, that of clearing up and sealing the air and water ducts, was successfully completed in 1999. This work ensured that the reactor continues to be maintained in a condition acceptable to the nuclear regulators.

    Phase Two, the current phase, involves removal of the hazardous materials and the treatment and packaging of the resulting waste. Problems with the initial design concept led to a rigorous technical review of the options for dismantling. This review is ongoing.
    934W
    Safety is UKAEA's highest priority and any decommissioning strategy must be shown to have addressed all known hazards.

    Phase One decommissioning costs were £14 million. Phase Two costs to date are approximately £30 million.

    Working Time Directive
    Michael Fabricant
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions she has had with the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service on the working time directive's opt-out clause; and if she will make a statement. [143829]

    Mr. Sutcliffe
    The Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service (ACAS) is the first point of contact for all public enquiries relating to employment law. The Department and ACAS are, therefore, in constant contact on all aspects of employment law.

    The European Commission are reviewing the opt out arrangements and intend to issue a preliminary Communication, without formal legislative proposals, shortly. We hope that the Communication will present a range of options on the opt out which can be discussed with UK social partners.
    935W

  HOME DEPARTMENT

    Anti-social Behaviour (Vale of York)
    Miss McIntosh
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent representations he has received on anti-social behaviour in the Vale of York. [144483]

    Ms Blears
    Neither myself, nor officials in the Anti-Social Behaviour Unit, have received any recent representations about anti-social behaviour in the Vale of York.

    Following the launch of "together. Tackling Anti-Social Behaviour" the Government's Action Plan on the 14 October, the together Academy and together ActionLine will both be available in early 2004, to offer advice and information on all anti-social behaviour related matters. In addition, every CDRP will receive additional funding to tackle anti-social behaviour in 2004–05 and 2005–06. Taken together, existing powers and new powers introduced in the Anti-Social Behaviour Act and the Action Plan aim to make a real and lasting difference to the lives of people who are victims of anti-social behaviour.

    Asylum
    Lynne Jones
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether Palestinian people were specifically excluded from his Department's recent one-off exercise to grant indefinite leave to remain to up to 15,000 families who sought asylum, and had children in the United Kingdom, before 2 October 2000; and whether a decision on all Palestinian asylum cases is due to be made. [140512]

    Beverley Hughes
    There are no nationalities excluded from the recently announced one-off exercise for families.

    Decisions on Palestinian cases were put on hold pending a Court of Appeal judgment received in August 2002. Most of those cases have now been decided and all but a handful should be decided by the end of January 2004.

    Lynne Jones
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what additional budgetary resources have been redirected and allocated to cover operating costs relating to section 55 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 since 8 January. [141791]

    Beverley Hughes
    The Immigration and Nationality Directorate's (IND) resources cover a wide range of activities including the cost of administering work related to section 55 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002. This cost is not separately identifiable within the total IND budget.

    Criminal Records Bureau
    Mr. Burstow
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what penalty payments Capita have made since 31 January under the terms of their Criminal Records Bureau contract. [142043]
    936W
    Ms Blears
    The Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) contract contains provisions for Capita to pay service credits or liquidated damages for delay or poor performance, with service credits of £1,992,700 calculated as payable by Capita under the terms of the CRB contract from 1 February 2003 onwards.

    Departmental Website
    Mr. Oaten
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the computer games on(a) his Department's website and (b) websites of bodies sponsored by his Department; on what date each was placed on the relevant website; how many times each has been played; and what the cost of producing each game was. [143400]

    Fiona Mactaggart
    The Home Office has used games to promote three of its websites.

    Backchat and Chatroom Chaos were both used as part of the Child Protection on the Internet campaign to encourage young people to visit www.thinkuknow.co.uk to learn about using the internet safely.

    Backchat was launched February 2002 at a cost of £15,000 and has been played 128,853 times. Chatroom Chaos was launched in April 2002 at a cost of £12,000 and has been played 77,905 times.

    Kebabathon and Bargain Boost were both used to promote the website www.good2bsecure to students to encourage them to think about home and personal security. The kebabathon was launched in January 2003 in a mailout to 700,000 NUS members and has been played 40,000 times. The cost was £12,000. Bargain Boost was launched on 7 November 2003. It has been mailed to 5,000 students and played 8,000 times to date. A further mailout to 40,000 students is under way.

    A game was also used on the vehicle crime reduction website, www.secureyourmotor.gov.uk. Car Secured was launched in February 2002 at cost £5,000. It has been played 12,000 times since October 2002 (Statistics for February to September 2002 are not available because problems with the web analytics software used mean the data are not reliable).

    Online games are a cost-effective means to promote websites to hard to reach audiences who would not naturally think of seeking information from Government websites.

    Experience Corps
    Mr. Hancock
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) which organisations were involved in the consultations on(a) licensing street collections and (b) the setting up of the Experience Corps; what criteria were used to select the consultees; and if he will make a statement; [143369]

    (2) if he will invite Volunteers in Action to take part in consultations on (a) licensing charity street collections and (b) in setting up of the Experience Corps; and if he will make a statement. [143449]
    937W
    Fiona Mactaggart
    The consultation on public charitable collections was a public one which ended on 2 December 2003. To publicise it a series of events was held around the country to which representatives of charities, professional fundraisers, licensing authorities, police and chambers of commerce were invited. The consultation in hard copy was distributed to all those who requested it. It was posted on the Home Office website and sign posted on other relevant websites.

    The National Experience Corps Experts Group reported in February 2001. Although the organisations which make up Volunteers in Action were not members of the Experts Group, the list of people and organisations consulted by the Experts Group included Norman Proctor of Rotary International Great Britain and Ireland, who are members of Volunteers in Action.

    Haslar Removal Centre
    Mr. Viggers
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when indicative plans for the extension of Haslar Removal Centre were first prepared; on whose authority; and at what cost. [141247]

    Beverley Hughes
    The indicative plans for Haslar Removal Centre were first prepared in July 2003 at the request of the senior responsible officer within the Department. The cost of drawing up these plans was £20,000.

    This was part of an exercise to examine the feasibility of increasing the capacity of existing removal centres. As a result of this exercise, there are no plans to increase the capacity at Haslar.

    Justice and Home Affairs Council
    Mr. Jim Marshall
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the outcome of the Justice and Home Affairs Council held on 27 to 28 November was; what the Government's stance was on the issues discussed, including its voting record; and if he will make a statement. [142007]

    Caroline Flint
    My noble Friends (Baroness Scotland) and (Lord Filkin) represented the United Kingdom at the Justice and Home Affairs Council in Brussels on 27–28 November.

    A list of 'A' points approved (with the exception of item 34) at the Council has been placed in the Library (Documents PTS A 63 15256/03 and ADD 1).

    The Presidency concluded a general approach on the draft Framework Decision on drug trafficking but noted four Parliamentary Reserves and that the European Parliament will be re-consulted.

    The Presidency also concluded a general approach on the draft Mutual Legal Assistance agreement between the EU and Norway and Iceland and noted two outstanding Parliamentary Reserves. It hoped that the Council Decision authorising the Presidency to sign the Agreement would be adopted on 8 December.
    938W
    Similarly the proposal for a regulation creating a European Enforcement Order for uncontested civil claims was the subject of a general approach. Lord Filkin noted the UK's Parliamentary Reservation on Article 2. Two other member states had other reservations and the Presidency therefore suggested the remaining difficulties should be discussed at a technical meeting. They hoped to be able to adopt a common position by the end of the year to allow consideration by the European Parliament and adoption of the Regulation in this legislature.

    The Presidency noted the conclusions of the last meeting of the Police Chiefs' Task Force and the willingness to make more effective use of liaison officers.

    Draft Council conclusions on strengthening community co-operation in the field of civil protection assistance were adopted and the Commission indicated that in early 2004 it planned to present a Communication building on these.

    Under Any Other Business four member states, including the UK, confirmed they had passed their domestic legislation implementing the European Arrest Warrant. Six member states indicated that they planned to do so by 31 December 2003 deadline but five member states envisaged some slippage.

    Separately, the Presidency proposed the adoption of a charter on the importance of inter-faith dialogue. Following a meeting in the margins of the council the text of a non-binding statement was agreed but will only be adopted when two member states have lifted their reservations.

    The Presidency noted the progress made on the Asylum Procedures Directive: they had inherited a measure with 239 reservations on the text but only 37 now remained. Nonetheless given that these related to contentious issues (safe third countries, safe countries of origin, and appeals), the Presidency concluded that discussion should continue under the Irish Presidency, with a view to concluding by the deadline in the Amsterdam Treaty (1 May 2004).

    The Commission (Vitorino) reported its work on the proposed minimum common list of safe country of origin to be adopted with the Directive. Work would be taken forward to identify which of the 22 countries that member states had proposed could be included in the list.

    One member state was not yet in a position to agree the draft Directive on Minimum Standards for the Qualification and Status of Third-Country Nationals and Stateless Persons as Refugees and so the Presidency noted that discussion would continue under the Irish Presidency, which would aim to agree the Directive before 1 May 2004.

    The Presidency reported on the outcome of the seminar, "Towards more orderly and managed entry in the EU of persons in need of international protection"

    939W
    which had focused on the merits of an EU resettlement programme and EU-level protected entry procedures. The Presidency's document aimed to guide the work of the Commission in preparing its report to the June 2004 European Council on legal means of entry for refugees to the EU and improvements to the protection capacity of refugees' regions of origin.

    Given member states differing views on the Council Directive on the conditions of entry and residence of third-country nationals for the purpose of paid and self-employment the Presidency would consider future handling. (The UK has not opted in to this proposal).

    The Mixed Committee reached a general approach on draft Council Conclusions on the European External Borders Agency, and these were subsequently adopted in the Council itself.

    Baroness Scotland stressed our desire to participate as fully as possible in the work of the Agency and the benefits this would bring to all. Two other member states supported. Commissioner Vitorino stressed his desire for the UK and Ireland to participate within the framework of the agency. He stressed that, although there might be institutional consequences, these should not be allowed to undermine the work of the Agency. He also urged member states to reach political agreement on what they wanted from the Agency, stating that only then could the participants' legal positions be addressed.

    A general approach was reached on the Sea Borders Agency Work Programme (which was subsequently adopted by the Council) after one member state withdrew its reservations.

    The Mixed Committee and the Council agreed a general approach on the Regulations laying down a uniform format for visas and residence permits, and adopted the associated Council Conclusions, which dealt with the need for an additional legal instrument to deal with the storage of biometric visa data.

    In the margins of the Council on 28 November Baroness Scotland represented the UK at a meeting with Ministers from the countries of the Western Balkans: Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Serbia and Montenegro.

    The UK welcomed the action they are taking or planning to meet their commitments, made at the London Conference and Thessaloniki summit, to fight organised crime and improve border management. Baroness Scotland underlined the need for implementation of these plans and continued cooperation with the EU, with the International Criminal Tribunal for Yugoslavia (ICTY) in the Hague and within the region.

    The directors of Europol and Eurojust briefly outlined the work they are doing in the region, although in the latter's case this was at an early stage.

    In relation to borders the Commission welcomed some of the specific action plans that countries in the region had developed but stressed that these were just a beginning that they would need to be improved.
    940W
    The joint conclusions were adopted and the Netherlands noted they would organise a follow-up ministerial conference during their Presidency to assess progress against commitments made today.

    Legislation
    Mr. Redwood
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many pages of(a) primary and (b) secondary legislation his Department put through Parliament in 2002–03. [141120]

    Mr. Blunkett
    The Home Office sponsored five Bills during the 2002–03 Session, which made a total of approximately 868 once enacted (printed versions of some of the Bills are not yet available).

    These Bills included measures to give the police new powers to deal with anti-social behaviour, deliver end to end reform of the criminal justice system in the most significant overhaul in a generation, modernise and streamline extradition to and from the UK, enable faster and more effective co-operation against terrorism and other serious crime and deliver the most radical overhaul of sex offences legislation in 50 years.

    In the case of secondary legislation, the Home Office was responsible for 131 Statutory Instruments which equates to 438 pages of legislation which give effect to measures introduced in previous sessions.

    Full copies of all the legislation, together with page numbers are available in the Library.

    Non-emergency Telephone Line
    Lynne Jones
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on progress on setting up a dedicated non-emergency telephone line; and if he will assess 888 as a possibility for the numerical sequence. [142982]

    Ms Blears
    In our consultation paper, "Policing: Building Safer Communities Together", which was published on 4 November, the Home Office sought views on the introduction of a single, three-digit, non-emergency number for accessing local services. This built upon a previous proposal to introduce a single non-emergency number for the police. The closing date for contributions to the consultation is 27 January 2004. Work has begun to look at the possible scope of such a system. There are a number of models worldwide, including the American 311 system. We shall develop the proposal following the consultation feedback and the scoping work.

    Ofcom (Oftel until 29 December 2003), which administers the UK's National Numbering Scheme, has advised us that it may be possible to allocate a three digit number for this service. That will be subject to a public consultation, run by Ofcom, to establish whether the service, which it is intended should be available through all networks and service providers, is objectively justifiable and whether the change required is proportionate to the benefit. That consultation will commence once we are clearer about the scope of the service.

    Due to the availability of local dialling within a code area, Ofcom has also advised that the allocation of "888" is not possible without re-numbering all

    941W
    subscribers whose telephone number, minus area code, begins with "8" or "88". It is likely that the three digit number allocated for use in non-emergency cases will begin with the digit "1". We have yet to make a decision about the three digit number.

    Regulations (Consultation)
    Brian Cotter
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department 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. [142488]

    Fiona Mactaggart
    There is no direct correlation between Government consultations and individual regulations. For example, there has not been nor would there be written consultation prior to a statutory instrument being made designating territories under Part 1 of the Extradition Act 2003.
    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 Home Office has published 49 consultations covered by the Code, of which 27 were less than 12 weeks.

    Stowaways (Ferries)
    Mr. Carmichael
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans the Government have to introduce penalties for ferry companies who transport stowaways. [140671]

    Beverley Hughes
    The Government have no plans to introduce further legislation since ferry companies are already liable to charges in respect of stowaways.

    Under section 40 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 (as amended), where a person arrives in the United Kingdom and fails to produce a valid immigration document satisfactorily establishing his identity and his nationality or citizenship and where, required, a valid visa, the owner of the ship (or aircraft), in which he arrives is liable to a charge of (currently) £2,000 per person. Existing published guidance on carriers' liability charging procedures says that charges in respect of stowaways will be waived where the carrier had done everything possible to ensure that no unauthorised person used the service.

    On 6 October 2003 the Government published a consultation document entitled "Carriers' Liability: Charging Procedures: A Guide for Carriers" setting out proposed amendments to that published guidance. In particular, the document proposes changes to the circumstances in which charges will be waived in respect of stowaways and explains in greater detail what is expected of carriers. Copies of the consultation document can be found in the Library and on the Home Office website www.ind.homeoffice.gov.uk/default.asp?pageid=4156.

    Unregistered Ships
    Mr. Carmichael
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment his Department has made of the number of people trying to gain illegal entry into the United Kingdom on unregistered ships; and what steps are being taken to tackle this. [140673]
    942W
    Beverley Hughes
    There is no official estimate of the number of people trying to enter the United Kingdom illegally but the threat from people trying to gain entry illegally on unregistered shipping is currently regarded as low. However the situation is continually monitored and reviewed.

    The Immigration Service works in close co-operation with the coastguard, HM Customs and Excise and the police to monitor the movements of small boats. This has included two joint operations this year involving the interception of suspect vessels.

  DEFENCE

    Army Attitude Survey
    Angus Robertson
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the average satisfaction levels of respondents to the last assessed Army Continuous Attitude Survey were with regard to(a) question 26b, (b) question 28, (c) question 29e, (d) question 37a, (e) question 37c, (f) question 37f, (g) question 18aa, (h) question 18ab and (i) question 18ac; what this number represents as a percentage of total responses received; and how many respondents were in the (A) top and (B) bottom categories of satisfaction. [143616]

    Mr. Caplin
    From the latest Army Serving Personnel Continuous Attitude Survey, undertaken in December 2002, only the response options to question 28 were expressed in terms of category of satisfaction. The responses are set out in the following table:

    Question 28. How do you feel your pay compares to that of your civilian counterparts?

    Officers

    Soldiers

    Numbers

    Percentage

    Numbers

    Percentage

    1. Mine is much better

    13

    4.0

    82

    6.0

    2. Mine is better

    45

    13.5

    254

    20.0

    3. About the same

    92

    28.0

    362

    28.5

    4. Mine is worse

    151

    45.5

    392

    31.0

    5. Mine is much worse

    30

    9.0

    184

    14.5

    Army Personnel
    Mr. Gibb
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the total cost was of Army personnel removals between garrison towns in the UK in each year since 1990; and how many such removals took place in each year since 1990. [143837]

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

    Mr. Dodds
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the percentage of(a) female and (b) male soldiers is in (i) the regular army, (ii) the Territorial Army, (iii) the full-time Royal Irish Regiment and (iv) the part-time Royal Irish Regiment. [144019]

    Mr. Caplin
    The percentages of female and male soldiers in the Regular Army, TA, Full Time Royal Irish Regiment and Part-time Royal Irish Regiments are as follows.
    943W

    Percentage

    Male

    Female

    Regular Army

    93.0

    7.0

    Territorial Army

    83.0

    17.0

    Full-time Royal Irish Regiment

    91.0

    9.0

    Part-time Royal Irish Regiment

    91.1

    8.9

    Notes:

    Data for the Regular Army and the Territorial Army are as at 1 October 2003 Data for the Royal Irish Regiments are as at 18 October 2003 Data for Royal Irish Regiment are for trained personnel only.

    Defence Fire Service
    Angus Robertson
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many RAF Trade Group 8 firefighters(a) are based in Scotland and (b) there are in total; what the annual personnel costs were for (i) firefighters based in Scotland and (ii) all RAF fire-fighters in each year since 1997; and if he will make a statement [143565]

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

    Defence Spending
    Mr. Rosindell
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of how proposed defence spending changes will affect the ability of the United Kingdom to act unilaterally in any future military action. [144691]

    Mr. Hoon
    The Defence White Paper, Delivering Security in a Changing World, set out our requirement for flexible Armed Forces that are structured and equipped to deliver precise and rapid military effect. The changes the White Paper demands will enhance the UK's ability to conduct limited national operations and to pursue our security objectives when acting alongside allies and coalition partners. As I said in my statement of 11 December (Official Report, 11 December 2003, column 1211), work is currently underway to develop the details of the individual systems and structures appropriate for the policy context set out in the White Paper, and I shall make further announcements on the results of that work next year.

    Depleted Uranium
    Ms Walley
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what recent assessment he has made of the possible effects of depleted uranium exposure on service men and women; and if he will make a statement; [144107]

    (2) what his policy is on testing of (a) current and (b) former service men and women for side effects associated with depleted uranium; and if he will make a statement. [144106]

    Mr. Caplin
    The scientific literature suggests there are no side effects uniquely associated with exposure to Depleted Uranium.

    The Ministry of Defence's Biological Monitoring Policy (www.mod.uk/issuesidepleted_uranium/du_biomonitoring.htm) is to offer a urine test for uranium to all UK service and civilian personnel on current and future operations where DU has been used. This includes an isotope test
    944W
    (which tests for the presence of DU) for those who may have had high exposures. Other tests will be carried out if clinically indicated.

    Former service personnel are being offered a voluntary DU test under the auspices of the independent Depleted Uranium Oversight Board (DUOB). The first tests should begin in early 2004. If DUOB tests reveal detectable DU in the urine, follow-on epidemiological studies will be carried out. Depending on the outcome of these studies, further research may be commissioned.

    Iraq
    Mr. Soames
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many British personnel(a) serving and (b) having served in Iraq in 2003 have contracted Leishmaniasis. [144129]

    Mr. Caplin
    At present. there has been one confirmed case, and twelve suspected cases, of Leishmaniasis among Service personnel who have served in Iraq in 2003.

    Mr. Keetch
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the menu is for soldiers serving in Iraq on Christmas Day; and if he will make a statement. [144469]

    Mr. Ingram
    United Kingdom Armed Forces personnel serving in Iraq will, wherever possible, be offered a turkey dinner or a vegetarian option.

    Military Personnel (Psychiatric Treatment)
    Tim Loughton
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many military personnel have been treated for mental health problems at the Duchess of Kent Hospital at Catterick in each of the last six years. [144153]

    Mr. Caplin
    The following table represents the total number of Service personnel, both in-patients and outpatients, treated for mental health problems at the Duchess of Kent Psychiatric Hospital (DKPH) January 1997-March 2003.

    Year (January-December except where noted)

    Number of military personnel treated at DKPH

    1997 (January-February)

    91

    1997–98 (April to March)

    581

    1998 (April-December)

    351

    1999

    458

    2000

    439

    2001

    451

    2002

    450

    2003 (January to March figures only available)

    101

    Figures are not available for March 1997.

    Network-centric Capabilities
    Mr. Rosindell
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what effect he estimates the proposed change of emphasis from frontline platform strength to network-centric capabilities will have on the number of employees within the United Kingdom armed forces. [144689]

    Mr. Hoon
    As I said in my statement of 11 December (Official Report, 11 December 2003, column 1211), the Ministry of Defence is currently undertaking work to develop the details of the individual systems and

    945W
    structures appropriate for the policy context as set out in the Defence White Paper, Delivering Security in a Changing World. I shall make further announcements on the results of that work next year.

    Nuclear Weapons
    Llew Smith
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether the United States Administration has provided the United Kingdom with information, with particular reference to information on experiments, on the development of low-yield earth-penetrating nuclear weapons under the provisions of the 1959 Amendment to the 1958 United States-United Kingdom Mutual Defence Agreement on atomic energy matters. [143508]

    Mr. Hoon
    No.

    Priory Group
    Mr. Soames
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether service personnel will be working at the Priory Group's facilities for the treatment of service personnel; and what special provision will be made for military casualties. [144133]

    Mr. Caplin
    The majority of psychiatric referrals will be dealt with by the 16 Defence Community Mental Health (DCMH) teams that are located across the UK. The small number of patients requiring in-patient care will be dealt with by The Priory Group's staff. Each DCMH will make special provisions for Service personnel at the Priory by supplying a trained

    Unit

    Strength

    HQ address

    Royal Navy Reserve (RNR)

    HMS Scotia

    227

    Director Naval Reserves, South Terrace, Portsmouth Naval Base, PO1 3LS

    HMS Dalriada

    137

    Director Naval Reserves, South Terrace, Portsmouth Naval Base, PO1 3LS

    Royal Marine Reserve (RMR)

    RMR Scotland

    153

    Director Royal Marines Reserves, Whale Island, Portsmouth, PO2 8DX

    Territorial Army (TA)

    Royal Artillery (RA)

    105 Regt RA (V)

    415

    Artillery House, 301 Colinton Road, Colinton, Edinburgh, EH13 OLA

    Royal Engineers (RE)

    71 Engr Regt RE (V)

    383

    RAF Leuchars, St. Andrews, Fife, KY16 OLX

    Royal Signals (R SIGS)

    2 Sig Sqn (V)

    63

    TAC Newman House, Mid Craigie Road, Dundee, DD4 7RH

    32 Sig Regt (V)

    356

    21 Jardine Street, Glasgow, G20 6JT

    Infantry (INF)

    51 Highland Regt

    591

    Queens Barracks, 131 Dunkeld Road, Perth, PHI 5BT

    52 Lowland Regt

    442

    Walcheren Barracks, 122 Hotspur Street, Glasgow, G20 8LQ

    Royal Logistic Corps (RLC)

    Scottish Tpt Regt RLC (V)

    546

    Bothwell House, Elgin Street, Dunfirmline, Fife, KY12 7SB

    Army Medical Services (AMS)

    225 Fd Amb (V)

    131

    Block 5, Oliver Barracks, Dalkeith Road, Dundee, DD4 7DL

    205 Fd Hosp (V)

    256

    Graham House, 130 Whitefield Road, Glasgow, G51 2YE

    Adjutant Generals Corp (Royal Military Police) (AGC(RMP))

    243 Pro Coy (V)

    52

    TAC Beveridge Square, Livingston, EH54 6QF

    Intelligence Corps (INT)

    23 MI Coy (V)

    51

    TAC, 124 McDonald Road, Edinburgh, Lothian, EH174NQ

    University Officer Training Corps (UOTC)

    Aberdeen

    178

    Roy Strathdee Building, 152 Don Street, Old Aberdeen, AB2 1XQ

    Edinburgh

    268

    Duke of Edinburgh House, 301 Colinton Road, Edinburgh, EH 13 OLA

    Glasgow and Strathclyde

    198

    95 University Place, Glasgow, G12 8SU

    Tayforth

    264

    TAC, 16 Park Wynd. Dundee, DD1 5HG

    946W
    psychiatric nurse to act as a Service Liaison Officer who will work with The Priory Group on a daily basis and will be on hand to deal with any problems military personnel may encounter. It is anticipated that military casualties will be treated within this system.

    Mr. Soames
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which companies bid for the contract to run in-patient psychiatric services for his Department; and for what reasons the contract was awarded to the Priory Group. [144134]

    Mr. Caplin
    I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 11 December 2003,Official Report, column 571W, to the hon. Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson).

    Reserve (Scotland)
    Angus Robertson
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list(a) the reserve units based in Scotland, (b) their headquarters' location and (c) current strength; what the (i) date and (ii) location of their last deployment was; and if he will make a statement. [144000]

    Mr. Caplin
    [holding answer 15 December 2003]: Since the reorganisation of the Reserve Forces under the Strategic Defence Review no Scottish based reserve units have been deployed on operations. However, subunits, composite units and individual reservists from units based in Scotland have been deployed to support operations in the Balkans, Afghanistan and Iraq. The location and strength of Scottish reserve units is set out in the following table:
    947W

    Unit

    Strength

    HQ address

    Royal Auxiliary Air Force (RAuxAF)

    RauxAF

    No 603 (City of Edinburgh) Sqn

    118

    25 Learmonth Terrace, Edinburgh, EG4 1NZ

    No 612 (County of Aberdeen) Sqn

    56

    RAF Leuchars, St. Andrews, Fife, KY16 OJX

    RAuxAF Regt

    No 2622 (Highland) Sqn

    118

    RAF Lossiemouth, Elgin, Morayshire, IV31 6SD

    School Places
    Mr. Foulkes
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to his Answer of 3 December 2003,Official Report, column 68W, on school places, in what format his Department holds information on the proportion of funding spent by his Department on school places for service personnel which was spent on the independent sector in each year since 1996; and if he will publish that information. [143871]

    Mr. Caplin
    Expenditure data on Service Education Allowances is only accessible for named individuals. While it is possible to identify what has been spent on any named individual it is not possible to capture cumulative data totals electronically. Manual capture of this data could be provided only at disproportionate cost. Even if this total data were produced it would not identify the proportion spent in the independent sector schools as the same allowance rates are paid irrespective of the type of school and hence independent sector spend could not be isolated.

    Service Medals
    Hugh Robertson
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what progress has been made with the award of a medal for service in Iraq. [144009]

    Mr. Caplin
    [holding answer 15 December 2003]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 6 November 2003, Official Report, columns 768–69W, to the hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Flook). The case for the award of a campaign medal to recognise service in Iraq is currently with the Committee on the Grant of Honours, Decorations and Medals for their deliberation. I expect to make a further announcement in the new year.

    Hugh Robertson
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the eligibility criteria are for the award of a medal for service in Afghanistan; and what medal that is. [144011]

    Mr. Caplin
    [holding answer 15 December 20031: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 6 November 2003, (Official Report, columns 768–9W) to the hon. Member for Taunton (Mr Flook). I expect to make a further announcement in the New Year.

    Hugh Robertson
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will take steps to introduce a medal for service during the Cold War. [144013]

    Mr. Caplin
    [holding answer 15 December 2003]: There are no plans to institute any additional medals for service between the end of the Second World War and the break up of the Soviet Empire in the early 1990s, a period generally referred to as the Cold War.

    Territorial Army
    Angus Robertson
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the monthly recruitment numbers for each of the Territorial Army's recruitment posts in(a) Scotland, (b) Wales and (c) England since 1997; and if he will make a statement. [143999]

    Mr. Caplin
    [holding answer 15 December 2003]: There are no dedicated Territorial Army (TA) recruitment posts. Recruitment into the TA is conducted by individual units, locally for independent units and nationally in the case of specialist units.

    The Army does not differentiate the recruitment of British nationals. The Recruitment figures for the TA as a whole, by month, since 1997 are as follows:

    Date

    Recruitment

    1997

    April

    990

    May

    680

    June

    720

    July

    580

    August

    500

    September

    1,400

    October

    2,000

    November

    420

    December

    490

    1998

    January

    1,190

    February

    810

    March

    1,020

    April

    980

    May

    780

    June

    660

    July

    600

    August

    650

    September

    720

    October

    1,910

    November

    680

    December

    490

    1999

    January

    460

    February

    500

    March

    460

    April

    560

    May

    500

    June

    440

    July

    360

    August

    400

    September

    490

    October

    1,730

    November

    620

    December

    400

    2000

    January

    530

    February

    520

    March

    460

    April

    610

    May

    720

    June

    470

    949W

    July

    440

    August

    460

    September

    420

    October

    1,990

    November

    740

    December

    480

    2001

    January

    480

    February

    470

    March

    460

    April

    720

    May

    780

    June

    580

    July

    500

    August

    320

    September

    480

    October

    1,820

    November

    680

    December

    460

    2002

    January

    440

    February

    590

    March

    520

    April

    560

    May

    510

    June

    580

    July

    550

    August

    490

    September

    430

    October

    1,570

    November

    1,340

    December

    510

    2003

    January

    420

    February

    110

    March

    490

    April

    580

    May

    50

    June

    610

    July

    480

    August

    470

    September

    470

    October

    1,310

  DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

    Barker Report
    Mr. Clifton-Brown
    To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how he intends to tackle the rise in planning refusals for residential dwellings identified by the Barker Report.[R] [144200]

    Keith Hill
    The Barker Report suggests that the recent increase in refusals may have resulted from a failure on the part of some housebuilders to respond to the changed policy environment, following recent policy changes, including those set out in Planning Policy Guidance Note 3 (Housing) 2000. It is expected that the rate of refusals will decrease over time, as the policy changes are more widely understood and adopted.

    The Barker Report does not identify members' actions to overturn officer recommendations as a key reason for the rise in refusals of housing applications. However, where planning permission for housing is refused by a local planning authority, applicants have a right of appeal to my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister.
    950W

    Council House Sales
    Jon Trickett
    To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how much was generated in capital receipts by council house sales for Wakefield Metropolitan District Council in each financial year since 1997; how much of this finance was available to the council to spend in each year; how much was spent on(a) council housing and (b) items unrelated to council housing by the council in each year; and how much remains unspent. [144128]

    Keith Hill
    The amount of capital receipts received by Wakefield MDC for sales of its council houses since 1997 is tabled as follows:

    Capital receipts (council house sales)

    £000

    1997–98

    7,437

    1998–99

    7,033

    1999–2000

    10,923

    2000–01

    1—

    2001–02

    15,525

    2002–03

    23,948

    1 This information was not collected on the Housing Investment Programme return for 2000–01. However, the ODPMs' P1A return collects similar information on housing capital expenditure and receipts. In this return. Wakefield reported that £11,248 (thousand) was the amount of capital receipts received from council house sales in 2000–01.

    Sources:

    ODPM's Housing Investment Programme returns.

    Under capital finance regulations, 25 per cent. of net capital receipts arising from council house sales (excluding the value of any related local authority mortgages) are classified as usable. Information on how much of this amount was spent on council housing, items unrelated to council housing, and the amount unspent is not collected centrally, and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

    Developers
    Mr. Steen
    To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what plans he has to introduce incentives to encourage developers to build on(a) hardcore brownfield sites and (b) polluted sites; and what assessment he has made of the contribution such development could make to increasing housing stock. [144539]

    Keith Hill
    Budget 2001 introduced a 150 per cent. accelerated payable tax credit for owners and investors for the costs they incur in cleaning-up contaminated sites. This year's pre-Budget report announced that the Government are examining the possibility of extending this relief to include remediation of land that is long-term derelict.

    English Partnerships, the Government's expert adviser on brownfield land is currently working to develop a housing gap funding scheme for use by themselves, the regional development agencies and the local authorities. The final guidance on the scheme will be available in the New Year. They have also been invited to develop a Land Remediation Scheme which will enable themselves, regional development agencies and the local authorities to give grants to encourage owners of derelict, contaminated and polluted sites to

    951W
    bring them back into productive use. Both of these measures will help to contribute to the delivery of housing.

    The Government's planning policies expects new housing to be secured in the most sustainable way, by expecting priority to be given to the re-use of urban brownfield land in preference to greenfield development, although these policies do not rule out greenfield development where it is needed.

    Housing
    Mr. Steen
    To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many houses have been built outside local plan boundaries in each of the last five years; and how many of these have been built by housing associations. [144540]

    Keith Hill
    Planning Policy Guidance note 3: Housing advises that local plans and Unitary Development Plans should identify sufficient sites on the plan's proposals map to accommodate at least the first five years (or the first two phases) of housing development proposed in the plan. Local planning authorities should be monitoring closely the uptake of plan allocations and windfall provision, and the type of that provision in terms of size, type and affordability, but this information is not collected centrally, and could only be provided at disproportionate cost.

    Local Authority Funding
    Mr. Tyrie
    To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the average revised level of revenue support grant per head is for(a) West Sussex, (b) inner London boroughs, (c) outer London boroughs, (d) Tyne and Wear and (e) England: and what he estimates extra total grant payable would be if West Sussex were to be funded at the same level of revenue support grant per head as (i) inner London boroughs, (ii) outer London boroughs, (iii) Tyne and Wear and (iv) the average for England. [144632]

    Mr. Raynsford
    Provisional revenue support grant (RSG) per head in 2004–05 is tabled as follows:

    Area

    Revenue support grant per head (£)

    West Sussex county council

    262.12

    Inner London boroughs (including City of London)

    913.52

    Outer London Boroughs

    560.79

    Average metropolitan district in the Tyne and Wear area

    625.10

    England

    543.78

    The RSG per head figures in the table are not directly comparable since the services provided by West Sussex county council are not the same as those provided by London boroughs or metropolitan districts. London boroughs and metropolitan districts also provide those services provided by the district council within the West Sussex area; while West Sussex county council received an allocation of grant to cover fire services in 2003—04, that are provided by the Greater London Authority in the London area and by Tyne and Wear Fire and Civil Defence Authority in the Tyne and Wear area. In addition the City of London also provides police
    952W
    services. The total England figure includes both district level and police services; neither of these services are provided by West Sussex county council.

    The calculation of RSG takes account of a range of factors other than the numbers of service recipients. It includes top-ups for deprivation, pay costs, and other factors such as population sparsity that drive the costs of service delivery in different areas, as well as the relative ability of councils to raise council tax in their areas. Simple per capita comparisons will not therefore be meaningful comparisons of all the factors that drive grant distribution.

    If West Sussex county council received £913.52 per head of RSG then it would have received £690,488,660, an additional £492,366,039; at £560.79 per head of RSG then it would have received £423,875,925, an additional £225,753,304; at £625.10 per head of RSG then it would have received £472,484,961, an £411,018,832,163,260, an additional £212,896,211.

    Local Government Finance
    Miss McIntosh
    To ask the Deputy Prime Minister why information on the 2004–05 Local Government Finance Settlement was released after local authorities had agreed their budgets; and how he expects councils to take account of the settlement. [145008]

    Mr. Raynsford
    The provisional local government finance settlement for 2004–05 was announced on 19 November 2003, and we expect the final settlement to be debated at around the end of January or the beginning of February 2004, in line with the normal settlement timetable.

    The statutory deadlines by which local authorities must set their budgets fall some time after the expected approval of the final settlement. The deadlines are; for levying bodies, 15 February; for major preceptors, 1 March; and for billing authorities, 11 March.

    Miss McIntosh
    To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how he expects local councils in North Yorkshire to make up the shortfall they are facing following the 2004–05 local government finance settlement; and if he will make a statement. [145009]

    Mr. Raynsford
    The provisional local government finance settlement for 2004–05 gives all local authorities in North Yorkshire an above inflation increase in formula grant. Councils in the Yorkshire and the Humber region receive an average grant increase of 5.0 per cent.

    Ministerial Visit
    Mr. Drew
    To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what discussions he has held with the Minister without Portfolio regarding that Minister's visit to the tri-Service Emergency Centre in Gloucester earlier in 2003. [144927]

    Mr. Raynsford
    The Minister without Portfolio and I discussed his visit to the tri-Service Emergency Centre on 5 December 2003.
    953W

    Planning
    Mr. Clifton-Brown
    To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the estimated cost is of setting up the new tariff system in the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill as the alternative to the section 106 (Town and Country Planning Act 1990); and whether the section 106 procedure will change under the Bill. [144204]

    Keith Hill
    The issue of the cost of establishing and operating the optional planning charge system is addressed in the partial Regulatory Impact Assessment which accompanies the Government's consultation document "Contributing Sustainable Communities—a new approach to planning obligations", published on 6 November 2003.

    Nothing in the Bill precludes the negotiated route being the same in character as the way s106 operates now. The Government's consultation document proposes some improvements to the way in which planning obligations are negotiated, mainly by promoting good practice, where the developer opts for the negotiated route rather than pay the optional planning charge. We will await the results of the consultation before deciding whether any changes to the negotiated procedure are appropriate.

    West Sussex County Council
    Mr. Tyrie
    To ask the Deputy Prime Minister (1) if he will estimate what the level of grant increase to West Sussex County Council in 2004–05 would be if calculated on the basis of increase in population; [143861]

    (2) what the level of grant increase would be to West Sussex County Council in 2004–05 if calculated on the basis of increase in population; and by how much this would differ from the revised level of settlement following the announcement in the Pre-Budget Report. [144631]

    Mr. Raynsford
    The increase in formula grant (i.e. Revenue Support Grant plus Redistributed Business Rates plus Police Grant) for West Sussex County Council would be £7,581,434.

    This has been calculated as follows:

    Total grant for England in 2004–05 minus total grant in 2003–04 on a like for like basis i.e. £46,116,848.766— f43,705,512,675—£2,411,336,091;

    Mid-2002 population estimate minus mid-2001 population estimate for West Sussex County Council i.e. 755,855754,254 = 1,602;

    The result of (b) multiplied by the Share of Assumed National Council Tax given in Annex B of the draft Local Government Finance Report (England) 2004–05 i.e. 1,602 * 0.740845 = 1,186.833690

    The result of (c) is then divided by the sum of (c) for all authorities i.e. 1,186.833690 / 377,482.000000 0.003144

    The result of (d) multiplied by the result of (a) i.e. 0.003144 * 2,411,336,091=7,581,434

    Please note that the mid-2001 population estimate used was that published by the Office for National Statistics on 10 October 2002, since these were the population estimates used in the calculation of the 2003–04 Formula Spending Shares. Following the approval by Parliament of the 2003–04 Local Government Finance Settlement, the mid-2001
    954W
    population estimates were revised. An Amending Report for 2003–04 to reflect the revised mid-year estimates will be submitted to the House for approval in due course.

    Since in all areas of England council services are supplied by more than one type of authority the change in population in an area has to be divided between the authorities supplying services in an area. For the purpose of the above calculation we have used the share of assumed national council tax given in Annex B of the draft Local Government Finance Report (England) 2004–05 to split the change in population between types of authority.

    The proposed increase in grant for West Sussex in 2004—05 is £17,132,188, this is an increase of 4.5per cent. on the 2003–04 formula grant on a like-for-like basis.

  EDUCATION AND SKILLS

    Enterprise Advisers
    Mr. Blizzard
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many enterprise advisers for schools will be publicly funded in(a) England and (b) the Eastern Region. [143504]

    Mr. Ivan Lewis
    This is a matter for the Learning and Skills Council. Mark Haysom, the Council's Chief Executive, will write to my hon. Friend with this information and a copy of his reply will be placed in the Library.

    Academies
    Mr. Chaytor
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will make a statement on the required admissions policies of Academies; and which academies do not comply with the requirements. [142740]

    Mr. Miliband
    All Academies are required, by their funding agreements with the Secretary of State, to comply with the Admissions Code of Practice and with the law on admissions as it applies to maintained schools. I am not aware of any Academy which has admission arrangements that do not meet this requirement.

    Big Conversation
    Mr. Heald
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills 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. [143165]

    Mr. Stephen Twigg
    I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by the Leader of the House on 9 December 2003,Official Report, column 355W.

    Boys' Literacy
    Mr. Gibb
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what assessment he has made of the decrease in the percentage of boys achieving level two and above
    955W
    in writing tests at Key Stage 1 between 2002 and 2003, referred to in the Ofsted report on National Literacy and Numeracy Strategy. [144376]

    Mr. Stephen Twigg
    The following table shows the percentage of pupils achieving level 2 or above in the Key Stage 1 attainment tests since 1998, (split into girls, boys and all pupils):

    1998

    1999

    2000

    2001

    2002

    2003

    All

    Reading

    80

    82

    83

    84

    84

    84

    Writing

    81

    83

    84

    86

    86

    81

    Spelling

    66

    71

    72

    75

    78

    —

    Maths

    84

    87

    90

    91

    90

    90

    Boys

    Reading

    75

    78

    79

    80

    81

    80

    Writing

    76

    78

    80

    82

    82

    76

    Spelling

    60

    66

    67

    70

    73

    —

    Maths

    83

    85

    89

    90

    89

    89

    Girls

    Reading

    85

    86

    88

    88

    88

    88

    Writing

    86

    88

    89

    90

    90

    87

    Spelling

    72

    77

    77

    80

    83

    —

    Maths

    86

    88

    91

    92

    92

    91

    In 2003 significant changes were introduced to the assessment of writing at KS I. For the first time marks for spelling contributed to the pupils' overall writing level instead of separate level for spelling being reported. In addition there were changes to the format of the writing test and a new mark scheme was introduced. These new testing arrangements have produced a different distribution of marks and it is difficult to draw conclusions through comparisons with previous years' results. For example a larger proportion of pupils secured the higher levels in writing than in previous years. The percentage of all pupils achieving Level 2B or above in writing rose from 60 per cent. in 2002 to 62 per cent. in 2003; the percentage of boys achieving that level rose from 52 per cent. to 54 per cent. The percentage of all pupils at Level 3 rose from 9 per cent. in 2002 to 16 per cent. in 2003; the percentage of boys achieving that level rose from 7 per cent. to 11 per cent.

    It remains a point of concern that boys' achievement in writing at K Sl, as at all Key Stages, lags behind that of girls, and the Primary Strategy will continue to support teachers in raising standards further. In spring 2004 new support materials will be offered on improving boys' writing. We will also be piloting the development and delivery of a specialist support package for early years practitioners so that they can begin to tackle the challenges faced by disadvantaged children as soon as they enter the Foundation Stage. A particular focus for the specialists will be to improve the speaking, listening and communication skills of these children.

    Class Sizes
    Helen Jones
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many children aged between five and seven in Warrington North(a) were taught in classes of more than 30 in 1997 and (b) are currently in classes of more than 30. [143457]
    956W
    Mr. Stephen Twigg
    The requested information is given in the table.

    Maintained primary schools1: Key Stage 1 classes taught by one teacher

    Warrington North2 Key Stage 1 Classes3,4

    Position in January each year 1997 and 2003

    1997

    20035

    Average class size

    27.5

    24.7

    Number of pupils

    4,239

    3,728

    Number of pupils in classes with over 30 pupils

    1,445

    0

    Percentage of pupils in classes with over 30 pupils

    34.1

    0.0

    Number of classes

    154

    151

    Number of classes with over 30 pupils

    44

    0

    Percentage of classes with over 30 pupils

    28.6

    0.0

    1Includes middle deemed schools.

    2The boundaries for each area are for the year in question. Figures have not been adjusted to take into account of any boundary changes.

    3Classes as taught by one teacher.

    4Classes as taught during one selected period in each school on the day of the Census in January.

    5Includes Reception classes to produce a coverage as close as possible to previous years.

    Source:

    Annual Schools' Census

    English Ability
    Ms Buck
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many pupils in London lacked fluency in English on their entry to(a) primary and (b) secondary schooling in the last year for which figures are available, broken down by (i) constituency and (ii) local education authority. [143579]

    Mr. Stephen Twigg
    The available information collected centrally relates to pupils whose first language is known or believed to be other than English. This information has been placed in the House of Commons library.

    "First Language" is the language to which the child was initially exposed during early development. If the child was exposed to more than one language and these include English, then English has been taken to be their first language. If a child acquires English subsequent to early development, then English has not been recorded as their first language no matter how proficient in it they have become.

    Information on first language is not necessarily a robust indicator of fluency.

    Enterprise Advisers (Schools)
    Mr. Blizzard
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills by what date all schools in(a) England and (b) the Eastern Region will have access to an enterprise adviser. [143505]

    Mr. Ivan Lewis
    This is a matter for the Learning and Skills Council. Mark Haysom, the Council's Chief Executive, will write to my hon. Friend with this information and a copy of his reply will be placed in the Library.
    957W

    Environmental Awareness
    Dr. Pugh
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what steps he has taken to encourage awareness of environmental issues in schools. [144212]

    Mr. Charles Clarke
    Education for Sustainable Development (ESD), which includes environmental awareness, is a statutory part of the programmes of study for Science, Geography, Design and Technology and Citizenship within the National Curriculum. The Department and the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (QCA) also encourage schools to consider sustainable development issues within the teaching of all subjects. Since 2001, the Department has funded QCA to provide on-line guidance for teachers.

    In September, the Secretary of State issued the "Sustainable Development Action Plan for Education and Skills", which is organised around four key objectives:

    1. education for sustainable development;

    2. the environmental impact of the Department and its partner bodies;

    3. the environmental impact of the education estate; and

    4. local and global partnership activity.

    Further Education
    Mr. Mahmood
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what research his Department has(a)conducted and (b) is planning to conduct regarding the proportion of students from (i) further education colleges and (ii) schools who receive offers from research-intensive universities; and if he will make a statement. [[143641]

    Alan Johnson
    The Government are considering the need for such a study.

    Higher Education
    Chris Grayling
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will list(a) current and (b) proposed government grants available to universities for improving and widening social access to higher education. [143073]

    Alan Johnson
    Excluding student support, the relevant schemes and initiatives are as follows:

    Aimhigher (previously called Excellence Challenge) provides grants mainly to schools and colleges to raise the aspirations and attainment levels of young people. The Higher Education Funding Council for England's (HEFCE) Partnerships for Progression provides funds to universities for outreach. The White Paper "The future of higher education" announced that these two initiatives would be merged to form a new Aimhigher programme. Expenditure on these initiatives to 2005–06 is given in the tables.

    In addition, HEFCE uses part of its teaching grant to provide a widening participation premium to universities to assist them with the additional costs of recruiting and retaining students from non-traditional backgrounds. The amount for this is £255 million in 2003–04, which includes £10 million from the Department's Aimhigher/Excellence challenge budget. HEFCE's disability allocation (£10 million in 2003–04)
    958W
    provides additional funding to universities to support recruitment and retention of disabled students. Plans for expenditure after 2005–06 will be determined during the next spending review.

    £ million

    Expenditure:

    2003–04

    2004–05 plans

    2005–06 plans

    Excellence Challenge/Aimhigher

    100

    —

    —

    Partnerships for Progression

    20

    —

    —

    The new Aimhigher

    126

    128

    Total non-student support

    120

    126

    128

    Helen Jones
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills which higher education institutions in the North West operate Knowledge Transfer Partnerships; and what steps he is taking to encourage other institutions to participate in this scheme. [143454]

    Alan Johnson
    A total of nine higher education institutions in the North West received funding for knowledge transfer activities during the first round of the Higher Education Innovation Fund (HEIF). The increase in HEIF funding from £60 million in 2003–2004 to £100 million by 2005–06 will broaden the reach of knowledge transfer activities, including partnerships, through support for less research intensive groups and departments.

    Language Study
    Mr. Gibb
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many pupils took(a) Japanese and (b) Latin at (i) GCSE and (ii) A level in each year since 1995; and if he will make a statement. [144489]

    Mr. Miliband
    The information requested is as follows:

    (i) The number of schools who took Japanese and Latin at GCSE level is:

    Academic year

    Japanese

    Latin

    1995

    129

    814

    1996

    141

    812

    1997

    145

    771

    1998

    149

    740

    1999

    162

    728

    2000

    174

    732

    2001

    165

    707

    2002

    165

    682

    20031

    202

    700

    1Figures are provisional

    (ii) The number of schools who took Japanese and Latin at A/AS level is:

    Academic year

    Japanese

    Latin

    1995

    147

    429

    1996

    149

    429

    1997

    143

    425

    1998

    155

    401

    1999

    154

    369

    2000

    161

    364

    959W

    2001

    165

    416

    2002

    178

    415

    20031

    201

    416

    1Figures are provisional

    Learning and Skills Council
    Mr. Hoban
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will make a statement on the status of the Learning and Skills Council reorganisation plans in(a) Carlisle and (b) Haringey. [144065]

    Alan Johnson
    [holding answer 15 December 2003]: Section 113A of the Learning and Skills Act 2000 gives the Learning and Skills Council powers to propose establishing, closing or altering school sixth-form provision. Regulations require local Learning and Skills Councils to consult on preliminary proposals before deciding whether to publish formal proposals, which are decided by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.

    Cumbria Learning and Skills Council is currently consulting on preliminary proposals to close school sixth forms in the Carlisle area and replace them with a sixth-form college. The consultation is due to end in January 2004.

    London North Learning and Skills Council has consulted on preliminary proposals to close school sixth forms in Haringey and replace them with either a 16-19 school or a sixth-form college. The LSC is now considering responses to consultation before deciding whether to proceed with formal proposals.

    Mr. Willis
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) how many staff have been made redundant at the Learning and Skills Council since its inception in 2001: [144622]

    (2) what the proposed target for workforce reduction is at the Learning and Skills Council; and what criteria are used to formulate the redundancy programme. [144623]

    Alan Johnson
    These are matters for the Learning and Skills Council. Mark Haysom, the Council's Chief Executive, will write to the hon. Member with this information and a copy of his reply will be placed in the Library.

    Legislation
    Mr. Redwood
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what percentage of(a) primary and (b) secondary legislation sponsored by his Department in 2002–03 was introduced to implement EU requirements. [141134]

    Alan Johnson
    In 2002 and to date in 2003, the percentage of(a) primary and (b) secondary legislation sponsored by the Department for Education and Skills introduced to implement EU requirements is as follows:

    (a) per cent. Primary legislation

    (b) 1.2 per cent. Secondary legislation.

    Literacy and Numeracy
    Mr. Gibb
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what his assessment is of the likely effects of the teaching methods recommended by the recent 960W
    Ofsted report National Literacy and Numeracy Strategies and the Primary Curriculum which encourage collaborative rather than passive learning on the disparity in achievement between boys and girls in the Key Stage Two literacy tests. [144578]

    Mr. Stephen Twigg
    Ofsted's report confirms that the National Literacy and Numeracy Strategies have brought about an overall improvement in the quality of teaching of literacy and mathematics, and have successfully introduced teachers to a broader range of teaching approaches designed to motivate and engage pupils. Our new Primary Strategy will continue to support teachers in ensuring that their teaching reflects an appropriate balance of approaches, including both direct teaching and opportunities for collaborative learning, and is appropriate to the needs of their individual pupils. For example, all primary schools have recently received new guidance on strategies for improving pupils' speaking and listening skills, which was a need highlighted by Ofsted's report, and we will be making available in spring 2004 new support on improving boys' writing.

    National Healthy School Scheme
    Chris Grayling
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the total cost to public funds of the National Healthy School scheme has been. [144563]

    Mr. Stephen Twigg
    The table shows the level of direct financial support for the National Healthy Schools Standard (NHSS) from central Government sources since its launch in 1999-2000. Information on any additional support from the local NHSS or from local education authorities is not held centrally.

    £ million

    Year(allocations)

    From the Department of Health

    From the Department for Education and Skills

    1999–2000

    2

    4

    2000–01

    6

    2

    8

    2001–02

    5.8

    2

    7.8

    2002–03

    5.5

    2

    7.5

    2003–04

    5.5

    2

    7.5

    National Literacy Strategy
    Mr. Gibb
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what revisions to the National Literacy Strategy he is undertaking to ensure primary schools meet the Government's targets for reading; and if he will make a statement on the prevalence of synthetic phonics teaching in schools. [144490]

    Mr. Stephen Twigg
    The National Literacy Strategy (NLS) has dramatically increased the Key Stage 2 reading results. Since 1998 there has been a 10 percentage point increase in the percentage of pupils achieving the expected level for their age in the Key Stage 2 English tests, with an increase of 10 percentage points in reading. There have also been increases in reading results at Key Stage I, with a 7 percentage point increase in the percentage of pupils achieving level 2B or above in the Key Stage 1 Reading tests since 1998. The work
    961W
    of the NLS is now being taken forward within the wider context of our Primary Strategy. as set out in "Excellence and Enjoyment".

    The emphasis that the Primary Strategy places on phonics in teaching children to read has had a direct impact on the reading results at both Key Stage I and Key Stage 2. The Primary Strategy adopts the `Searchlights' model of reading, which advocates that children should be taught to read using synthetic and analytic phonics as well as other strategies such as knowledge of grammar and context. We will continue to

    Number of schools and total finding for financial year 2003–04 by EAZ

    LEA No.

    Zone

    Number of schools within the zone

    Funding for 2003–04

    330

    Aston & Nechells

    19

    826,000.00

    330

    Kitts Green and Shard End

    15

    810,843.07

    846

    East Brighton

    8

    683,459.66

    881

    East Basildon

    28

    888,500.00

    381

    Halifax

    28

    724,000.00

    810

    Kingston upon Hull

    18

    676,791.67

    892

    Nottingham

    9

    591,500.00

    879

    Plymouth

    21

    731,633.00

    373

    North East Sheffield

    21

    655,000.00

    391

    South Tyneside

    16

    732,266.00

    210

    Southwark

    16

    657,000.00

    926

    Thetford

    10

    650,492.00

    359

    Leigh

    26

    742,200.00

    820

    Bedford

    20

    896,000.00

    830

    North East Derbyshire Coalfields

    19

    967,532.00

    882

    Southend

    20

    876,000.00

    204

    Hackney

    16

    862,000.00

    928

    Challenge for Corby

    28

    837,366.00

    209

    Downham and Bellingham

    24

    950,000.00

    203

    Greenwich (Time to Succeed)

    15

    817,000.00

    206

    North Islington (Widening Horizons)

    19

    1,317,000.00

    929

    Ashington

    20

    969,157.00

    909

    Barrow (Community Learning Group)

    18

    912,000.00

    341

    Dingle, Granby and Toxteth

    17

    1,195,066.00

    840

    Peterlee (Partners in Learning)

    15

    1,009,266.00

    875

    Ellesmere Port—Epicentre LEAP

    23

    956,000.00

    807

    East Cleveland

    18

    671,000.00

    350

    Bolton (Breightmet and Tonge)

    19

    893,000.00

    840

    Easington and Seaham

    20

    1,097,000.00

    352

    East Manchester

    17

    804,633.00

    341

    Speke Garston

    16

    1,121,240.00

    352

    Wythenshawe

    18

    1,024,000.00

    931

    Hamilton Oxford (Schools Partnership)

    14

    909,000.00

    845

    Hastings and St. Leonards

    26

    855,250.00

    886

    Kent Somerset (Virtual Education Improvement Zone)

    29

    966,000.00

    933

    Kent Somerset (Virtual Education Improvement Zone)

    6

    See above

    850

    Leigh Park (Education Action Zone)

    15

    906.000.00

    887

    Gillingham

    16

    930,479.00

    871

    Heart of Slough

    22

    1,015,000.00

    881

    South East England Virtual

    7

    796,000.00

    305

    South East England Virtual

    7

    See above

    933

    Bridgwater

    16

    910,008.00

    801

    Bristol

    16

    902,896.00

    908

    Camborne, Pool and Redruth (Success Zone)

    30

    945,633.00

    332

    Dudley (Partnership for Achievement)

    20

    856,000.00

    893

    North West Shropshire (Meeting the Rural Challenge)

    20

    784,000.00

    333

    Wednesbury

    17

    630,495.00

    336

    Wolverhampton

    16

    884,805.00

    380

    South Bradford (Community Learning Partnership)

    19

    850,000.00

    373

    South East Sheffield

    21

    1,067.216.00

    384

    Wakefield (Community Learning Partnership)

    16

    1,048,062.00

    811

    Withernsea and Southern Holderness (Rural Achievement)

    13

    891,658,67

    808

    North Stockton

    19

    750,000.00

    394

    Sunderland

    19

    764,848.00

    916

    Gloucester

    23

    848,000.00

    331

    Coventry

    18

    857,633.00

    962W
    support the teaching of phonics, and will be producing a supplement to "Progression in Phonics" next spring through the Primary Strategy.

    Parliamentary Questions
    Mr. Luff
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills pursuant to his answer of 4 December 2003,Official Report, column 185W, if he will provide the information requested in questions 141460, 141424 and 141425 in the form used to answer 141426. [143373]

    Mr. Charles Clarke
    Please see attached tables, as per request.
    963W

    881

    Clacton and Harwich

    23

    863,000.00

    861

    Stoke on Trent (Rainbow)

    17

    896,216.00

    926

    Greater Yarmouth

    25

    899,000.00

    213

    Westminster

    33

    525,000.00

    894

    Telford and Wrek in

    32

    1,104,000.00

    831

    Derby

    25

    1,071,000.00

    Number of schools and total funding for financial year 2003–04 by Cluster

    LEA No.

    Cluster

    Number of schools within the Cluster

    Funding for 2003–04

    306

    Croydon

    10

    950,500.00

    382

    Dewsbury and Batley

    17

    1,172,000.00

    888

    East Lancashire

    13

    919,500.00

    886

    Shepway

    6

    920,500.00

    851

    Portsmouth

    20

    1,130,500.00

    335

    Walsall

    20

    1,538,500.00

    909

    West Cumbria

    18

    771,000.00

    331

    Coventry

    14

    1,040,000.00

    382

    Huddersfield

    18

    1,121,000.00

    888

    West Lancashire

    11

    676,500.00

    357

    Tameside

    19

    917,000.00

    883

    Tilbury and Chadwell

    14

    825,560.00

    302

    Barnet

    22

    1,528,500.00

    840

    Bishop Auckland

    12

    660,000.00

    875

    Crewe

    24

    914,500.00

    831

    Derby

    16

    1,214,000.00

    825

    High Wycombe

    11

    678,000.00

    312

    Hillingdon

    25

    1,484,000.00

    888

    Lancaster

    10

    660,000.00

    826

    Milton Keynes

    17

    1,144,000.00

    926

    Norwich

    13

    660,000.00

    874

    Peterborough

    15

    696,250.00

    356

    Stockport

    13

    979,500.00

    359

    Wigan

    15

    776,500.00

    886

    Ashford

    15

    581,478.00

    303

    Bexley

    17

    840,549.00

    925

    Boston

    14

    454,733.00

    830

    Chesterfield

    24

    542,991.00

    925

    Grantham

    15

    384,999.00

    886

    Gravesham

    13

    536,650.00

    881

    Harlow

    16

    458,814.00

    311

    Havering

    15

    582,318.00

    886

    Maidstone

    14

    519,100.00

    928

    Northampton

    34

    969,441.00

    813

    Scunthorpe

    19

    579,097.00

    334

    Solihull

    20

    864,700.00

    925

    Spalding

    14

    385,000.00

    866

    Swindon

    9

    563,838.00

    870

    Reading

    10

    165,001.00

    Post-16 Education
    Mr. Hoban
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what representations he has received concerning the reorganisation of post-16 education in(a) Haringey and (b) Carlisle. [144062]

    Alan Johnson
    [holding answer 15 December 2003]: My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Schools has met with Haringey councillors, headteachers and representatives of London North Learning and Skills Council to hear their views on proposals to reorganise sixth form provision in Haringey.
    964W
    Ministers have received a number of letters and e-mails about Cumbria Learning and Skills Council's proposals to reorganise sixth form provision in Carlisle. (David Hart, National Association of Headteachers, and John Dunford, Secondary Heads Association, and Eric Martlew, constituency MP for Carlisle, have been invited to meet Alan Johnson and Ivan Lewis at separate meetings to be arranged for the New Year.)

    Mr. Hoban
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what criteria are used when the Learning and Skills Council formulate post-16 education reorganisation plans. [144063]

    Alan Johnson
    [holding answer 15 December 2003]: In its strategic area reviews of all post-16 provision the LSC's criteria include that the pattern of provision should:
    meet learner, employment and community needs;
    improve choice of provision, ways of delivery and learner experience including, where appropriate, developing more distinct provision for 16 to 19-year-olds;
    raise standards and participation;
    enhance responsiveness of the infrastructure and employers' involvement; and
    strengthen collaboration and progression in the 14–19 phase, the post-19 phase and with HE including supporting the development of foundation degrees.

    Where such proposals require reorganisation, there is a national framework of criteria for all reorganisation proposals requiring them to extend participation, improve achievement and standards and be affordable. Proposals also have to show that adequate consultation has taken place and that proper consideration has been given to alternatives.

    When considering proposals for 16-19 reorganisation the LSC will also have regard to the five key principles that should underpin the organisation of 16–19 provision agreed by Ministers in September. These are:
    underpinning all consideration of 16–19 provision should be a requirement that all provision for all learners should be high quality, whatever their chosen pathway;
    distinct 16–19 provision to meet the particular pastoral, management and learning needs for this age group will be the norm, wherever they learn. All young people should be attached to a 16–19 base, including those in work-based training when attending college. Popular and successful sixth-form provision—whether in schools, sixth-form colleges or new distinct sixth-form centres in FE colleges—will be an important part of the pattern of provision and should be encouraged, particularly where there is little or no such provision;
    there should be diversity to ensure curriculum breadth. Together, providers need to support a wide curriculum offer for all 16–19 learners in an area. Well-managed collaboration can

    965W
    enable popular and successful small providers, including sixth forms, to remain viable and to share and build on their particular areas of expertise;
    the pattern for 16–19 provision should respect learner choice. Learning provision for 16 to 19-year-olds will normally be in one or more of the following settings: school sixth forms, sixth-form colleges, distinct sixth-form centres in FE colleges, private or voluntary sector training providers and work-based learning providers;
    plans should offer value for money. Any net costs should be commensurate to the expected improvement in learning opportunities.

    The LSC has published detailed guidance on these matters and I have asked the LSC to forward to you copies of the relevant circulars, 02/09: Provider Reorganisations, 03/06: Strategic Area Reviews and 03/07: School Sixth Form Reviews. I am also arranging to send you a copy of the Department's document on the key principles for 16–19 organisation.

    Mr. Hoban
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what guidance has been given to the Learning and Skills Council concerning the maintenance of post-16 education in voluntary-aided schools. [144064]

    Alan Johnson
    [holding answer 15 December 2003.]: The Department's statutory guidance makes clear that local Learning and Skills councils should fully involve local diocesan authorities in proposals for the reorganisation of post-16 provision.

    In addition Ministers published in September five key principles that should underpin the organisation of all 16–19 provision. The principles are:
    underpinning all consideration of 16–19 provision should be a requirement that all provision for all learners should be high quality, whatever their chosen pathway;
    distinct 16–19 provision to meet the particular pastoral, management and learning needs for this age group will be the norm, wherever they learn. All young people should be attached to a 16–19 base including those in work based training, when attending college. Popular and successful sixth form provision—whether in schools, sixth form colleges or new distinct sixth form centres in FE colleges—will be an important part of the pattern of provision and should be encouraged, particularly where there is little or no such provision;
    there should be diversity to ensure curriculum breadth. Together, providers need to support a wide curriculum offer for all 16–19 learners in an area. Well-managed collaboration can enable popular and successful small providers, including sixth forms, to remain viable and to share and build on their particular areas of expertise;
    the pattern for 16–19 provision should respect learner choice. Learning provision for 16–19 year olds will normally be in one or more of the following settings: school sixth forms, sixth form colleges, distinct sixth form centres in FE colleges, private or voluntary sector training providers and work based learning providers;
    plans should offer value for money. Any net costs should be commensurate to the expected improvement in learning opportunities.

    Strategic Area Reviews by the Learning and Skills Council will be based on the principles, which will also provide a benchmark against which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will assess reorganisation proposals that come to him.
    966W

    Programme for International Student Assessment
    Mr. Gibb
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what assessment he has made of the(a) intrinsic value and (b) relative value of the Programme for International Student Assessment 2000 education survey compared to other recent studies. [143982]

    Alan Johnson
    International comparisons of pupil attainment such as the OECD Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) offer insights into how the outcomes of our education system compare with those of other countries. PISA, which in 2000 focused on "reading literacy" of 15-year-olds, allows us to compare pupils at the end of compulsory schooling. Together with PISA, other international comparisons studies, such as the IEA's Progress in International Literacy Study (PIRLS) and Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS), with their different age cohorts and subject content, help give us an objective picture of performance across the primary and secondary sectors in relation to our world partners and competitors, complementing the data coming out of our own national assessments. It seems clear that we are not alone in finding these studies valuable, given the large number of countries routinely taking part in them.

    Regulations (Consultation)
    Brian Cotter
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills 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. [142487]

    Mr. Stephen Twigg
    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 for Education and Skills has published 110 consultations covered by the Code, of which 24 were less than 12 weeks.

    There is not always a direct correlation between Government consultations and individual regulations. For example, there would not be a public consultation prior to the making of statutory instruments designating bodies as eligible to be funded by the Teacher Training Agency.

    School Placement Appeals
    Mr. Hoban
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what proportion of parents appealed against decisions concerning which school their child should attend for(a) primary schools and (b) secondary schools in each local education authority in the last year for which figures are available; and what proportion of these appeals was successful. [144351]

    Mr. Miliband
    The information requested has been placed in the House of Commons Library.

    SATs
    Mr. Willis
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the cost, including setting of examinations, printing, postage, marking and publishing SATs at Key Stage 2 was in the last year for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement. [144625]
    967W
    Mr. Miliband
    The costs of setting the exam, printing, postage, marking and publishing of the Key Stage 2 tests are as follows:

    £ million

    Key Stage 2

    Amount

    Test development, pre-testing and level setting

    1.25

    Test printing

    0.65

    Test distribution

    0.55

    Marking

    10.43

    National data collection

    0.85

    Results publication

    0.9

    Total

    14.63

    Note:

    The costs relate to the 2003 Key Stage 2 tests with the exception of results publication which are for the 2002 tests. Publication figures for 2003 will not be available until the cycle has finished.

    The figures relate to the test cycle and not a financial year.

    Schools White Paper
    Mr. Gibb
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans he has to produce a White Paper following the publication of the Green Paper, Schools: Building on Success in 2001. [144493]

    Mr. Stephen Twigg
    The White Paper "Schools: Achieving Success" was published on 5 September 2001.

    Scientific Innovation
    Mr. Sheerman
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what steps he has taken to inform(a)schools, (b) colleges and (c) universities of the Altran Foundation for Innovation's award for 2004 on the theme of Discovery, Understanding and Enjoying Science through innovation. [144501]

    Alan Johnson
    My Department has not been involved directly with the Altran Foundation for Innovation's award. I have asked my officials to explore the potential for schools, colleges and universities to participate in this initiative in future years.

    Specialist Colleges
    Mr. Gibb
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills in how many specialist(a) technology,
    (b) sports, (c) arts and (d) languages colleges the proportion of selective admissions exceeds 10 per cent. of their pupil intake. [141795]

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

    Specialism

    Grammar schools

    Selection exceeds 10 per cent.(Non-Grammar)

    Total

    (a) Arts

    5

    1

    6

    (b) Language

    24

    —

    24

    (c) Sports

    6

    —

    6

    (d) Technology

    18

    5

    23

    Total

    53

    6

    59

    Our figures suggest that 40 specialist schools selected by aptitude in 2001. Most of these specialist schools which select by aptitude were selecting by aptitude prior to the 1998 Act, therefore some schools select more than 10 per cent. of their pupils on this basis.
    968W

    Specialist Schools
    Ms Drown
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many specialist schools have been in special measures during their time as specialist schools. [144605]

    Mr. Miliband
    The answer is as follows: 16 specialist schools have been in special measures during their time as specialist schools.

    Ms Drown
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what percentage of students in specialist schools were entitled to free school meals in each of the last three years. [144606]

    Mr. Miliband
    The answer is in the following table.

    Percentage of pupils eligible to receive a free school meal (FSM)in specialist schools1

    2001

    2002

    2003

    FSM percentage for specialist schools

    15.2

    14.9

    14.1

    Number of specialist schools

    528

    676

    982

    National average FSM percentage(covers all maintained secondary schools in England)

    15.8

    14.9

    14.5

    1Source: Annual Schools Census as at January 2001, 2002, 2003.

    Notes:

    1. Figures cover specialist schools which were operational at the time of data collection.

    2. Figures exclude special specialist schools.

    Student Grant
    John Mann
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the value was of the full student grant in today's prices in(a) 1973, (b) 1980, (c) 1990 and (d) 2003. [143670]

    Alan Johnson
    [holding answer 11 December 2003.]: The available information is shown in the table.

    Rates of standard maintenance grant payable under a mandatory award for the academic years shown, uprated to 2003/04 prices2

    Academic year

    Rate of grant

    1975/763

    1980/81

    1990/914

    2003/045,6

    Parental home rate

    2,840

    2,950

    2,610

    1,670

    London rate

    4,040

    4,450

    4,130

    2,510

    Elsewhere rate7

    3,690

    3,750

    3,290

    2,040

    Board and lodging8

    1,570

    1,560

    9—

    9—

    1The rate of maintenance grant, before income assessment, applicable to students normally domiciled in England and Wales and studying in the UK.

    2In 2003/04 prices based on the September Retail Price Index (RPI), excluding mortgage interest payments, at the beginning of the academic year. Data rounded to nearest £10.

    3The convention, when showing current values, is to apply the relevant factor of the RPI (excluding mortgage interest payments) to the year in question; however, this factor is not available prior to 1975/76 and so the table shows this as the earliest academic year. The cash values for academic year 1973/74 were £390, £520
    and £485 for the parental home, London and elsewhere rates respectively. Those in 1975/76 were £570, £810 and £740
    respectively.

    4Student loans were introduced in academic year 1990/91 to provide extra resources. The 'elsewhere' rate of loan in that year was £420 (£610 in current values).

    5The rate of grant in academic year 2003/04 applicable to mandatory award holders only i.e. mostly those who entered higher education prior to 1998/99. Those who entered from 1998/99 under the new arrangements receive support solely through

    969W
    loans; grants/allowances are available only for students in particular circumstances e.g. students with disabilities, students with dependents and single parent students.

    6The values shown relate to maintenance grants only; student loans are also available to mandatory award holders at the (full year) parental home, London and elsewhere rates of £1,500, £2,420, £1,960, giving total support of £3,165, £4,930 and £4,000 respectively.

    7The 'elsewhere' rate of grant is applicable to students living away from home and studying outside London.

    8Special grant arrangements applied to students provided with free board and lodging by their college.

    9 not applicable

    Source:

    Department for Education and Skills, Office of National Statistics

    Student Loans
    Mr. Alan Williams
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the threshold for commencement of repayment of a student loan(a) was at the time of introduction of student loans and (b) is now; and what the threshold would be now if it had risen in line with the retail price index. [143177]

    Alan Johnson
    The threshold for repayment of a student loan was £10,000 on the introduction of the income contingent student loan scheme. The threshold is still £10,000. The first point at which borrowers could be required to repay income contingent loans was April 2000. The Retail Price Index figures used to maintain the value of student loans in real terms were 2.6 per cent., 2.3 per cent. and 1.3 per cent. for academic years 2000–01, 2001–02 and 2002–03 respectively. Had the threshold been raised in the same way it would now be £10,630.

    Chris Grayling
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) what estimate he has made of the annual cost to the Government of the increase in the income threshold for student loan borrowers after 2005; [144570]

    (2) what additional annual provision he plans to make to cover the cost of the income threshold for repaying income-contingent student loans after 2005. [144571]

    Alan Johnson
    We plan to publish a Regulatory Impact Assessment early in the new year which will set out the impact of this change alongside the financial implications of the other policies announced in the Higher Education White Paper.

    Mr. Willis
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the interest rate on student loans has been in each year since they were introduced; for what reasons the rates have fluctuated; and if he will make a statement. [144624]

    Alan Johnson
    The interest rate on student loans in each year since their introduction is set out in the following table:

    Interest rates applied to student loans—September 1990 to August 2004

    Academic rear

    Percentage

    Academic year

    Percentage

    1990/91

    9.80

    1997/98

    2.60

    1991/92

    5.80

    1998/99

    3.50

    1992/93

    3.90

    1999/2000

    2.10

    1993/94

    1.20

    2000/01

    2.60

    970W

    Interest rates applied to student loans—September 1990 to August 2004

    1994/95

    2.30

    2001

    2.30

    1995/96

    3.50

    2002/03

    1.30

    1996/97

    2.70

    2003/04

    3.10

    Interest applied to student loans is set at the Retail Price Index (RPI) for the financial year ending in the previous March. As an annual measure of inflation, reflecting the change to prices of goods and services in the economy, this ensures that borrowers repay in real terms the value of the loan they take out.

    Teacher Vacancies
    Mr. Hancock
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills pursuant to his Answer of 4 December 2003,Official Report, column 191W, on teacher vacancies, what recent assessment he has made of the number of secondary school teachers in Portsmouth; what steps he is taking to increase numbers; and if he will make a statement. [143963]

    Mr. Miliband
    The number of full-time equivalent regular teachers in maintained secondary schools in Portsmouth local education authority in January of each year was as follows:

    Number

    2000

    600

    2001

    650

    2002

    640

    2003

    620

    Source:

    DfES annual 618G survey.

    A number of incentives have been introduced aimed at encouraging teacher supply and retention. Students on Postgraduate Certificate in Education courses, for example, receive a £6,000 training bursary as well as having their tuition fees paid by the Government. Those who qualify in priority subjects also receive a £4,000 Golden Hello after induction. The Government will continue to take such measures as it believes appropriate to ensure that teacher supply meets demand.

    Teachers
    Chris Grayling
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what proportion of teachers working in English schools and colleges were trained in the United Kingdom. [144282]

    Mr. Miliband
    The information is not available in the form requested. In January 2003, there were 408,400 full-time equivalent regular teachers in the maintained schools sector in England with qualified teacher status (QTS).

    Qualified Teacher Status is normally obtained either by successfully completing an accredited course of initial teacher training in England, or under mutual recognition of qualifications arrangements with other countries.
    971W
    Chris Grayling
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many teacher training places have been provided in(a) higher education and (b) further education institutions in each of the past five years; and what estimate he has made of the number in each of the next five years. [144283]

    Allocated places

    1999/2000

    2000/01

    2001/02

    2002/03

    2003/04

    Higher education institutions

    25,955

    27,353

    28,275

    30,183

    33,259

    Further education institutions

    222

    231

    233

    233

    313

    Source:

    Teacher Training Agency

    We expect the final numbers of places for 2004/05 and indicative numbers of places in 2005/06 and 2006/07 to be announced later this month.

    Chris Grayling
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what estimate he has made of the number of teachers who have been recruited by schools from further education colleges in the past three years. [144285]

    Mr. Miliband
    The following table shows the number of regular teachers in full or part-time' service in the maintained school sector in England in March of each year shown, who were in full-time service in further education in England in the preceding March.

    Year moved to schools sector

    Number moving

    2000

    210

    2001

    300

    2002

    540

    Source:

    Database of teacher records.

    1Around 10 to 20 per cent. of part-timers may not be included.

    University Students
    John Mann
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) how many university students there were in the UK in(a) 1973, (b) 1980 and (c) 1990; and how many there are currently; [143696]

    (2) how many students from the Bassetlaw constituency entered university in (a) 1973, (b) 1980, (c) 1990 and (d) 2003. [143694]

    Alan Johnson
    [holding answer 11 December 2003]: Figures for the number of students who enter higher education are not collated centrally by constituency. The total number of students in HE for these years is shown in the table.

    Higher education students1 in the UK

    Academic year

    Students (thousands)

    1973/74

    682

    1980/81

    827

    1990/91

    1,175

    2001/02

    2,163

    1Covers all students from the UK and overseas on postgraduate or undergraduate courses.

    972W
    Alan Johnson
    The table shows the number of places on courses of initial teacher training allocated by the Teacher Training Agency to higher and further education institutions in England in each of the last five years. The data do not include places allocated to other sorts of training providers, or places on employment-based training routes.

    Voluntary Aided Schools
    Mr. Hoban
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what discussions he has had with the bodies representing voluntary aided schools about their contribution to capital expenditure arising from departmental initiatives. [144067]

    Mr. Miliband
    Officials in my Department have regular discussions with the Church of England Board of Education and the Catholic Education Service in connection with the funding of work at Voluntary Aided schools.

    Mr. Hoban
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will make a statement on the contribution that the sponsors of Voluntary Aided Schools have to make to capital projects when(a) the project is initiated by the school and (b) the project is initiated by the Department. [144073]

    Mr. Miliband
    Voluntary Aided Schools must usually contribute at least 10 per cent. towards the cost of capital work at their schools and for which they receive grant support for the remaining 90 per cent. from my Department. Legislation allows grant to be paid at a rate of up to 100 per cent. in exceptional circumstances, although those circumstances are not defined in the relevant legislation. Our published guidance indicates that such an example might be where Ministers have initiated a specific policy programme which also applies to Voluntary Aided Schools.

    West Sussex County Council
    Mr. Tyrie
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) how much of the schools damping grant allocated to West Sussex county council for 2003–04 is as a direct result of the education funding changes in 2003–04; [143866]

    (2)if he will list the local education authorities that have had an increase in (a) schools damping grant and (b) local education authority damping grant for 2003–04; [143867]

    (3)for how many years he will continue to provide schools damping for West Sussex county council at the 2003–04 rate. [143872]

    Mr. Miliband
    The Government introduced a new funding system for local authorities in 2003–04, replacing Standard Spending Assessments with Formula Spending Shares. In order to phase in the
    973W
    distributional changes implied by the Education Formula Spending Shares, the Government introduced floors and ceilings arrangements for both the school and LEA funding blocks. All of the "damping" amounts within the school and LEA Formula Spending Shares are therefore attributable to the education funding changes in 2003–04. 2003–04 was the first year of this system within the Schools and LEA Formula Spending Shares and it is not therefore possible to calculate an increase in damping amount for 2003–04 over previous years.

    These arrangements will continue for as long as necessary. The actual amount allocated will be determined year-on-year and announced at the provisional local government finance settlement.

    Work-related Stress
    Dr. Cable
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what progress has been made towards the creation of a central register for cases of work-related stress in the Department. [141691]

    Mr. Charles Clarke
    My Department is committed to protect the physical and mental health of its employees by providing a safe and healthy working environment. This includes providing occupational health and employee assistance services that offer professional advice to individuals, and to line managers, to help identify and address stress related issues.

    My Department is currently developing a written strategy to help reduce stress-related illnesses and absences building on the guidance in the HSE publication "Real Solutions, Real People: A Managers' Guide to Tackling Work Related Stress" My Department has no plans to create a central register for cases of work-related stress.

  FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

    Biological Weapons Convention
    Tony Lloyd
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list those countries he deems in contravention of the Biological Weapons Convention. [143493]

    Mr. MacShane
    [holding answer 15 December 2003]: The UK routinely monitors the compliance of all States Parties to the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention (BTWC).

    The UK is a Depositary Government of the BTWC, which entered into force in 1975, and currently numbers 151 countries.

    We continue to view the issue of compliance with the Convention as being of central importance and made specific reference to this point in our statement to the BTWC Review Conference in November 2002.

    However, it is not our policy to list or name those individual countries we judge to be in contravention with their obligations.

    Correspondence
    Mr. Kaufman
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he will reply 974W
    to the letter to him dated 6 November from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton with regard to A. K. Akhand and Nuzmol Mahmud. [144333]

    Mr. Mullin
    I apologise to my right hon. Friend for an administrative error which led to his letter being mistakenly sent to UK visas for advice rather than to the Consular Directorate at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. Staff in the Consular Directorate are now making enquiries in connection with the case and that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will write to him on completion of these inquiries.

    Ethiopia/Eritrea
    Mr. Chidgey
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has held with his counterparts in the(a) United Nations, (b) European Union and (c) United States Administration with regard to the resolution of the border conflict within Ethiopia and Eritrea. [142639]

    Mr. Mullin
    [holding answer 16 December 2003]: We are in regular contact with the United Nations, the European Union and the US Administration and are working closely with all three on resolving the border issue.

    Mr. Chidgey
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the action that has to be taken with regard to the resolution of the dispute between Ethiopia and Eritrea over their border. [142640]

    Mr. Mullin
    [holding answer 16 December 2003]: The UK and other members of the international community will continue to take every opportunity to emphasise to both parties that the Boundary Commission's decision is final and binding and that dialogue is essential for the normalisation of relations between Ethiopia and Eritrea. I hope to visit Ethiopia and Eritrea in January to continue to press this message.

    Mr. Chidgey
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of whether the UN Border Commission in The Hague was acting within its remit in granting the border town of Badme to the Eritrean Government. [142641]

    Mr. Mullin
    [holding answer 16 December 2003]: We are not aware of any evidence suggesting that the Boundary Commission exceeded its remit.

    Mr. Best
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent assessment he has made of relations between Ethiopia and Eritrea. [144328]

    Mr. Mullin
    There has been only very limited contact between the Governments of Ethiopia and Eritrea since 1998. We believe that dialogue between the two is essential. We are actively encouraging this, to supplement the final and binding decisions of the Boundary Commission which was established as part of the Algiers Agreement in December 2000.

    Guantanamo Bay
    Llew Smith
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what meetings have been(a) planned, (b) held and (c) cancelled with Mr. Azmat Begg in respect of the detention by the United States

    975W
    authorities of Mr. Moazzam Begg at Guantanamo Bay; and if he will provide the reasons for cancellation in each case. [143510]

    Mr. Mullin
    No meetings arranged between the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) and Mr. Begg have been cancelled by the FCO. A postponed meeting between my noble Friend the Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean and the Muslim Parliament, with a delegation including Mr. Begg, was held on 16 December. This follows an earlier meeting with the Muslim Parliament and relatives of some of the British nationals detained at Guantanamo on 14 October, though Mr. Begg was not among those who attended.

    Liberia
    Tony Lloyd
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether it is the policy of Her Majesty's Government to support the continuation of UN sanctions on Liberia, including timber; and if he will make a statement. [143494]

    Mr. Mullin
    [holding answer 16 December 2003]: Measured and targeted sanctions remain on Liberia, as the security situation is a threat to the stability of the sub-region. Like other members of the UN Security Council, we believe that sanctions should remain until Liberia has put in place a diamond certification scheme, and reformed the timber sector to ensure that these natural resources cannot be used to further conflict. The arms embargo and travel ban should remain until the security situation is no longer a threat to the region.

    Tony Lloyd
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if it is his policy that the reform of the forest sector in Liberia should be a precondition to the lifting of UN sanctions on timber from Liberia. [143495]

    Mr. Mullin
    We believe that timber sanctions should remain until Liberia has reformed the timber sector to ensure that this natural resource cannot be used to further conflict.

    The Liberian Government must establish authority and control over timber producing areas; oversight mechanisms enabling responsible and environmentally sustainable business practices, and transparent accounting and auditing mechanisms. This should ensure that timber industry revenues are used for legitimate social, humanitarian and development purposes for the benefit of the Liberian people.

    Sudan
    Mr. Drew
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to discuss with the Sudanese authorities acts of flogging under their penal code, with particular reference to the case of Intisar Bakri Abdulgadir. [144155]

    Mr. Mullin
    [holding answer 16 December 2003]: The promotion of human rights is one of the British Government's priorities in Sudan and we raise human rights issues on a regular basis, both bilaterally and as part of the EU-Sudan Dialogue. I discussed the implementation of the penal code in Sudan with the Sudanese ambassador on 2 December. More recently, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for
    976W
    International Development (Hilary Benn), discussed the human rights situation in Sudan in general with the President of Sudan in Khartoum on 10 December.

    Our embassy in Khartoum has already raised the case of Intisar Bakri Abdulgadir with the Government of Sudan and will be discussing it further with them. The embassy continues to monitor the human rights situation and to lobby the Government of Sudan.

    Uganda
    Mr. Drew
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the situation in Northern Uganda. [143649]

    Mr. Mullin
    We are seriously concerned about the situation in northern Uganda and the activities of the Lord's Resistance Army. Attempts by the Government of Uganda to defeat the rebels militarily have been unsuccessful. There is a growing humanitarian crisis, with 1.3 million living in refugee camps.

    The UK is working with other donors to try and resolve the situation. We are urging the Ugandan Government to pursue a negotiated settlement. At the same time we are providing help to the population in the affected region.

    Zimbabwe
    Mr. Best
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what further discussions he plans to have with African Commonwealth countries about the future of Zimbabwe. [144329]

    Mr. Mullin
    I met with a number of African Commonwealth leaders at CHOGM several of whom shared our view of the need to maintain Zimbabwe's suspension from the Commonwealth. I intend to remain in close touch with African Commonwealth countries over Zimbabwe.

  CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS

    Asylum Appeals
    Mr. Michael Jabez Foster
    To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs what the average time taken is for delivery of decisions by an adjudicator in asylum appeals; what the maximum time that may be taken is; and how many decisions have been reserved for more than three months in the past year. [144559]

    Mr. Lammy
    The average time taken for delivery of asylum appeal decisions by an adjudicator, in asylum cases promulgated between 1 October 2002 and 30 September 2003, was 17 working days. There are no statutory limits for the service set on asylum appeal decisions, other than for those cases heard in accordance with the Immigration and Asylum Appeals (Fast Track Procedure) Rules 2003, where a time limit of one working day applies. Information relating to the number of decisions which have been reserved for more than three months in the past year is not available without incurring disproportionate costs.
    977W

    Lord Chancellor
    Mr. Heath
    To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs when the Lord Chancellor will transfer his powers in relation to the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service to the Minister for Children. [143023]

    Mr. Leslie
    The Privy Council considered and made the draft Transfer of Functions (Children, Young People and Families) Order 2003 at their meeting on 10 December. The Order includes the Lord Chancellor's powers in respect of CAFCASS. The Order will be implemented early in 2004.

  WORK AND PENSIONS

    Access to Work Scheme
    Malcolm Bruce
    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what training in deaf-blind awareness staff assessing deaf-blind applicants for the Access to Work scheme have had; and if he will publish the guidelines under which Access to Work advisers work. [140514]

    Maria Eagle
    Access to Work staff can commission the services of specialist assessors, who have the necessary qualifications and proven experience to provide a thorough assessment of applicants needs.

    We will shortly be consulting organisations of and for the deaf-blind, about developing open learning material for Jobcentre Plus staff on the employment of deaf-blind people.

    In common with other Jobcentre Plus guidance for staff, Access to Work guidance is produced in electronic form for staff to access and read on-line through the Department's intranet. Leaflets describing the Access to Work programme are available for individuals and employers. Relevant extracts from the guidance can be made available to individuals or organisations in response to specific inquiries.

    Art Acquisition
    Norman Baker
    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions 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. [142359]

    Maria Eagle
    The Department for Work and Pensions has not acquired any works of art since 1997 or raised any revenue through sales of works of art in the same period.

    Benefit Payment Arrangements
    Mr. Drew
    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on the evidence he used to derive the statement that the Post Office Card 978W
    Account costs public funds at least 30 times more than direct payments into a bank account for clients of Job Centre Plus; and if he will publish the evidence. [144395]

    Mr. Pond
    I refer my hon. Friend to the written answer I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Mrs. Clark) on 15 December 2003,Official Report, column 685–86W.

    The actual costs remain Commercial in Confidence. Information that is held on a commercial in confidence basis is withheld in line with the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information, part 2, paragraph 13.

    Mr. Drew
    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) what discussions he has had with(a) the Department for Trade and Industry and (b) the Royal Mail on the advice that he is offering to Job Centre Plus clients about moving to direct payments; [144396]

    (2) what the basis is for the Department's advice to Job Centre Plus clients that the Post Office Card Account is not the best option for direct payment; [144397]

    (3) if he will publish the targets and benchmarks for the Department regarding the number of Job Centre Plus clients whom they wish to move to direct payment, broken down by (a) current accounts, (b) basic bank accounts and (c) Post Office Card Accounts. [144398]

    Mr. Pond
    All Department for Work and Pensions information on Direct Payment account options is based on the Government policy in this area which was set out by my hon. Friend the former Minister of State for the Department for Trade and Industry on 17 December 2001,Official Report, column 119–120W.

    Jobcentre Plus staff have recently been reminded of the need to ensure that new customers are paid by Direct Payment (including the Post office card account) from the outset of their claim. This advice was intended to equip staff with the factual information they need to provide to customers in order for customers themselves to choose the account which best meets their needs and circumstances. The Post Office card account will not be the best option for them as it cannot receive payments of wages. Post Office Ltd. have also had the opportunity to comment on DWP information material for our customers, including leaflets.

    Customers are being provided with all the information they need on all of their account options, including those accounts, which can be used at Post Office branches. It will be up to the customers themselves to decide which type of account they wish to have their money paid into.

    The Department has a published Public Service Agreement (PSA) target that, by 2005, 85 per cent. of customers will have their benefits paid by Direct Payment. There are no targets for the number of customers paid directly into a standard current account, basic hank account and Post Office card account.

    John Barrett
    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions who is eligible for the direct payment exceptions service. [142837]

    Mr. Pond
    We have always recognised that there will he a small number of people who we cannot pay directly into an account. Our plan is to design an exceptions method of payment to properly meet the needs of
    979W
    customers in these circumstances. It is anticipated that it will be a cheque-based solution. Payment outlets will include Post Office branches. We are in the process of discussing the design of the exceptions method of payment with the representative bodies most directly affected.

    Correspondence
    Mr. Chope
    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions when the hon. Member for Christchurch will receive a response to his letter of 31 October relating to the disability living allowance claim of Mr. Harvey. [145000]

    Maria Eagle
    I regret we have no record of having received the hon. Member's letter. If he would forward a copy I will arrange for it to be considered urgently.

    Council Tax
    Mr. Gordon Marsden
    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what research his Department has collated about the impact of council tax on older peoples' incomes. [142231]

    Mr. Pond
    The Department holds information about the impact of council tax on older peoples' incomes from a variety of sources.

    The Family Resources Survey is a large-scale annual survey of private households run by the department which collects detailed information about income and about certain expenses, including council tax.

    Regularly published information from this survey includes estimates of pensionersl net incomes after the deduction of taxes, including council tax payments. The Pensioners' Income Series 2001–02 shows that between 1996–97 and 2001–02 the average net income of pensioners before the deduction of housing costs increased by 17 per cent. in real terms, while after housing costs it increased by 23 per cent.

    Data from administrative sources shows the number of pensioners receiving council tax benefit. In 2002, 2.4 million families over 60 received council tax benefit.

    The Department also publishes estimates of the level of take-up of council tax benefit, in the annual publication income related benefits: Estimates of take-up.

    The Department further estimates that with the introduction of pension credit almost 1.9 million pensioner households will be eligible for more help, or help for the first time, with council tax or rent payments.

    The Department also carries out calculations to establish the level of income at which pensioners are eligible for help with their council tax. From October 2003, a single person over 65 with no entitlement to disability benefits and an income of £116 could be eligible for maximum council tax benefit.

    The Department also regularly receives research from other organisations.

    Departmental Staff
    Mr. Nicholas Brown
    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what progress has been made in 980W
    reducing sickness and absence in his Department; what the principal causes of sickness and absence are in his Department; and what remedial work his Department has under way or is proposing. [140649]

    Maria Eagle
    The Department for Work and Pensions has targets set by Cabinet Office to help contribute to a reduction in public sector sickness absence. These involve an average working days lost figure of eight days by March 2006, and an interim target of 10 days by March 2004. The cumulative average working days lost figure for the period April to October 2003 was 12.3.

    Ministers and senior managers in the Department fully recognise the importance of good attendance. The Department's Executive Team, chaired by the Permanent Secretary, reviews sickness absence on a monthly basis.

    The remedial work we have in place includes the following:

    A new Departmental attendance management policy was implemented in February 2003. This aims to encourage good attendance and provide support to enable people to return to work as quickly as possible following an illness. Formal unsatisfactory attendance action can be considered when an absence reaches eight days in a rolling 12 month period. To measure the effectiveness of the policy, an evaluation exercise will start shortly.

    Each of the businesses within the Department has initiatives in place aimed at getting sickness absence levels down. Jobcentre Plus has an 'Improving Attendance' task force in operation. Its emphasis is on reducing long-term absences (i.e. those over 28 days duration), by either facilitating a return to work, or effecting a termination of an individual's contract. The Department is also participating in the 'Well-being at work' pilots that are being run by the Health and Safety Executive. This initiative is intended to combat workplace stress. In addition, the Department is committed to discharging its responsibilities to disabled people by making reasonable adjustments to the workplace to facilitate an individual's return to work, or to avoid people going off in the first place. A pilot will also commence in January that will involve the early intervention of occupational health nurses in addressing, quickly, those absences that have the potential to become long-term.

    Jobcentre Plus Premises
    Mr. Cousins
    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) if he will list the(a) number, (b) location and (c) size of Jobcentre Plus premises due to be disposed of; and what (i) costs and (ii) savings he expects from the disposal over the life of the disposal contract; [141198]

    (2) if he will place the terms of reference of the external benchmarking exercise carried out on the disposal of Jobcentre Plus premises in the Library. [142183]

    Mr. Browne
    The administration of Jobcentre Plus is a matter for the Chief Executive of Jobcentre Plus, David Anderson. He will write to my hon. Friend.
    981W
    Letter from David Anderson to Mr. Jim Cousins, dated 15 December 2003:
    As Jobcentre Plus is an Executive Agency, the Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question about the disposal of Jobcentre Plus premises. This is something that falls within the responsibilities delegated to me as Chief Executive of the Agency.

    Region

    District

    Address

    Metres2

    Total saving per annum (£)

    East of England

    Hertford

    Hitchin Crown House

    175

    22,581

    East of England

    Suffolk

    Sudbury PCO The Old bakery King St

    81

    57,205

    East of England

    Suffolk

    Bury St Edmonds The Cornhill

    647

    171,007

    East of England

    Suffolk

    Ipswich Jobshop Museum Street

    86

    12,892

    East Midlands

    Greater Nottingham

    Carlton Rd Jobshop

    744

    0

    East Midlands

    Leicestershire

    Leicester 90 Highcross Street

    851

    27,079

    London

    Brent

    Burnt Oak 93–95 Burnt Oak Broadway

    325

    62,968

    London

    Brent

    Cricklewood Broadway

    1634

    356,217

    London

    Central London

    Holbom JC Celco House 289/293 High Holborn

    503

    116,344

    London

    NE London

    Stoke Newington

    919

    311,036

    London

    NE London

    Leyton Grosvenor Park

    723

    64,617

    North East

    Newcastle

    Roxborough House Whitley Bay PCO

    76

    36,564

    North West

    East Lancs

    Barnoldswick PCO

    62

    26,775

    North West

    Salford & Traff

    Washington House Salford

    204

    41,228

    Scotland

    Dumfries

    Annan High Street

    107

    6,470

    Scotland

    Fife

    St Andrews CSP 43 South Street

    88

    44,586

    Scotland

    Lanarkshire

    Larkhall 27 Union Street

    118

    15,485

    South East

    Hampshire

    Havant 33 East Street

    790

    125,703

    South East

    Hampshire

    Romsey 3–4 Duke Mill Centre

    118

    21,264

    South East

    Hampshire

    Eastlight 42/50 High Street

    250

    32,138

    South West

    Cornwall

    Isles of Scilly Caller Off Buzza St

    41

    14,980

    South West

    Devon

    Barnstable 4 Maxham Court

    90

    6,155

    South West

    Dorset

    Bournemouth Garage 9

    14

    3,284

    South West

    Gloucestershire

    Coleford JC Lords Hill

    134

    7,401

    South West

    Somerset

    Frome North Parade PCO

    264

    56,746

    South West

    Somerset

    Street The Cross

    423

    23,369

    South West

    West of Eng

    Bristol Hartcliff Symes Avenue

    56

    5,493

    Wales

    Nth West Wales

    Pwllheli Penlan Street

    26

    24,555

    Wales

    Nth West Wales

    Swansea Ystradgnynlais PCO

    41

    16,373

    Wales

    Swansea Bay

    Pontardawe 25 High Street PCO

    17

    11,028

    Wales

    West Wales

    Neyland 36 High Street

    30

    2,679

    Wales

    Wrexham & NW

    Mold St Davids Lane

    65

    2,401

    Wales

    Wrexham & NW

    Llandudno Chapel Street

    53

    1,988

    Wales

    Wrexham & NW

    Brecon Canal Bank

    80

    3,944

    Wales

    Wrexham & NW

    Denbigh PCO

    61

    30,776

    Wales

    Wrexham & NW

    Shotton PCO

    76

    25,804

    Wales

    Wrexham & NW

    Holywell PCO

    63

    31,283

    Wales

    Wrexham & NW

    Llangollen PCO

    15

    6,831

    West Midlands

    Coventry

    Kenilworth 7 Abbey Court

    135

    23,763

    West Midlands

    Coventry

    Coventry Park Court

    1455

    188,343

    West Midlands

    Shropshire

    Ludlow Jobcentre

    168

    8,920

    Yorkshire & the Humber

    Sheffield

    Sheffield Rockingham Court

    2221

    480,470

    Yorkshire & the Humber

    Sheffield

    Sheffield Peel House 1 West Bar

    1461

    245,442

    North West

    Liverpool

    58 Brackfield Road South, Liverpool 6

    2559

    486,725

    North West

    Lancashire West

    Maxford House Blackpool

    3271

    1,041,420

    North East

    Tees Valley

    Tees Building

    3142

    561,777

    West Midlands

    Birmingham & Solihull

    2140 Coventry Road, Sheldon, Birmingham B26 3JQ

    3041

    684,273

    East of England

    Norfolk

    Baltic House, Mountergate, Norwich

    3045

    701,037

    Strategic, high-level planning has been undertaken for the remaining two years of the programme, 2004–2006, but I am not yet able to provide firm details of premises disposals or surrenders due for that period. Similarly, information on costs and savings from future disposals is unavailable.
    We have not carried out an external benchmarking exercise on the disposal of Jobcentre Plus premises. Because of the diversity of the districts, service delivery planning for Jobcentre Plus is a locally-driven activity. In undertaking such exercises local managers have to take account of a wide range of factors relevant to the local community before any changes are made to the premises available to them.
    I hope this is helpful.
    982W
    Rollout of the Jobcentre Plus service across the country is a four year programme, planned for completion in March 2006. We are not yet halfway through the implementation of the Jobcentre Plus service and detailed information on disposals for the whole programme is not yet available. However from the information currently available I can tell you that so far we have disposed of 48 sites, totalling 30,548 square metres and a saving to Jobcentre Plus of £6,249,418 per annum. Those sites are listed in the table:

    Jobseeker's Allowance Appeals
    Lynne Jones
    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what plans he has to centralise(a) jobseeker's allowance and (b) labour market appeals; and what the implications of the plans are for (i) appellants and (ii) staff. [142983]

    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.
    983W
    Letter from David Anderson to Dr. Jones, dated 17 December 2003:
    As Jobcentre Plus is an Executive Agency, the Secretary of State has asked me to reply direct to your question on what plans he has to centralise (a) Jobseekers Allowance and (b) Labour Market Appeals; and what the implications of the plans are for (i) appellants and (ii) staff. This is something that falls within the responsibilities delegated to me as Chief Executive of the Agency.
    Jobcentre Plus was formed in 2002 from the Working Age elements of the former Benefits Agency and the Employment Service. Since that time, the organisation has undergone an unprecedented rollout programme, bringing together both parts of the formerly separate operations.
    An internal review recommended that appeals would be delivered more efficiently through teams of appeals staff covering all Jobcentre Plus benefits, and also for appeals teams to be organised on a district basis and accountable to the District Manager. This work is now underway and is being led by the Deputy field Director of East of England, supported by district, regional and national tiers throughout Jobcentre Plus.
    Improvements to Jobcentre Plus decision making and appeals processes are to be further supplemented following recommendations from the recent National Audit Office report "Getting It Right, Putting It Right-Improving Decision Making and Appeals In Social Security Benefits". It was their view that the centralisation of appeals work, reconsiderations and complex decision making, would achieve financial savings for the organisation and lead to improved standards, better communications and better customer service.
    Pressures on staff to achieve demanding targets will be relieved as more resource is freed when these plans are implemented. Centralisation and a more defined management, training apd communications structure will also lead to improved skills of and support to those staff employed to process complex decisions, handle reconsiderations and write appeals. This will provide a better service for Jobcentre Plus customers.
    I hope this is helpful.

    Pension Credit
    Mr. Webb
    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what his latest estimate is of the number of pensioners who are not receiving pension credit but are receiving housing benefit and council tax benefit. [144701]

    Mr. Pond
    Our latest estimate for the number of pensioner households who are not receiving Pension Credit but are receiving Housing Benefit and/or Council Tax Benefit is around £900,000.

    Households claiming Housing Benefit or Council Tax Benefit may be a single person, 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.

    Mr. Webb
    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin) of 9 December 2003,Official Report, columns 416–17W, on Pension Credit, how many pensioner households in each Government Office region he estimates are eligible for Pension Credit. [144702]

    Malcolm Wicks
    The number of pensioner households eligible for Pension Credit at the end of November 2003 by region is set out in the following table.984W

    Government office region

    Estimated number of households eligible for Pension Credit

    North East

    250,000

    North West and Merseyside

    500,000

    Yorkshire and Humber

    350,000

    East Midlands

    300,000

    West Midlands

    350,000

    Eastern

    300,000

    London

    450,000

    South East

    350,000

    South West

    300,000

    Wales

    250,000

    Scotland

    400,000

    Total (GB)

    3,800,000

    Notes:

    1. Estimates are done on a benefit unit basis (single pensioner or pensioner couple).

    2. Figures do not include care home cases.

    3. Figures are rounded to the nearest 50,000.

    Source:

    Policy simulation model 2003–04, based on data from the Family

    Resources Survey 2000–01.

    Post Offices
    Mr. Jenkins
    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what arrangements he will put in place to pay benefits in urban areas where the Royal Mail has closed post office outlets and no services are available within two miles of claimants' homes. [144175]

    Mr. Pond
    The Government are committed to doing all they can to ensure a viable Post Office network for the future. We are investing very substantial sums in supporting the transformation of the network—some £2 billion in total over the next five years. The Post Office in turn has guaranteed that, even after the urban reinvention programme, 95 per cent. of people living in urban areas will be within a mile of a Post Office, the majority within half a mile.

    Direct Payment and the introduction of universal banking services has provided customers with a choice of options as to how they can access their money including, cash machines, via the cashback facilities offered by some retailers, over the counter at banks and building societies and through Post Office branches.

    Small Businesses
    Brian Cotter
    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions whether his Department uses a database of individual small businesses for consultation purposes.[142474]

    Mr. Browne
    When conducting public consultation exercises governed by the Cabinet Office Code of Practice, the Department for Work and Pensions draws on a variety of sources to ensure consultations are targeted as effectively as possible including small businesses as appropriate. The Department has access to the Small Business Service to help identify appropriate small businesses.

    Remploy
    Adam Price
    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many Remploy employees have subsequently taken up jobs in the open labour market in each of the last 10 years. [143228]
    985W
    Maria Eagle
    Each year Remploy helps disabled people, where appropriate, to progress to unsupported employment with a mainstream employer. Since the implementation of the company's modernisation strategy this has become a key element in its programme to support disabled people.

    Progressions to open employment

    1994–95

    118

    1995–96

    177

    1996–97

    182

    1997–98

    225

    1998–99

    347

    1999–2000

    536

    2000–01

    537

    2001–02

    1,243

    2002–03

    1,610

    2003–04

    1,650 (target)

    Note:

    Figures for 1994-98 include people moving from Remploy Factories to supported employment with a mainstream employer.

    From 1998-99 onwards, figures relate only to the number of people working in the open labour market.

    Source:

    Remploy Audited Accounts

    Adam Price
    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on the investment by Remploy in maintaining and upgrading exisiting sites, as specified in the Remploy 21 agreement.[143229]

    Maria Eagle
    Remploy 21 is the company's modernisation strategy to establish itself in businesses that mirror growth sectors of the economy. Since 2000, Remploy has moved from 36 disparate businesses mainly in traditional manufacturing to 10 competitive national businesses with an increasing focus on the service sector. To support this programme it has invested £4 million in the maintenance and upgrading of existing sites.

    Remploy is in the process of surveying all sites as part of this activity; the expectation is that at least £1 million annually will be allocated to further site improvements.

    Adam Price
    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on the strategic decision by Remploy management to close owned factories and to move to leased units. [143230]

    Maria Eagle
    Remploy owns a significant majority of its factory sites and this will continue to be the case following the modernisation plans the Company currently considers necessary over the next few years. In the long-term, if Remploy were to carry out all potential relocation plans, they would have a total of 50 sites owned and 31 leased. In every case Remploy will consider upgrading the existing site, purchasing or building at a new site or leasing a site. Remploy has only entered into agreements to lease factory sites where it has made business sense.

    Leased premises tend to be acquired for a minimum of 15 years and occasionally for longer periods. This is normal commercial practice and recognises that, because business requirements evolve over time, there must therefore be a corresponding ability to evolve the estates strategy to ensure that the facilities match business and learning objectives.
    986W
    The Company's approach to providing better and more modern facilities in Remploy locations is primarily to improve business opportunities that will in turn lead to more opportunities for growth in employment levels.

    Since 2000, Remploy has invested in new or improved sites in Acton, Barnsley, Bradford, Gateshead, Lanarkshire, and North Staffordshire. There are also plans, some of which are already under way to replace existing facilities in Abertillery, Bristol, Holloway, Preston and St. Helens. All these sites are leased.

    The above sites produced proceeds of sale of £5.7 million. At the same time, the Company invested £5.9 million on fitting out the replacement sites; consequently that has been a net outflow of investment. The majority of the sales proceeds arose from the sales of Acton and Bristol (£3.5 million of the £5.7 million) where there were opportunities to take advantage of site development potential. In other cases, the proceeds were very modest, reflecting the individual constraints of the existing site.

    The Company's growth and investment plans are discussed with the Government on a regular basis. It should be noted that Remploy cannot sell a factory without securing the Government's approval. The Government will only agree to the sale where a case is presented which demonstrates the business sense of the proposal.

    Standard Housing Allowance
    Mr. Coleman
    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what representations he has received regarding the introduction of a standard housing allowance; and if he will make a statement. [143835]

    Mr. Pond
    We consulted both formally and informally on the Government's proposals for a Local Housing Allowance.

    The formal consultation exercise was conducted through the Social Security Advisory Committee. The Committee received 73 responses from both individuals and organisations with an interest in the Local Housing Allowance reforms. Our response is set out on the Command Paper 5955 which was presented to Parliament on 24 September 2003; a copy is in the Library.

  HEALTH

    Bed Blocking
    Mr. Jim Cunningham
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assistance his Department has given to social services departments to prepare for the commencement of fines for bed blocking.[144384]

    Dr. Ladyman
    In 2003–04 the Delayed Discharges Grant of £50.8 million means that social service departments will retain a proportion of the grant provided they improve the performance compared to levels of delay in March 2003. Additionally the Department has provided guidance, a dedicated website (www.doh.gov.uk/reimbursement) and an implementation team to support social services and national health service partners in preparing for charging for delayed discharges.
    987W

    Care Homes
    Mr. Andrew Turner
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list those areas in which(a) there is a shortage of places in care homes at the price the local council wants to pay and (b) there are so many spare places available that a council can buy all the places it needs at a rate lower than the rate at which many providers wish to trade. [142968]

    Dr. Ladyman
    [holding answer 9 December 2003]: I made this general statement based upon conversations my officials have had with some councils and independent providers. However, I would not be surprised if every council felt there was a shortage of places at the price they wanted to pay. And I would not be surprised if in every council area there are some providers who feel they are faced with a price that is below the level at which they wish to trade. Our aim must be to create a market place that is felt to be fair by commissioners and providers of services alike.

    Mr. Burstow
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many self-funding residents were in(a) residential care homes and (b) nursing homes on the last date for which figures are available. [144292]

    Dr. Ladyman
    There were 42,000 self-funders receiving national health service-funded nursing care in nursing homes in England in December 2002. Further details can be found on the Department's website at: www.doh.gov.uk/jointunit/nhsfundednursingcare Information regarding the number of self-funders in residential care homes is not kept centrally.

    Mr. Burstow
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the average weekly cost to self-funding residents in residential care and nursing homes was in the last period for which figures are available. [144293]

    Dr. Ladyman
    Information regarding the average weekly cost to self-funding residents in residential and nursing homes is not kept centrally. Fees levels for self-funders are a matter negotiated between the care home and the individual requiring care, or their representive.

    Chemotherapy-induced Anaemia
    Mr. Havard
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) whether the National Institute for Clinical Excellence has drawn up a list of stakeholders for the technology appraisal of erythropoietin in chemotherapy-induced anaemia; and if he will publish this list; [144472]

    (2) what the scope of the National Institute for Clinical Excellence technology appraisal of erythropoietin for chemotherapy-induced anaemia will be; and when consultation will begin; [144473]

    (3) if he will ensure that NHS trusts and primary care trusts do not limit funding for erythropoietin as a treatment for chemotherapy-induced anaemia during the National Institute for Clinical Excellence technology appraisal into its greater use. [144474]

    Miss Melanie Johnson
    The use of erythropoetin (EPO) for treating chemotherapy-induced anaemia has been referred to the National Institute for Clinical 988W
    Excellence (NICE) as part of its "ninth wave" work programme. The ninth wave was referred to NICE in October 2003.

    All information relating to the NICE appraisal of EPO will be on its website at: www.nice.org.uk on 23 December 2003. This information will include a planned date for when the final scope and list of stakeholders for the appraisal will be published. Detailed questions about the process and timetable for technology appraisal are matters for the chief executive of NICE.

    Health Service Circular 1999/176 asks national health service bodies to continue with local arrangements for the managed introduction of new technologies where guidance from NICE is not available. These arrangements should involve an assessment of all the available evidence. Funding for such treatments should not be withheld simply because of an absence of guidance from NICE.

    Choice and Plurality Policies
    Mr. Blizzard
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information will be provided to enable patients to choose health care providers under the Choice and Plurality policies. [140619]

    Mr. Hutton
    Patients will require information on waiting times, convenience, patient experience and clinical quality to support their choice of hospital for elective surgery. nhs.uk already provides information on waiting times and star ratings. We will develop this site to provide a wider range of information to support choice. Primary care trusts will be asked to ensure that appropriate information is also made available in hard copies and in forms which are accessible by individuals with sensory impairments.

    Mr. Blizzard
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the possible impact of institutional resistance on the implementation of the Choice and Plurality policies. [140621]

    Mr. Hutton
    Increasing patient choice will require a change in culture for national health service staff and indeed, for patients. Staff and patients are broadly supportive of the principle of extending patient choice. However, we need to work closely with staff and patients on the detailed implementation of our patient choice policies to ensure that we retain that support. The new financial framework, Payment by Results, will provide new incentives to providers to attract patients. Our plurality policies will help secure the capacity needed to deliver the improved waiting times patients expect, and will allow a greater range of choices for patients. The biggest safeguard against any institutional resistance, however, is likely to be the attitude of the patients themselves. The experience from London and other choice pilots is that once offered choice over where and when their treatment is provided, many patients exercise these new opportunities.

    Mr. Blizzard
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures will be put in place to extend choice of health care provider to patients who live in isolated rural communities. [140623]
    989W
    Mr. Hutton
    We recognise that patients in isolated rural communities may find it more difficult to access the same range of choices as others. We are exploring options for primary care trusts to provide greater support for patients living in more isolated rural communities. These could include peripatetic patient care advisers, the use of mobile service, for example, the mobile cataract surgery service being introduced in many areas from the spring of 2004. We will be including rural representatives of patients, patient groups and local authorities in these discussions, so that they are able to influence the Department's final policy guidance on choice at referral.

    Mr. Blizzard
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the percentage occupancy rate of in-patient care which would need to be maintained to provide the capacity to enable patients to choose a health care provider. [140625]

    Mr. Hutton
    We are investing in substantial and sustainable increases in national health service capacity to improve quality and allow us to deliver the shorter waiting times patients expect. Choice of hospital for patients requiring elective surgery will be introduced alongside this additional capacity. By December 2005, patients will choose at the point of general practitioner referral, so patient choice will not be directly dependent on the inpatient occupancy rate.

    Community Health Councils
    Rob Marris
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many staff were made redundant as a result of the closure of community health councils. [144448]

    Ms Rosie Winterton
    An estimated 470 staff were made redundant as a result of the closure of community health councils. The final numbers will be confirmed in January.

    Coronary Care
    Mr. Pickles
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he proposes to take to prevent people of all ages from dying from fatal cardiac arhythmias. [143978]

    Miss Melanie Johnson
    The focus of this work is on early diagnosis for this group of patients. The Department is investing in diagnosis, investigation and treatment of cardiac related problems. In November 2001, the Department announced £65 million from the New Opportunities Fund (NOF) and £60 million from the Department of Health to enable the rapid expansion of facilities for angiography, to fund 89 new or replacement catheterisation laboratories. 24 sets of equipment have already been delivered.

    Correspondence
    Mr. Kaufman
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will reply to the letter to him dated 4 November 2003 from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton with regard to Mr. Alan Ryan, forwarded to him by the Department for Work and Pensions. [144641]

    Dr. John Reid
    A reply was sent to the right hon. Member on 16 December 2003.
    990W

    Departmental Downsizing
    Mr. Burstow
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on his plans for downsizing his Department. [141208]

    Ms Rosie Winterton
    By October 2004, the size of the core Department will be reduced by 1,400—from over 3,600 to 2,245–a 38 per cent. reduction. Half the posts will be transferred to other national bodies, which are themselves being renewed and the remaining reduction will be achieved through changing the way we work as a Department.

    Mr. Burstow
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will set out the rationale underlying the proposed reduction in size of his Department. [143706]

    Ms Rosie Winterton
    The Department is changing to reflect the environment in which it works, particularly:The reform of the national health service and local government to meet the public's expectations for better health and social care services.
    The government's drive to shift the balance of power from Whitehall to staff in frontline hospitals, general practitioner surgeries, care homes, social services and the community.
    The creation of new independent bodies.

    The Department will work closely with a number of important partners to deliver better health and social care services. It will employ a much lighter touch on performance management, enabling the 28 strategic health authorities to operate as the local headquarters for the NHS. The Department will also work with the Commission for Healthcare Audit and Inspection and the Commission for Social Care Inspection, which will independently inspect NHS and social care services.

    The Department's Change Programme will help shift the balance of power to the frontline and reduce bureaucracy at the centre.

    Tim Loughton
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what reduction in staff numbers in his Department he expects to have been achieved by the end of 2004. [143056]

    Ms Rosie Winterton
    The change programme currently under way in the Department will reduce its size by 1,400 posts. This is a 38 per cent. reduction in posts and will be achieved by October 2004. Some of the posts will be transferred to other national bodies, which are themselves being reviewed and efficiency savings will achieve the remaining reductions.

    Diabetes
    Nick Harvey
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what provisions are in place to provide healthcare professionals with extensive and accurate information about diabetes; and if he will make a statement; [143737]

    (2) what provisions there are for education on mild diabetes; and if he will make a statement. [143740]

    Ms Rosie Winterton
    The diabetes national service framework (NSF) states that 'the NHS will need to ensure that all health professionals involved in the
    991W
    diagnosis and care of people with diabetes receive continuing training to ensure that they are appropriately skilled in the diagnosis and management of diabetes' (page 29 of the "Diabetes National Service Framework for Diabetes: Standards document"). Curriculum content for pre-registration education and training programmes for healthcare professionals is determined by individual higher education institutions (HEIs) in the light of recommendations from the relevant regulatory bodies. Post registration training needs for all national health service healthcare staff is determined locally through skills auditing of teams against priority local needs and through the appraisal process. In addition there are a number of central initiatives to increase healthcare professionals' access to knowledge, such as the development of the National Electronic Library for Health's specialist 'branch' library for diabetes and 'Diabetes NSF Zone' and the Department of Health's commitment to establishing a National Knowledge Service.

    Structured patient education is an integral part of the diabetes NSF and its provision is a key intervention for Standard 3 of the NSF that is concerned with patient empowerment. All people with diabetes will receive a service that encourages partnership in decision-making and supports them in managing their diabetes. This is reflected in the "Planning and Priorities Framework for the NHS 2003–06", that includes targets for the diabetes NSF. One such target states the need for primary care trusts 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, including the provision of information, education and psychological support, to help them in managing their own condition.

    Early Retirement Packages
    Tim Loughton
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what early retirement packages are available for staff in his Department and what additions to those packages have been made available in the last year. [143052]

    Ms Rosie Winterton
    The early retirement packages available to staff in the Department are those under the terms of the Principal Civil Service Pension Scheme. The Department has not made available any additions to these packages in the last year.

    Tim Loughton: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many members of staff in his Department have taken early retirement packages in each of the last six years. [143053]

    Ms Rosie Winterton
    The information requested is shown in the table.

    The number of staff who have taken early retirement for the financial years 1997 to 2002

    Number of staff

    1997–98

    127

    1998–99

    117

    1999–2000

    15

    2000–01

    17

    2001–02

    13

    2002–03

    277

    992W
    1For the financial years 1997–98 and 1998–99, figures are not available for any members of staff who retired within two years of pension age.

    2Includes 66 staff based in the Department's former regional offices, which were closed as a direct result of the "Shifting the Balance of Power" programme.

    Electronic Magnifiers
    Mr. Oaten
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects electronic magnifiers to be made available on the NHS.[R] [144189]

    Ms Rosie Winterton
    [holding answer 15 December 2003]: Electronic magnifiers are considered to be aids to daily living and as such, their provision is the responsibility of social services departments as they are considered to be aids to daily living. They can be given if it is felt that their provision is warranted. However, hand-held, stand and spectacle-mounted magnifiers are generally considered to be easier to use, more widely available, more accessible and more cost effective.

    The Hospital Eye Service is responsible for providing optical devices and loans low vision aids, such as high-powered reading lenses, hand-held and stand magnifiers and telescopes to people with visual impairment. In addition, some primary care trusts have local arrangements for the provision of low vision aids through community based opticians.

    Epilepsy
    Mr. Baron
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what provisions in the National Service Framework for long-term conditions will address the needs of longterm epilepsy sufferers; [144703]

    (2) what progress he has made in addressing the concerns raised in the National Sentinel Clinical Audit of Epilepsy-related Death, published in May 2002. [144704]

    Dr. Ladyman
    In February 2003, we published an action plan for epilepsy services which addresses the key recommendations in the National Clinical Audit of Epilepsy Related Deaths audit and the Chief Medical Officer's 2001 Annual Report on epilepsy. This will be complemented by two key initiatives, which are planned for publication next year. The National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) is developing a clinical guideline for the diagnosis, management and treatment of epilepsy, which it plans to publish next July. It is also looking at the clinical and cost effectiveness of new anti-epilepsy drugs in children and adults and plans to publish an appraisal in the new year. These will help address any variations in clinical practice and contribute to the improvement of services. We are developing the national service framework (NSF) for long-term conditions, which will focus on improving the standard of general neurology care across England for people with conditions such as epilepsy. The NSF will address a range of key issues, for example: the need for equitable access to a range of services; good quality information and support, for patients and carers; the ability to see a specialist and get the right investigations and diagnosis as quickly as possible; and, maintaining independence and quality of life. We currently plan to publish the NSF late next year for implementation over 10 years from 2005.
    993W
    Mr. Baron
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to change the level of funding available for services for long-term epilepsy sufferers at the Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Birmingham. [144705]

    Dr. Ladyman
    Primary care trusts (PCTs) in partnership with strategic health authorities (SHAs) and other local stakeholders determine how best to use their funds to meet national and local priorities for improving health, tackling health inequalities and modernising services.

    The pan-Birmingham epilepsy group, including representatives from the acute national health service trusts and PCTs within Birmingham is currently reviewing the provision of epilepsy services across the city.

    Over the three years from 2002–03 to the end of 2005–06 the total allocation to PCTs will increase in cash terms by £12.7 billion or 30.8 per cent. That is a significant level of investment and should deliver real benefits and results. The allocation includes resources to finance the cost of pay reform, new drugs and treatments and additional capacity.

    Mr. Baron
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what(a) in-patient, (b) out-patient and (c) long-term provision is available for epilepsy sufferers in Birmingham. [144706]

    Dr. Ladyman
    All of the acute hospitals in Birmingham provide some degree of epilepsy services as part of their neurology services.

    University Hospital Birmingham National Health Service Trust has 32 dedicated in-patient neurology beds which are used by epilepsy patients. There are currently no in-patient beds within Birmingham specifically designated for epilepsy. Patients requiring such beds are referred to the National Society for Epilepsy in London.

    Out-patient services are provided for the whole of the West Midlands region at the Queen Elizabeth Psychiatric Hospital for around 1,500 patients a year. Around 40 per cent. of patients are referred from Birmingham. There is an active electro encephalography department, with overnight monitoring for people with difficult-to-control epilepsy or in cases of diagnostic difficulty.

    The Birmingham Women's Hospital also provides a clinic for pregnant women with epilepsy.

    Generic Drugs
    Mr. Burstow
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to ensure that general practitioner prescribing computer systems do not prevent pharmacists dispensing generic brands of the same drug with a different formulation; and if he will make a statement. [142062]

    Ms Rosie Winterton
    There are a number of commercially available computer systems that general practitioners may decide on their own initiative to use in assisting their choice of what medicine to prescribe for a patient. Any system used by a GP must meet a core set of Requirements for Accreditation (RFA). RFA was 994W
    introduced in April 1993 to ensure general medical practice computer systems provided an agreed level of core functionality and conformed to national standards.

    All generic medicines licensed for national health service use must meet the strict requirements of the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) and must be equivalent to, and have the same therapeutic effect as, the branded formulation. Some manufacturers of generic medicines may choose to market their product by using a brand name. In other instances, for example in the case of modified release generic medicines, the MHRA may require that these medicines are prescribed by a brand name so as to avoid any problems concerning bio-availability. However these products must also be licensed by the MHRA.

    On receiving a script from a patient, a pharmacist is obliged to dispense the branded product if one has been specified by a GP. If, however, a GP has prescribed a generic medicine then a pharmacist is free to chose from amongst a range of licensed generic medicines.

    When officials recently became aware that a major pharmaceutical company ad sought to change GP databases to default to their formulation of a medicine, action was taken to ensure that GPs were aware and prepared to over-ride their systems to select their preferred medicine.

    These arrangements should be sufficient to prevent a pharmacist from dispensing any NHS generic medicine that has a different formulation from that prescribed by a GP—whether or not a GP used a computer system in making that decision. The forthcoming renegotiations of the 1999 Pharmaceutical Price Regulation Scheme will be used to consider the need for even stronger controls in this area.

    Genetically Modified Food
    Joan Ruddock
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will place in the Library a copy of the full dossier submitted in relation to the Bt11 sweetcorn application. [144699]

    Miss Melanie Johnson
    The application for authorisation of Bt 11 sweet maize as a novel food was made to the Netherlands in 1999, under Regulation (EC) No. 258/97. A further European Commission Regulation, Commission Regulation 1852/2001, lays down detailed rules on the making of information relating to such applications available to the public. These rules are concerned with striking the right balance as between the protection of information submitted by applicants and the public interest in the disclosure of that information. They provide for the Commission to publish a summary of the dossier on Bt11 sweet maize and the initial assessment of that dossier by the member state to which the application was made. It is not, therefore, for the United Kingdom authority to publish such information.

    Joan Ruddock
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether the requirements for a post approval safety monitoring plan specified in the new food and feed regulations for GM foods will be applied to Bt11 sweetcorn. [144700]
    995W
    Miss Melanie Johnson
    Regulation 1829/2003 on genetically modified food and feed comes into effect on 18 April 2004. This regulation does not impose a requirement for the post marketing monitoring of all genetically modified foods, although monitoring may be required in specific cases based on the outcome of the risk assessment. The authorisation of Btll sweetcorn is currently being considered under the novel food legislation (regulation 258/97) and does not include a requirement for post-market monitoring.

    Head Lice
    Mr. Drew
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will put in place a strategy for tackling head lice similar to the one in place in Scotland. [143031]

    Dr. Ladyman
    No. Primary care trusts are best placed to develop strategies for dealing with head louse infestation within their area. This will take into account local circumstances.

    Our policy, which is shared by the Department for Education and Skills, is to encourage a "whole school approach" to the detection and treatment of head lice. This entails encouraging parents to check their children and other family members for head lice as need arises, and arranging treatment—either through a combing regime or insecticides—where necessary with such
    advice and support from the local primary health care team (general practitioner, health visitor, school nurse or local pharmacist) as they may require. If this exercise is successfully undertaken at the same time by all parents of children within a school, then the spread of head lice will be arrested.

    Healthcare Cartels
    Mr. Blizzard
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures he will put in place to avoid the risk of health care providers forming cartels under the policy of giving more choice to patients. [140618]

    Mr. Hutton
    By December 2005, primary care trusts (PCTs) will offer, at the point of general practitioner referral, a menu of four to five choices for patients who may require elective surgery. To do this, PCTs will commission services from an appropriate range of providers to secure real choices for their local populations; avoiding any potential for `cartels' being formed. The new national tariff will strengthen PCTs' position, making it easier for them to move activity and funding between providers.

    Hip Braces
    Mr. Gale
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the cost to the National Health Service was of hip braces imported from the United States of America in each of the last five years. [143805]

    Ms Rosie Winterton
    (holding answer 16 December 2003]: This information is not held centrally.

    Mr. Gale
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health for what reasons hip braces are not purchased from United Kingdom manufacturers. [143806]
    996W
    Dr. Ladyman
    [holding answer 16 December 2003]: The NHS Purchasing and Supply Agency has a national framework agreement for the supply of orthoses, which includes hip braces. This agreement is available to all national health service trusts and health authorities in England, although it is not mandatory. There are 59 suppliers on the agreement, all of which are based in the United Kingdom.

    Mental Health Services
    Mr. Burstow
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether his Department has met its most recent target to deliver assertive outreach for severe mental illness; and if he will make a statement. [143708]

    Ms Rosie Winterton
    The Department has met the NHS Plan target to establish a total of 220 assertive outreach teams for patients with severe mental illness and complex problems who regularly disengage from services. We are encouraged by the progress made so far and we will be reviewing the level of need for assertive outreach services by the end of the financial year.

    Mr. Burstow
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many child and adolescent mental health services inpatient beds were provided in each year since 1997(a) in total, (b) in England and (c) in each local authority; how many are planned to be provided in the next two years; and if he will make a statement. [143709]

    Dr. Ladyman
    The information is not collected in the form requested. The table shows the average daily number of beds available in the national health service classified as 'Mental Illness: Children'.

    In the three years to March 2006, we will be investing an additional £250 million in child and adolescent mental health services provided by the national health service and local authorities for them to further develop their services.

    Average daily number of available beds by ward classification, England, 1997–98 to 2002–03

    Department of Health form KHO3

    Mental illness:Children

    Learning disabilities:Children

    1997–98

    522

    380

    1 998–99

    538

    363

    1999–00

    482

    376

    2000–01

    531

    376

    2001–02

    484

    274

    2002–03

    504

    409

    Notes:

    1999–2000 and 2001–02 incomplete data.

    There is not a separate ward classification in the data collection for adolescent beds. NHS Trusts providing services specifically for adolescents may record the beds as "Children's" or as "Other ages"—the latter includes all the adult provision.

    Source:

    Department of Health form KHO3

    Mr. Burstow
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health(a) how much and (b) what proportion of mental health expenditure has been spent on child and adolescent services in each of the last five years. [143710]

    Dr. Ladyman
    This information is not available centrally. However our estimate for likely mental health expenditure in 2002–03 and the proportion spent on child and adolescent services is shown in the table.
    997W
    We recognise that much still needs to be done to improve child and adolescent mental health. The work of the child and adolescent mental health module of the children's national service framework will do much to inform future plans.

    Estimated mental health expenditure 2002–03

    Child and adolescent mantal health services

    Adult mantal health

    Elderly

    Total

    Hospital community health service (millions)

    331

    3,476

    248

    4,055

    Percentage

    8

    86

    6

    100

    Personal social services(millions)

    281

    739

    418

    1,438

    Percentage

    20

    51

    29

    100

    Total (millions)

    612

    4,216

    666

    5,494

    Percentage

    11

    77

    12

    100

    Notes:

    1. The table above is based on estimated projections of expenditure, not actual expenditure. HCHS figures, for instance, are only available up to 2000–01 and PSS figures are only available up to 2001–02. Relevant figures are taken from this year's Departmental Report (Chapter 6) and have been used to update the projections given previously. The actual figures for 2000–01 HCHS spend on mental health were higher than had been previously projected.

    2. CAMHS costs are based on estimates from 2002 projected forward in line with increases in overall expenditure. They may underestimate CAMHS expenditure, as they do not account for any new policy developments.

    3. HCHS costs exclude the cost of drugs. PSS costs include children's social services where relevant

    Mr. Burstow
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the findings in the Wanless Report of April 2002 relating to the spending increases required to implement the National Service Framework for mental health by 2010–11. [143716]

    Ms Rosie Winterton
    Following the Wanless final report, my right hon. Friend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in his 2002 Budget, announced the biggest ever-sustained real terms growth in history of national health service, to create a world-class health system. Health spending is to grow on average by 7.2 per cent. per annum in the United Kingdom in real terms over next five years—from £68.1 billion to £109.4 billion in 2007–08.

    In line with "Shifting the Balance of Power", primary care trusts have not been given allocations specifically for mental health but have received a block allocation with which to provide the services as set out in the NHS Plan, the national service frameworks and to meet local need. A proportion of the increases for total health spend will relate to mental health service and the Department will be monitoring the increase through annual financial mapping exercises.

    Memory Clinics
    Mr. Burstow
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what definition the Department uses of a memory clinic; and how many memory clinics have been set up(a) in total in England and Wales and (b) in each strategic health authority. [142959]

    Dr. Ladyman
    There is considerable variation in the way in which memory clinics are run, in order to meet the needs of different localities. However, in general 998W
    they are used to help diagnose whether a person has dementia and to help people with dementia access the treatment, care and support they need.

    Information on the number of memory clinics is not collected centrally.

    Midwifery Units
    Mr. John Baron
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many closures of midwifery-led units since 1997 were due to a shortage of staff; and what the other reasons for closure were; [144658]

    (2) whether consultant-led midwifery units have had higher vacancy rates than midwife-led maternity units in each of the last six years; and what the average difference was for each year. [144661]

    Mr. Hutton
    [holding answers 16 December 2003]: The information requested is not collected centrally.

    Northwick Park Hospital
    Keith Vaz
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many complaints he has received concerning Northwick Park Hospital. [142630]

    Mr. Hutton
    Figures for the number of complaints received about individual hospitals are not collected centrally. Figures for the number of complaints relating to North West London Hospitals National Health Service Trust are available at http://www.doh.gov.uk/ hospitalactivity/.

    Operations (Cancellations)
    Simon Hughes
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many operations were cancelled at London hospitals in each of the last 16 quarters for which figures are available; what percentage of the cancelled operations were consequently carried out within four weeks; and if he will make a statement. [143997]

    Mr. Hutton
    [holding answer 15 December 2003]: Information is not available for cancellations at individual hospital sites. Information on the number of operations cancelled at the last minute and the number not treated within 28 days of a last minute cancellation for each national health service trust is published at: http://www.doh.gov.uk/hospitalactivity/ Copies of the published information are available in the Library.

    Orthopists
    Mr. Oaten
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the implementation of the pathfinder project in orthotic services. [R][144191]

    Mr. Hutton
    [holding answer 15 December]: The report of the orthotics pathfinder project will be published in January 2004 after which any policy implications will be considered.

    Pneumococcal Conjugate Vaccine
    Nick Harvey
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the cost to the NHS of providing the pneumococcal conjugate vaccine to (a) all children between two months and two years of
    999W
    age and (b) only those children at risk between two months and two years of age; and if he will make a statement. [144108]

    Miss Melanie Johnson
    The cost of providing pneumococcal conjugate vaccine to all children under two years of age will depend on the negotiated price of the vaccine.

    The number of children at risk is not known and therefore the cost cannot be estimated. The recommendation to immunise at-risk children under two years is consistent with United Kingdom policy for those aged over two years.

    Nick Harvey
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many at-risk children are entitled to pneumococcal conjugate vaccine; what proportion of those children have been given the vaccine; and if he will make a statement. [144109]

    Miss Melanie Johnson
    This information is not held centrally.

    Premature Babies
    John Mann
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many premature babies were born in each region of the UK for each of the last five years. [143679]

    Dr. Ladyman
    The information requested is not collected centrally.

    Prisoners
    Julie Morgan
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action the Government are taking to promote effective inter-agency arrangements for dealing with mentally disordered offenders. [144072]

    Ms Rosie Winterton
    The Government are committed both to providing better services for people with mental health problems and to protecting the public from crime and the fear of crime. A number of initiatives to support these aims are underway, involving a number of Government departments to tackle the issues raised by mentally disordered offenders.

    The Department of Health, the Home Office and the Prison Service are developing new assessment and treatment facilities for dangerous people with severe personality disorder. This will result in 300 new places becoming available in high secure care with the development of an infrastructure at lower levels of security to allow a safe transition for those whose risk is reduced.

    Multi-agency public protection arrangements exist in every part of the country and bring together health, police, probation and other agencies to plan the management of people who pose a risk in the community, many of whom are mentally disordered offenders.

    Closer working between social services departments and mental health trusts, often leading to single management, has benefited all mental health services, including mentally disordered offenders by removing the traditional boundaries between health and social care.
    1000W
    Court liaison and diversion schemes are widespread and act to ensure that mentally ill people who come into contact with the Criminal Justice System receive mental health care whenever possible.

    A number of strands of work are underway with the National Probation Service to ensure that they are supported by mental health services while managing people with mental health problems in hostels and the community.

    Julie Morgan
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps are taken to ensure that the use of medication for women in prison complies with the best practice guidance of the NHS. [144520]

    Dr. Ladyman
    All prison establishments are expected, in conjunction with their local primary care trust, to be covered by a drugs and therapeutic committee or its equivalent. Drawing on specialist advice, this committee should be responsible for the development of an evidence-based local formulary, disease management guidelines and medicine-related policies and procedures. All establishments are expected to take account of relevant guidelines issued by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence.

    Rheumatoid Arthritis
    Andy King
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many primary care trust, collaborative commissioning groups are providing funding for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. [144548]

    Dr. Ladyman
    The information requested is not collected centrally. Only the small amount of rheumatoid arthritis services that are specialised would be commissioned by a group of primary care trusts acting in a collaborative commissioning group. We do not know how many of these groups separately identify and fund rheumatoid arthritis services.

    Targets
    Ms Munn
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the outcome of the consultation exercise on clinical exceptions to the four hour emergency care target. [144888]

    Ms Rosie Winterton
    The target for accident and emergency departments is that, by December 2004, all patients should be discharged, admitted or transferred within four hours of arrival. However, front line emergency care staff have told us that in a small proportion of cases it may not be clinically appropriate to move patients within that time frame—for example when they are undergoing active resuscitation.

    Responses to the consultation exercise that we announced in September confirmed that. We have listened to the advice we received and have now reached a consensus with the British Association for Accident and Emergency Medicine, the Faculty of Accident and Emergency Medicine and the Royal College of Nursing Emergency Care Association on the type of cases that can be regarded as clinical exceptions to the target. The

    1001W
    agreement is available on the Department of Health website at: http://www.doh.gov.uk/emergencycare/ clinical-exceptions. htm

    Other than in these exceptional cases the target remains in place, and National Health Service trusts must still do everything they can to avoid any breaches of the target that are not clinically necessary.

    Temporomandibular Joint Dysfunction
    Bob Russell
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what his policy is on the funding of treatment for temporomandibular joint dysfunction; and if he will make a statement. [1442751

    Ms Rosie Winterton
    Cases of temporomandibular joint dysfunction, which are suitable for treatment by a general dental practitioner, can be funded through the general dental services. More complex cases, for example requiring surgery, will be referred to hospital and funded as with other hospital services.

    Top-up Fees
    Dr. Murrison
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the bodies that have made representations on the impact of top-up fees on NHS professionals. [144393]

    Mr. Hutton
    A wide range of bodies have made formal written representations on variable fees in the consultation exercise on the White Paper "The Future of Higher Education" (column 5735), which was coordinated by the Department for Education and Skills. Department of Health Ministers and officials are of course in regular contact with the full range of stakeholders involved in the training of the future health professional workforce.
    1002W

    University of Leicester Hospital Trust
    Keith Vaz
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he next plans to visit the University of Leicester Hospital Trust. [142933]

    Ms Rosie Winterton
    There are no current plans in my right hon. Friend's official diary to undertake a visit to the University of Leicester Hospital Trust. Should a request to do so be received in the Department, it will be given full consideration.

    Waiting Lists/Times
    Ms Walley
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the average waiting time is for an MRI scan for a patient in(a) England and (b) North Staffordshire; and if he will make a statement. [144104]

    Miss Melanie Johnson
    Data are not collected centrally on waiting times for a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan. The length of time that a patient may have to wait for any scan is dependent on their clinical condition. Emergency cases need to be seen immediately. Other cases will be carried out as quickly as possible, dependent on the clinical priority of all patients waiting to be scanned.

    Where a MRI scan forms part of the diagnostic process for a patient urgently referred with suspected cancer, this will be covered by the target of a maximum two month wait from urgent referral to first treatment, which is currently in place for breast cancer patients, and will be in place for all cancers by the end of 2005.

    To increase capacity of diagnostic services, funding has been made available for the provision of new and replacement scanners. To date, new and replacement equipment provided through central programmes includes, as of 15 December 2003, 51 new MRI scanners, 69 linear accelerators, 148 computed tomography scanners and over 600 items of breast screening equipment, all delivered since April 2000.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Caroline Flint)
  I wish to announce changes in the way in which the Home Office handles certain types of project licence applications made under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986.

  The types of application in question are publicly recorded as being automatically referred to the Animal Procedures Committee (APC) for advice, before decisions are taken by or on behalf of the Secretary of State. For some types, this is in accordance with pledges given when the 1986 Act was passing through Parliament, while others are referred through arrangements agreed subsequently. Details are set out in various APC annual reports laid before both Houses.

  The APC has recently been considering which applications should be referred to it in future, and the chairman has put a number of recommendations to me.

  The APC recommends that three types of application, on which it is currently committed to give advice, no longer need to be among those listed as routinely referred to it. First, it no longer sees value in considering applications to use terminally anaesthetised rats for microsurgery training, since such cases are few and usually raise no particularly difficult or contentious issues. Secondly, it now sees no point in including in the automatic referral category applications to test tobacco products, since the established policy and practice has long been not to license such testing. (Tobacco is used in licensed animal studies investigating diseases, but its use in such cases is not itself regarded as a reason for referral.) Thirdly, the requirement to refer applications to test finished cosmetic products and ingredients has been similarly overtaken, in that the industry has agreed to make no further applications for this purpose, as it is Home Office policy not to license it.

  I have accepted the APC's recommendations as regards all these types of applications. They will with immediate effect no longer be regarded as ones to be automatically referred or to be recorded in that category. This change will make no significant or practical difference, other than saving processing time in the microsurgery training cases and avoiding unproductive use of Home Office and APC resources.

  The APC has also recommended that it should continue its current practice of advising on all the other applications that are by agreement referred to it as a matter of course. These are applications to use wild caught non-human primates, and to use any non-human primates in scientific procedures of substantial severity. It also wishes to keep the requirement that it should offer advice on applications of any kind raising novel or controversial issues, or giving rise to serious concerns.
  136WS
  Although there are relatively few of these applications, they are all of high or potentially high public concern. I fully accept that they should continue to be referred to the APC before licensing decisions are taken.

  Finally, the APC has indicated its view that it could usefully see other project licence applications, though it could consider only a very small number each year and is mindful of the need not to hold up unduly the processing of applications. Which additional applications it should he asked to advise on is a matter to be discussed further between the Home Office and the APC. Once that has been settled, I will make a further statement.

  Asylum Reform
  The Minister for Citizenship and Immigration (Beverley Hughes)
  On 27 October 2003 my right h on. Friend the Home Secretary and my right hon. and learned Friend The Lord Chancellor announced new legislative proposals for asylum reform. David Lammy and I wrote to a number of stakeholders outlining these proposals and inviting comments. Today we are publishing a summary report on the responses we received. Copies of this will be sent to those who responded to the letter as well as being placed in the Libraries of both Houses of Parliament and on the IND website. We will also be placing copies of the race equality impact assessments of the provisions contained in the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc) Bill in the Libraries of both Houses of Parliament.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Day Chocolate Company
  The Secretary of State for International Development (Hilary Benn)
  I have today laid before both Houses a Departmental Minute on a £400,000 contingent liability which the Department for International Department has entered into. Under this arrangement DFID will extend its guarantee on a commercial loan to the Day Chocolate Company, a fair trade company partly owned by the Kuapa Kokoo cocoa co-operative. This marketing channel provides co-operative members with direct benefits in the form of fair prices and community level projects. This is the first use of the power to provide financial assistance by way of a guarantee under the International Development Act 2002.

  Agriculture and Poverty Reduction
  The Secretary of State for International Development (Hilary Benn)
  The Department for International Development has published a new policy paper on Agriculture, "Agriculture and poverty reduction: unlocking the potential".

  The paper sets out DFID's commitment to agriculture as a fundamental part in the Government's approach to achieving the millennium development goals. The paper provides details of DFID's current activities in agriculture through both its central and country programmes, and outlines DFID's approach to

  137WS
  finding new ways of reversing agriculture's relative decline and stagnation in many of the world's poorest countries.

  A copy of this policy paper has been placed in the House of Commons Library, and comments are welcome. The contact point is agriculture@dfid.gov.uk.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Export of Works of Art Committee—2003–04 Report
  The Minister for the Arts (Estelle Morris)
  The 49th Report of the Reviewing Committee on the Export of Works of Art for 2002–03 has been laid before Parliament. The Reviewing Committee provides independent advice to the Minister of State for the Arts on whether cultural objects that are the subject of applications for export licences are of outstanding national importance, using the Waverley criteria. During the year, following recommendations from the Reviewing Committee, temporary bars were placed on the export of 23 items, including paintings, drawings, sculptures, armour and jewellery. Of these, 11 items, valued at 4.2 million, were purchased by institutions in the UK. The report contains the Reviewing Committee's comments on policy matters relating to the operation of the export control and the protection of cultural objects and details of each case considered during the reporting year 1 July 2002 to 30 June 2003.

  The Review will also be available on the DCMS website http://www.culture.gov.uk

CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS

  Land Registry
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs (Mr. David Lammy)
  Land Registry's revised framework document is published today. Copies have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Land Registry became an executive agency in July 1990 and a trading fund since 1993. During that period it has met improving financial, customer service and development targets whilst making land registration services progressively more efficient and cheaper.

  The framework document sets out the framework within which Land Registry operates. In particular, it describes the flexibilities it has in terms of financial and human resource management. It also sets out it responsibilities to its customers and its accountability to the Secretary of State and Lord Chancellor and to Parliament. The Document has been produced following a major review of Land Registry's status and business operations in 2000. The report of that review was published in 2001.

  On 13 October, the Land Registration Act 2002 was implemented signalling the most significant legislative reform for Land Registry since 1925. The changes to the operation of the Registry that have been brought about by the Act are reflected in the new document.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Oil Pipeline Project
  The Minister for Trade and Investment (Mr. Mike O'Brien)
  I have today accepted the recommendation from the Export Credits Guarantee Department (ECGD) that they should provide cover for a USD$150 million line of credit to finance UK contractors involved in the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan oil pipeline project.

  ECGD's decision was made after a rigorous assessment of the risks associated with the project and a thorough review of the environmental, social and human rights impacts arising from the project.

  A number of conditions remain to be fulfilled before ECGD's cover is made available, including final approval of the environmental and social action plan, and the general oil spill response plan. The project company has indicated that it will make copies of these plans publicly available in due course.

  ECGD has placed a note of the decision on its website and copies are available in the Library of the House.

CABINET OFFICE

  "Government by Appointment: Opening Up the Patronage State"
  The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Douglas Alexander)
  I have today published the Government's response to the Fourth Report of the Public Administration Select Committee, "Government by Appointment: Opening Up the Patronage State."

  I am grateful for the Committee's comprehensive and helpful report. We have considered the report in detail and undertaken in-depth consultation. The Government accept the majority of the Committee's recommendations and is already implementing some of them.

  The key features of the Government's response are:

  Undertaking a review of public bodies sponsored by central government

  The Government agree with the Committee that the variety and complexity of public bodies supports the need for a review of their definition and scope.

  Ensuring that information about Non Departmental Public Bodies is in the public domain

  The Government support the need for details of public bodies within the remit of Central Government to be in the public domain.

  The Commissioner for Public Appointments

  The Government agree with the Committee that the Commissioner is central to the integrity and good practice of public appointments. The Government will examine the Public Appointments Order in Council to see whether it needs to be strengthened in order that the independence of the Commissioner is assured. It will also update the schedule to the Order providing a definitive list of appointments regulated by the Commissioner. The Government do not agree with the recommendation that the Commissioner should be made solely responsible for appointing independent

  139WS
  assessors, but will explore further with the Commissioner how current arrangements operate to ensure that they are as robust as possible.

  Diversity

  The Government accept a number of recommendations designed to encourage and improve diversity in public appointments including developing and piloting shadowing, mentoring and board development schemes for groups that are currently under-represented on boards of public bodies.

  Public Appointments Commission

  The Government believe that it would be immensely difficult for a single body to cope with the diverse range of Non-Departmental Public Bodies and maintain that individual departments should continue to be responsible for appointments they sponsor. The Government recognise the value of having central teams in departments to advise on public appointments and work with sponsor teams. It also recognises that the NHS Appointments Commission is working well and some departments could benefit from using its services. The Government will be exploring this further.

  Copies of the Government's response (Cm 6056) have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Delivering Diversity in Public Appointments 2003–12–17
  The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Douglas Alexander)
  I have today published the new Delivering Diversity in Public Appointments 2003. This explains what each central Government department is doing to increase diversity on the boards of their public bodies.

  The report includes action plans for each department as well as details of progress to date. It also includes targets to increase the proportion of appointments held by women, people from ethnic minority backgrounds and disabled people to be achieved by 2006.

  The Government has two fundamental commitments that apply to public appointments. The first is that selection should be made on merit, using fair and open procedures that ensure the best available candidate is appointed to each post.

  The second is a commitment to improving diversity in public appointments and recognition that the boards of public bodies will be most effective if they benefit from access to a wide range of skills, experience and backgrounds among their members. In particular, the Government is committed to the equal representation of women and men in public appointments; pro rata representation of members of ethnic minority groups and increased participation of disabled people.

  The Government is keen to ensure that these commitments are met and that those serving on public bodies are representative of society as a whole. Progress has been made. But there is still much more to be done. I commend this new report, and the plans in departments to ensure that the targets they have set are met.

  The report can be found on the Internet at www.publicappointments.gov.uk of the report have also been placed in the Libraries of the House.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Export Control Act
  The Minister for Europe (Mr. Denis MacShane)
  The Government are introducing new controls to license the activities of those who trade in military goods between overseas countries (also known as trafficking and brokering); transfer technology for military goods by electronic means (e-mail, fax, etc.); transfer technology, by any means, for use in connection with WMD; and provide technical assistance for use in connection with WMD.

  These controls are contained in the Export of Goods, Transfer of Technology and Provision of Technical Assistance (Control) Order 2003 (SI 2003/2764) and the Trade in Goods (Control) Order 2003 (SI 2003.2765) and will come into force on 1 May 2004. Section 9(3) of the Export Control Act 2002 requires the Secretary of State to give guidance about the general principles to be followed when exercising licensing powers.

  The then Minister for Europe, my right hon. Friend, the Member for Neath (Mr. Hain), made a statement to Parliament on 26 October 2000, Official Report, column 200W, setting out the criteria that the Government will use in considering all individual applications for licences to export goods on the Military List, which forms Part III of Schedule 1 to the Export of Goods (Control) Order 1994; advance approvals for promotion prior to formal application for an export licence; and licence applications for the export of dual-use goods as specified in Annex 1 of Council Regulation (EC) 1334/2000 where there are grounds for believing that the end-user of such goods will be the armed forces or internal security forces or similar entities in the recipient country, or that the goods will be used to produce arms or other goods on the Military List for such end-users. On 8 July 2002, my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary set out how the Government approach export licence applications for goods where it is understood that the goods are to be incorporated into products for onward export Official Report, columns 652–54W.

  The Government have decided that it will continue to use these criteria, in the same way, in considering all individual applications for licences as set out in the new orders made under the Export Control Act 2002, taking account of the circumstances prevailing at the time and other announced Government policies.

  Democratic Republic of Congo
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Chris Mullin)
  The UN panel on the Illegal Exploitation of the Natural Resources of the Democratic Republic of Congo has now completed its work. It addressed one of the central and most contentious issues of the conflict in the DRC: the link between the causes of the conflict and the exploitation of natural resources. The panel's final report contains a number of important recommendations about how both the Congolese people and the international community should better manage the exploitation of resources to benefit the people of the DRC. Without losing sight of what has gone on before and the need for justice in appropriate cases, we need to build on many of its positive recommendations.
  141WS
  We agree with the panel, that the international community must support the Transitional National Government (TNG) in the DRC. We are already working with the new government in Congo and with international and regional partners to help develop its institutions and to put in place effective management of the country's natural resources. The huge potential of the Congo's natural resources should be exploited legally and in a regulated way, for the benefit of all Congolese. We want to see trade in natural resources become a cohesive factor in regional stability and not a cause of conflict.

  We are playing a leading role in helping the TNG make effective its anti-corruption commission. We are helping the new Government adhere to the Kimberley process on the regulated trade in diamonds, which is the country's most significant export. We have funded Global Witness to research and publish an independent preliminary report on resource exploitation, and we are planning to fund further research in this field. We are talking to the TNG about the extractive industries transparency initiative, which the Prime Minister launched in February 2003.

  We are also engaged in promoting confidence building measures in the region. We welcome the declaration on good neighbourliness made by the Governments of Rwanda, Uganda, Burundi and the DRC in New York on 25 September, which includes that there must be no illegal exploitation of the natural resources of the DRC. We encourage the states concerned to continue to follow this up with steps to address bilateral and multilateral issues of mutual concern.

  The illegal exploitation of resources in the DRC has served to fuel the conflict by funding arms flows. We need to ensure that the arms embargo on groups operating in the DRC is effectively implemented and monitored. We are playing a leading role through our mission in New York in supporting proposals for an arms embargo monitoring mechanism.

  As well as looking forward, we need to address what has happened in the past. We take seriously the allegations made against the British companies named in the report. We have already pursued these allegations: the Department of Trade and Industry, as national contact point for Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development guidelines has scrutinised the dossiers referred to it by the UN panel and has been in contact with the named companies or their representatives to discuss the allegations. Her Majesty's Customs and Excise have studied the UN panel's papers relating to the UK companies named in the report, but have been unable to take matters further, due to lack of evidence which would be sufficient to mount a criminal investigation. We are disappointed that despite numerous appeals to the panel to furnish detailed information to substantiate its allegations, we have not received any such information. We cannot now pursue the cases named in the report further without more specific information. There is so far no evidence that named companies have breached either OECD guidelines or UK law. We continue to ask the UN to supply us with the information on which the panel based its allegations. We also urge the non-governmental organisation community to submit any specific information it may have to the national contact point.
  142WS
  We continue to press regional states to investigate and, where appropriate, take action on the allegations made in the panel reports. In this respect we welcome the publication of the conclusions of the commission of inquiry established by the Ugandan Government. We remain in close contact with the Government of Uganda on follow-up work to the commission's report. We also welcome the establishment of a judicial commission by the Rwandan Government and urge it to publicise the results of its investigations.

  The panel's final report included a section which the panel chose not to make public, but which was submitted on a confidential basis to the Security Council. It is not appropriate for us to comment on this, but as far as we are aware, none of the companies or individuals named in the confidential section is of British nationality.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Autumn Performance Report
  The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr. Andrew Smith)
  I am pleased to announce the publication of the 2003 autumn performance report of the Department for Work and Pensions (Cm 6044). The report is intended to supplement the Department's annual report published in May (Cm 5424).

  The report provides the latest account of how the Department is performing against its public service agreement targets. A copy has been placed in the Library. Further copies are available to hon. Members in the Vote Office.

DEFENCE

  Project Aquatrine
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Ivor Caplin)
  NEVIS Water has today been announced as the preferred bidder for the third and final contract for Project Aquatrine, which will provide water and wastewater services to Ministry of Defence (MOD) sites within Scotland.

  Project Aquatrine is one of the Government's leading and most significant Public Private Partnership (PPP) projects and will transfer the responsibility for the operation and maintenance of the Department's water and waste water assets and infrastructure throughout Great Britain to private sector providers. This project will enable the transfer of environmental risk to those in the private sector who are best placed to manage it. This 25-year contract will enable the MOD to exit a non-core activity and concentrate its efforts on delivering military capability.

  This contract is expected to go live in November 2004 following a pre-commencement period.

  This announcement follows the appointment of BREY Utilities for Package A in April 2003, which went live on 1 December 2003 and the appointment of C2C, on 12 November 2003, as Preferred Bidder for Package C.

  Private Finance Initiative
  The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Mr. Adam Ingram)
  We intend to enter into a number of public-private partnerships, which will bring greater flexibility to our armed forces and increase the involvement of our defence industrial base. Under the Private Finance Initiative deal, the Amey Lex Consortium has been chosen as the preferred bidder to provide the C Vehicle Capability for the services, both in peacetime and for forces on operations.

  The contract will cover all heavy plant equipment as well as logistic support and construction machines required by the armed forces. Many of these components are used in digging, dozing, lifting and transporting. The great utility of this equipment could
  144WS
  be seen on recent operations, building and maintaining the infrastructure for our troops. The contract is valued at over £500 million for the 15-year period.

  Among the benefits are a more rapid fleet turnover, which will allow changes in technology and fleet management processes to be introduced more quickly and will reduce the maintenance and supply burden thereby benefiting front-line troops. The best elements of commercial practise will be used to support maintenance and repair, providing the opportunity to reduce spares holdings and to adopt a strategic pooling approach to the provision of the capability.

  This is an excellent opportunity for defence suppliers to play a major part in ensuring our military capability is truly flexible in order to meet our future commitments.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of St Albans.

The Lord Chancellor: Leave of Absence
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Falconer of Thoroton):My Lords, before business begins, may I take the opportunity to inform the House that I shall be attending a Cabinet meeting tomorrow? Accordingly, I trust that the House will grant me leave of absence.

Royal Assent
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Act:
Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Act.

Iraqi Citizens: Civilian and Military Casualties
2.36 p.m.
Lord Juddasked Her Majesty's Government:
What are their policies towards the deaths and injuries of both civilian and military Iraqi citizens and the welfare of their dependants during and since the 2003 war in Iraq.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Bach): My Lords, every effort is made to minimise the impact of military operations on the Iraqi civilian population, and we deeply regret all civilian casualties. Since 1st May 2003, we have investigated every civilian fatality allegedly caused by UK military personnel, sometimes resulting in a formal investigation by the Special Investigation Branch.
We treat claims for compensation in respect of civilians who have allegedly been killed or injured by UK forces since 1st May on their merits, in accordance with English law. We have no liability to pay compensation in respect of Iraqis killed or injured during combat operations.
Lord Judd: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply, but does he not agree that if the peace and reconciliation for which the Prime Minister has so wisely called is to succeed, it really is essential to recognise officially and fulsomely that many thousands of innocent civilians have died in the cause which we believe to be just? Does he not further agree that many of those serving in the Iraqi forces were
1144
already victims because in effect they had been forced into the ranks of the tyrannous regime and died not of their own volition and unwilling to fight? Does he not also agree that, in the wider cause of winning hearts and minds in the battle against global terrorism, it is essential for us to demonstrate magnanimity, generosity and, in the forthcoming trial, a commitment to exemplary standards of justice?
Lord Bach: My Lords, I agree with all the three questions posed by my noble friend. He is absolutely right to say that there is a duty on us to be magnanimous and generous and, of course, to ensure that any trials are conducted fairly and in accordance with justice. I would go further and say that the example set by the British Armed Forces during the course of their appearance in Iraq and what they have done since hostilities ended is, to be frank, a superb example of how a peacekeeping force should behave. No one could accuse our Armed Forces of not acting magnanimously, generously and with enormous sensitivity in what is sometimes an extremely difficult situation.
Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, the case of Ali, the limbless boy from Iraq, leaves one of the lasting impressions of the war with Iraq. By the way, he has had new limbs fitted and, I am told, is now doing well here in this country. What are the Government doing to rebuild the spinal injuries unit in Baghdad in order to provide vital and what are arguably basic services to citizens injured in a similar manner, but who are unable to receive the same support as Ali?
Lord Bach: My Lords, I cannot answer the specific question put to me by the noble Baroness, but I can say that we are doing much to help the health sector, which is a crucial sector in the recovery of Iraq from its present state.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, how many civilian casualties have been recorded in the south of Iraq? I recognise the good practice undertaken by British forces, can the Minister tell us whether talks have taken place with the American forces over whether they should even record civilian deaths caused by their own soldiers?
Lord Bach: My Lords, I would rather not answer the question about whether talks have taken place with our American coalition partners. However, I can talk about what has been done in our sector. We record all incidents involving fatalities but we cannot always ascertain the resultant number. In some incidents, particularly those such as ambushes and fire fights, the Iraqi injured and dead are in fact taken away by their compatriots. During other incidents, members of our forces have themselves been forced temporarily to withdraw. So we have no reliable means of ascertaining the numbers of fatalities and injuries resulting from such incidents. That does not stop us trying, and at the present time we are trying to gain an indication of the kind of numbers asked for by the

1145
noble Lord. That is not an easy task. When we do have clearer figures, I will write to the noble Lord and put those results in the Library of the House.
The Lord Bishop of Rochester: My Lords, what are the Government doing to strengthen civil society in Iraq, particularly the role of faith communities in delivering welfare to the needy of all kinds?
Lord Bach: My Lords, as regards faith communities, we are taking a leading role in organising meetings to ensure that the religious divide in that country is narrowed as best we can. The British are doing a huge amount in every field, including the one to which the right reverend Prelate particularly referred, to bring people together rather than let them stay apart.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, what steps are being taken specifically to deal with injuries to children? My noble friend will remember that in the run up to the war a number of noble Lords begged that cluster bombs should not be used. They were, of course, used. It is probable that there is a great deal of unexploded ordnance about which poses a continuing danger to children. What is being done to clear it up? Are any special steps being taken in relation to children's injuries?
Lord Bach: My Lords, as regards children, we consider particular requests that come in. We are doing a great deal of work with the hospitals that are now up and running again. I should remind my noble friend that cluster munitions are considered to be lawful weaponry in international law. During the course of the conflict they provided a unique capability against certain legitimate military targets such as dispersed armoured units.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, does my noble friend accept that his assertion that trials should be conducted fairly and in the interests of justice is wholly to be applauded? Has that been communicated to the United States? How consistent with his assertion are the assertions of President Bush, who has called for the death penalty for Saddam Hussein.
Lord Bach: My Lords, of course the United States and the United Kingdom talk together about these matters. Indeed, my noble friend will have heard President Bush talking about the necessity for a proper and fair trial.

European Union: Common Embassies
2.46 p.m.
Lord Harrisonasked Her Majesty's Government:
In view of the expected accession of 10 countries to the European Union, what opportunities they see in establishing, in conjunction with the European Commission, common embassies with other member states.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, the British Government have no plans to establish common embassies with other member states or common missions overseas with the European Commission, although we have welcomed the proposal to redesignate the 138 European Commission offices overseas as European Union delegations.
Lord Harrison: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. Given that the establishment of EU common embassies on single sites will afford embassy staff greater protection from terrorist attack; will give the EU a sharper image; will provide greater opportunities for accession countries; and will provide British and European citizens and businessmen and women with better services, will she not revive the proposal lost in the IGC of turning the EU Commission offices into EU embassies in order to fulfil the aims I have described and to support the putative EU Common Foreign Minister?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, my noble friend makes an interesting suggestion. However, there is a difference between the co-location of embassies on a single site—which may deliver on the kinds of points he raises, particularly in relation to security, which is a matter of growing interest—and a common embassy. We have co-locations—for example, in Tanzania—and the Foreign Office is considering ways of improving the security of a number of our embassies which are considered to be vulnerable, but I draw a distinction between a common embassy and co-location. The one is not an issue to which we shall return; however, it is sensible to consider the other in the light of the issues raised by my noble friend.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, can the Minister inform the House—perhaps by a common letter—with which embassies in third countries do we now share services, not only location, with others? I recall that when I was in Reykjavik, someone noted that the British and German embassies there now share security and some common conference rooms, for example. I understand that the same takes place in some central Asian countries. Did the British Government support the proposal for a commonly staffed EU external representation service put forward in the IGC?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, as to the noble Lord's first point, I shall be very happy to provide him with a list. Off the top of my head, the one I can think of is in Tanzania. However, I should stress that it is one thing to talk about common services on issues such as security, but it is a very different thing to talk about having a common core to policies when we have made a point of ensuring that CFSP remains an intergovernmental rather than a Commission issue. As the noble Lord knows, we were very keen on that in the recent IGC.

1147
The noble Lord also raised the issue of the European external action service. We have been very interested in this but, as the noble Lord will know, it was dependent on a successful outcome to the IGC. That issue will have to await further discussion on the point made at the IGC about bringing together the Patten post and the Solana post.
Lord Tomlinson: My Lords—
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords—
Lord Wright of Richmond: My Lords—
Noble Lords: Chalker.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I hear my name being mentioned far too many times. Can the noble Baroness tell us what is happening about the cross-training between embassy staff, which was started some years ago, to try to provide better co-operation? While I support what she said about maintaining separate embassies in the EC, it is important that there is a greater understanding between those who work on EC matters in capitals. If she does not have the answer, perhaps she would write to me.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the cross-training will concern issues where there is an EU competence- the issues in Christopher Patten's remit of aid and trade. Of course, I understand the noble Baroness's interest regarding aid. I understand that progress is being made, particularly with the French, on some of these issues. I cannot give the her a full list of the countries involved, although my noble friend is telling me that we are giving support to countries that are taking on the presidency. I can write to the noble Baroness and give her a further detailed breakdown. There is not, however, training on issues surrounding CFSP, and 1 think it is important to maintain that distinction. Those of your Lordships who sat into the wee small hours discussing these matters will know how important that has been to many.
Lord Wright of Richmond: My Lords, is the Minister aware that during my three ambassadorial postings, it was the custom to have regular meetings not only between the ambassadors of the EU in the post concerned but also between our commercial secretaries? It was also quite common practice for all of us to send a combined, concerted report to our respective Foreign Offices on political questions and, perhaps rather more importantly, on economic questions.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I am aware of that and am happy to say that concerning issues such as aid and commercial issues in particular, the Foreign Office still upholds that practice. The noble Lord will understand that on some matters of foreign policy, however, this has not been a particularly fruitful year in that respect.
Lord Tomlinson: My Lords, as we are talking both in the convention and in the intergovernmental conference about a community of sovereign nation states, does it not therefore become imperative that those sovereign nation states have separate diplomatic representation on matters that are of import principally to them?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: Yes, my Lords, that is very much the point I was endeavouring to make about the difference between co-location and having a sovereign embassy. There is no suggestion that the European external action service and the EU delegations should replace national diplomatic representation. It is enormously important to stress that. The draft treaty states that the external action service shall work in,
"co-operation with the diplomatic services of the Member Slates", and that Union delegations shall operate,
"in close co-operation with the Member States' diplomatic missions".
I think that makes the distinction very clear.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, did I understand from the noble Baroness's reply to the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, that the project for a European external diplomatic corps has now been pushed into the long grass, along with the whole constitution project?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, we have not dealt with how the IGC will now be dealt with by the Irish presidency. If I may say so very gently, the noble Lord is leaping ahead a few steps in that thought progression. It is now for the Irish to look at the ways in which they wish to progress what has happened following the IGC. The Taoiseach has made it very clear that he wants to have a round of discussions first and that he does not see there being any progress in the immediate future—that is, in the next few weeks—but we will have to wait and see how his discussions progress.

Government Key Performance Targets
2.55 p.m.
Lord Renton of Mount Harryasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they remain confident of the validity of their key performance targets.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the Government set key performance targets as part of public service agreements which have already delivered higher educational standards, shorter hospital waiting times and reduced crime. The PSA framework is one of many public service reforms that puts the UK at the forefront of international best practice. The Government are currently investigating ways to

1149
achieve greater decentralised delivery and responsive local and regional services, consistent with a clear framework of national standards.
Lord Renton: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for his Answer, I have to say that I find it gloriously over-optimistic. May I remind him of Goodhart's law, promulgated by the eminent economist, Charles Goodhart? When a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure. Why? Because it leads to all sorts of tricks determined simply to achieve the target.
May I give the Minister the example of Lewes prison? For a long time, it was 133 out of 135 in the good prison list. Then, over two years, it suddenly became number 4, temporarily. Why? Because a new prison governor arrived who knew which boxes to tick—no suicides, no escapes. But equally, prison visitors tell me, there have been no long-term improvements in the prison. Is it not just that which leads to the huge cynicism about the Government's claims for public services?
Lord Davies of Oldham: Well, my Lords, I do not think there is huge cynicism about targets. I think everybody recognises that targets are a very important part of any organisation's achievements. They certainly are for government. Why does the noble Lord think that 30 countries, including those in the European Community, are beating a path to the Treasury door to look at the way in which we are improving public services, measuring them and increasing accountability, which must be a major aim of any democratic administration?
Baroness Noakes: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the achievement of targets needs to be independently monitored? If so, can he explain why the Government have just stripped the Commission for Integrated Transport of that role in relation to their transport policies?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the way in which targets are monitored is subject to very intensive scrutiny. The noble Baroness will be aware that both the Audit Commission and the Select Committee on Public Accounts have looked very closely at government targets. It is not the case that there is no independent scrutiny of Government achievement against their targets. In the spirit of openness, and the recognition that no target would be meaningful if it were easily achieved, the Government have indicated areas in which they recognise they are falling short of certain targets in very limited areas.
Lord McColl of Dulwich: My Lords, is the Minister aware that it is very easy to reach waiting list targets when it comes to being seen in out-patient clinics? The hospitals will tell patients, "We can't put you on the
1150
waiting list for an out-patient appointment now, but if you contact us in two months, we will do it". It is a very easy way of achieving the targets.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, because there has been a criticism of some aspects of the out-patients list, we are looking again at that crucial question of the way in which national targets are interpreted on the ground. As I emphasised in my initial Answer, the next stage in our thinking must clearly be to look at the targets which are set for front-line workers in order that they achieve realistic objectives consistent with the strategy they are following against the national perspective. Waiting lists fit into that category.
Lord Newby: My Lords, we welcome the Minister's statement that the Government are in favour of greater decentralised target setting. Have he and the Government taken note of the recent NAO report about the way in which the RDAs operate, and targets operate in that respect? The report said that stakeholders—that is, those who actually have to make the thing work—report a sense of ownership of regional economic strategies but not of national targets. Will he therefore urge his colleagues in government to implement the NAO recommendation in the report that the regional development agencies target framework should be greatly simplified?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I largely agree with the noble Lord. The National Audit Office report, which was of very great use both to the Government and the nation in that area of effective administration, identified that we needed to move away from the emphasis on the central target position to the more devolved one. The regional development agencies have a crucial role to play in that, so I largely agree with the sentiment that the noble Lord expressed.
Lord Renton of Mount Harry: My Lords, I have a further supplementary question. I am in favour of tuition fees, because they make a lot of sense. I declare an interest as a member of the council of Sussex University. Why do the Government stick to the target that 50 per cent of all those who take GCSE exams should go to university? That takes no account at all of the number of young people who have the brains, the ability or the inclination to go to university. Surely, it would be wise to drop that target.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the House is aware of the extensive expansion of university education over the past two decades. The noble Lord could have expressed exactly that sentiment when the number attending higher education was as low as 25 or 30 per cent. It is now up to 41 per cent. We are talking not about school leavers but about people between the ages of 18 and 30 experiencing higher education, and we are saying that half our nation should aspire to having that opportunity. That is from the perspective of most of our international competitors from advanced nations having far higher participation in higher education than even 50 per cent.

Stem Cell Research: EU Tissues Directive
3.2 p.m.
Lord Jenkin of Rodingasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the United Kingdom would be bound by amendments to the European tissues directive which ban the use in research of embryonic stem cells and stem cells from cloned embryos.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Warner): My Lords, the European Parliament voted on 16th December to accept amendments to the European directive, which will enable vital research on embryonic stem cells and stem cells from cloned embryos to continue. The directive safeguards high levels of safety and quality for all human tissues and cells, using human applications such as transplantation.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, the Minister will recognise that that happened only yesterday, while my Question was tabled over the weekend. The compromise reached between the Council and the European Parliament will be extremely welcome, not least to the many scientists in this country engaged in this enormously important field of research. I should also add that I am grateful to his private office for bringing me up to date on the matter, as the procedures are extremely opaque.
Would the Minister not agree that the people who are opposed to that kind of research an: not going to go away, and that there may be occasions in future when exactly the same threat is posed to stem cell research being done in this country? Will he give the House an undertaking that, in the light of all the votes and debates that we have had, and the number of Select Committees that have considered the issue, there is no risk of us being told to desist such research by a European institution? Such a result would be utterly unacceptable.
Lord Warner: My Lords, I am grateful for the noble Lord's remarks. He is correct in saying that we have had nearly two decades of extensive public and parliamentary debate on many of these issues and reached a decision supported by a large majority of Parliament and the public. In our negotiations over the directive, we have made clear the UK's position and have spent a lot of time dealing with MEPs. I pay tribute to the cross-party support we have received from MEPs from the UK in that area. We have been clear about our objectives with those who take a different view from us. We have been clear about the need to protect patient safety but also not to thwart promising scientific research that would help thousands if not millions of patients in the longer term.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I, too, welcome very much the result yesterday in the European Parliament, and the compromise reached with the Council. I am very much at one with the noble Lord,
1152
Lord Jenkin, on that. However, is not the next task to persuade the EU to fund research in that area? Despite the Minister's comments, a significant number of Conservative MEPs expressed their disagreement with that funding. How would the Minister advise us how best to use the offices of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, in that respect to persuade them that we need that funding?
Lord Warner: My Lords, the noble Lord is quite right. However, my understanding from the Commission is that, although there was some disagreement over the funding of research at the Council of Ministers on 3rd December, under the present legal interpretation there is nothing to stop the programme of research on stem cells continuing. We always welcome contributions from all sides of this House in trying to push our concerns in Brussels.
The Lord Bishop of Rochester: My Lords, would the Minister agree that what happens to research on embryonic stem cells depends very much on what happens with research on adult cells?
Lord Warner: My Lords, we have been over that ground many times, and we believe that it is important to have stem cells available both from adults and embryos as part of pursing promising areas of research of benefit to patients.
Lord Walton of Detchant: My Lords, is the Minister aware that following the acceptance by Parliament of the amendments to the human fertilisation and embryology legislation last year, many licences are now being awarded by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority for such research in this country? Is he also aware that the favourable atmosphere towards stem cell research, with potential inestimable benefit to human health in the UK, has resulted in several distinguished scientists from countries from across the world, including the United States, coming to work in the UK? Is that not a position that we should protect at all costs?
Lord Warner: My Lords, the noble Lord is of course quite right. We share his views on the matter.
Lord Turnberg: My Lords, is it not the case that we have in this country a very robust regulatory mechanism based on sound scientific and ethical principles? I take the opportunity of commending my noble friend the Minister on the hard work that he and his officials have done in bringing this matter to a satisfactory conclusion.
Lord Warner: My Lords, my noble friend is quite right. That is why we have been able to demonstrate to other countries that there is a rigorous system for monitoring activity in this area, which made a contribution to the successful negotiations that have taken place.
Lord Patel: My Lords, I declare an interest, in that I am the chairman of the Steering Committee for the

1153
UK Stem Cell Bank. In that role, I ask the Minister to tell the House what stand the United Kingdom is taking in the United Nations on the subject. I am pleased to have his reassurances, and I am sure that the scientists of the United Kingdom will be very pleased with both yesterday's development and his reassurance that the United Kingdom will now pursue the release of EU funding for embryonic stem cell research. The stem cell research has been approved, but the money is required for embryonic stem cell research.
Lord Warner: My Lords, the noble Lord may be referring to some of the discussions in the United Nations on reproductive and therapeutic cloning. We have made our position clear in our unwavering support to maintain the ability to carry out therapeutic cloning in this country.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I wonder if I could press the Minister further on the Question asked by my noble friend Lord Jenkin. Can he confirm that stem cell research is defined by the European Union as an ethical issue and therefore not a matter on which the European Parliament has powers to legislate? Will subsidiarity continue to apply on issues of this kind?
Lord Warner: My Lords, that is exactly the line of argument that the Government have pursued in these discussions. I have personally made that view known to a number of MEPs on behalf of the Government.

Middle East Peace Process
3.10 p.m.
Lord Wright of Richmondasked Her Majesty's Government:
What progress has been made on the road map for the Middle East peace process, and in particular on the removal of Israeli settlements from the West Bank and Gaza.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, despite the undertakings made at the Aqaba Summit, neither side has met its road map obligations. Israel has implemented neither the settlement freeze nor the dismantling of settlement outposts erected since March 2001. The Palestinian Authority has not begun sustained, targeted and effective operations against terrorists. Both sides should now simultaneously fulfil the obligations they have both accepted under phase one of the road map.
Lord Wright of Richmond: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. In spite of the current very welcome lull in violence on both sides, can she confirm that the so-called security fence, which is still being constructed, will place 15 per cent of the West Bank— home to 274,000 Palestinians—in Israeli territory, thus disrupting the lives of 680,000 Palestinians? Those figures come from the United Nations report. Can the
1154
Minister also confirm that Prime Minister Sharon has announced that he intends to build hundreds of new housing units in Jewish settlements deep inside the West Bank and Gaza, and that he has allocated vast sums from Israel's budget for their enlargement? What action is being taken either by HMG or by the quartet to draw these violations to the attention of the Israeli Government and, indeed, to world opinion?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, as the noble Lord says, there is a welcome lull in the violence. I believe that it is now some two calendar months since any serious terrorist incident such as suicide bombings has occurred. However, the noble Lord is right to say that, despite that, a great deal of activity is taking place around the security fence. Particularly worrying is the treatment of the Palestinians within the closed zones in the security fence area and the way in which individuals become separated from their land or have to obtain licences in order to farm the land that they have owned for many years.
The noble Lord is also right to draw our attention to questions surrounding settlement activity. On 23rd October the housing ministry invited tenders for some 143 new apartments in the Karnei Shomron settlement in the north-west of the West Bank, and another 180 north of Jerusalem. All these matters are brought to the attention of the Israeli authorities by members of the quartet, including the Foreign Secretary and myself. We also, of course, turn to our allies in the quartet to do the same. I am happy to say that on 25th November the United States was moved to cut some 289.5 million dollars from loan guarantees in the wake of the increasing Israeli expenditure across the green line, so the United States is also bringing pressure to bear.
Lord Steel of Aikwood: My Lords, having seen this wall or fence for myself a few weeks ago, does the Minister accept that not only are the figures that the noble Lord, Lord Wright, gave correct, but that the wall itself divides communities, farms and, in one case, a university campus? Why, therefore, is the international community being so meek and mild in the face of a blatant breach of both international law and basic human rights?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I do not accept that the international community is being quite as weak-kneed as the noble Lord suggests. I, too, have seen the fence recently. I know exactly what it is like and I can see the way in which it divides communities. Indeed, I offered my observations on that to the noble Lord, Lord Wright. However, it is important not to lose sight of why the Israelis think that this fence is important. There is a genuine security issue for Israel. Let us not lose sight of that, because once we do, we lose sight of what is at the root of this problem. We lose sight of the fact that there really is a security problem for Israel but that the way that Israel has chosen to deal with it is to build a wall or fence— call it what you will—which in terms of international law is in entirely the wrong place. While we criticise only one side and not the other, we shall simply not

1155
make progress. In my initial Answer I stressed that it is up to both sides simultaneously to address the obligations that they have both made.
Lord Tomlinson: My Lords, has my noble friend reached any conclusion about the outcome of the Geneva Accord and whether the combined efforts of a former Minister, Mr Yossi Belin, on the Israeli side and a Palestinian Minister will make any progress towards making the road map a more useful contribution towards securing peace in the Middle East? Do Her Majesty's Government have any plans to meet the participants in the Geneva Accord?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, we discussed the Geneva Accord the other clay and I said to your Lordships then that although we did not think that the Geneva Accord took the place of the road map, it has been a very welcome development in providing another avenue of discussion. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister gave it some warm words of welcome in that context when it was published recently. My noble friend asks about any plans to meet the authors. Should the authors seek to have a meeting in the United Kingdom, of course we would do our utmost to accommodate that at an appropriate level within the Government.
The Lord Bishop of St Albans: My Lords, sometimes an unjustifiable link is made between behaviour in Israel and the rise in anti-Semitism in this country. Is the Minister able to make clear what the Government are already doing to counter the growth of anti-Semitism in the United Kingdom and in continental Europe?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I am happy to say that when I was in Israel I was able to tell the Israeli Government that the United Kingdom would be part of an OECD initiative on anti-Semitism. The right reverend Prelate has put his finger on a very important point. There had been some initial reluctance on the matter. However, it is important that the United Kingdom is seen to take a full and active part in dealing with something that many people believe is becoming an increasing scourge.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, is there any hope to be drawn from the report that Mr Sharon will meet Ahmed Qurei shortly and propose some new version of a Palestine, albeit divided up into cantons? It does not sound very hopeful, but can any positive conclusions be drawn from that?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I am not in a position to say. I am aware of the development to which the noble Lord alludes. He may be interested to know that some people are speculating on what may be said in a speech that Mr Sharon has scheduled for later this week. At this stage I cannot tell the noble Lord how we believe that will develop. He will no
1156
doubt hear the speech when we do. I hope that we shall be able to see at least some glimmer of hope of a move in the right direction.
Lord Kilclooney: My Lords—

Business
3.18 p.m.
Lord Grocott: My Lords, with the leave of the House, immediately after the Question is put on the Motion moved by the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees regarding the Procedure Committee, my noble friend Lord Warner will repeat a Statement on a development in variant CJD.

European Parliamentary and Local Elections (Pilots) Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and ordered to be printed.

Administration and Works
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, I beg to move the first Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. In doing so, I should point out that the Committee of Selection agreed to appoint the Lord Bishop of Guildford to the Administration and Works Committee. However, the Lord Bishop of Guildford has been translated to the diocese of Chelmsford. Therefore, this Motion will reappoint the same person to the Administration and Works Committee but under his new title.
Moved, That the Bishop of Chelmsford be appointed a member of the Select Committee.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Merits of Statutory Instruments
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. This Motion establishes a new committee to consider the merits of statutory instruments. The terms of reference follow those proposed by the Procedure Committee in its third report of the last Session, except that the Motion appoints 11 members to the committee instead of the nine originally suggested. That change has been agreed by the usual channels and the Committee of Selection.
Moved, That a Select Committee be appointed to consider every instrument which is laid before each House of Parliament and upon which proceedings may be or might have been taken in either House of Parliament, in pursuance of an Act of Parliament, being:

(i) a statutory instrument, or a draft of a statutory instrument;

1157

(ii) a scheme, or an amendment of a scheme, or a draft thereof, requiring approval by statutory instrument; or

(iii) any other instrument (whether or not in draft), where the proceedings in pursuance of an Act of Parliament are proceedings by way of an affirmative or negative resolution;

but excluding any Order in Council or draft Order in Council made or proposed to be made under paragraph 1 of the Schedule to the Northern Ireland Act 2000 and any remedial order or draft remedial order under Schedule 2 to the Human Rights Act 1998 and any draft order proposed to be made under Section 1 of the Regulatory Reform Act 2001, or any subordinate provisions order made or proposed to be made under that Act;
with a view to determining whether the special attention of the House should be drawn to it on any of the following grounds:

(a) that it is politically or legally important or gives rise to issues of public policy likely to be of interest to the House;

(b) that it is inappropriate in view of the changed circumstances since the passage of the parent Act;

(c) that it inappropriately implements European Union legislation;

(d) that it imperfectly achieves its policy objectives;

That, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the following Lords be named of the committee:

L. Addington,

L. Armstrong of Ilminster,

L. Boston of Faversham,

V. Colville of Culross,

L. Desai,

L. Graham of Edmonton,

L. Hunt of Kings Heath (Chairman),

L. Jopling,

L. Methuen,

E. Northesk,

V. Ullswater;

That the committee have power to appoint specialist advisers;
That the committee have power to adjourn from place to place within the United Kingdom;
That the committee have leave to report from time to time;
That the reports of the Select Committee from time to time shall be printed, notwithstanding any adjournment of the House.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Disability Discrimination
The Lord President of the Council (Baroness Amos):
My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
1158
Moved, That it is expedient that a Joint Committee of Lords and Commons be appointed to consider and report on the draft Disability Discrimination Bill presented to both Houses on 3rd December (Cm 6058), and that the committee should report on the draft Bill by the end of April 2004.—(Baroness Amos.)
Lord Higgins: My Lords, I believe that it would be helpful to your Lordships and to those concerned with disability issues outside Parliament if the noble Baroness the Leader of the House could explain why it is expedient to set up this joint committee. Naturally, I had given her notice that I intended to raise the matter this afternoon.
The usual channels recognise that pre-legislative scrutiny may be helpful, but the selection of this Bill for that procedure seems to be rather odd. As I pointed out in the debate on the Loyal Address, such a proposal for a Bill of this kind has been government policy for a very long time. However, it has been discussed and consultation has taken place for about six years. So far as I can establish, there are no major matters of disagreement—certainly none which could not be dealt with by the normal committee procedure.
As I am sure the noble Baroness will be aware, among outside groups which are concerned with these issues there has been considerable disappointment that the Government have come forward with a draft rather than a substantive Bill. Are the Government prepared to consider whether it is appropriate for it to be dealt with in the way that the Government have proposed or, at any rate, can the noble Baroness give an assurance that, if we go ahead with the committee, at least a substantive Bill will be introduced in this Session? The matter has been delayed for a very long time and further procrastination seems to be unnecessary.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Higgins. He said that a great deal of concern had been expressed about the fact that the Bill would go through pre-legislative scrutiny. My understanding is that when my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions announced in January that we would publish a draft Disability Discrimination Bill, that announcement was widely welcomed. Those doing so included the chair of the Disability Rights Commission. I am not entirely sure what has happened between January and now to change the minds of those who welcomed such a move at that time.
The reason that we have gone down this route is that we want good scrutiny of the Bill to take place. Before a substantive Bill is brought before Parliament, we want to iron out any concerns between the different stakeholders and between the two Houses. I am very pleased that it will be a Joint Committee of both Houses.
With regard to my giving a commitment on a substantive Bill being introduced this Session, the noble Lord will be aware that I am unable to do so. We made a commitment to pre-legislative scrutiny this

1159
Session, but I cannot make any commitments in relation to future Sessions because I cannot anticipate the Queen's Speech.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, I am most grateful for the response of the noble Baroness the Leader of the House. However, following the announcement in the Queen's Speech that it would be a draft Bill, certainly the strong reaction among a number of the bodies concerned with these issues was one of disappointment that there would not be a substantive Bill. Following six years of consultation in which, I understand, there was general consensus on these matters, it is not clear exactly what we shall gain by further delay and pre-legislative scrutiny. There is great concern that the passage of the legislation may not be completed before the end of the Parliament, despite the Government's commitment to it. Therefore, as the deadline of April next year is not unreasonable, I ask the noble Baroness seriously to consider whether there will be time to deal with the Bill in this Session. Will she at least say that she will reconsider the matter?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I cannot give such an undertaking. The Government remain committed to this legislation and that is why we brought it forward. We remain committed to dealing with all stages of the legislation when it is introduced in substantive form. We are pleased that it has been brought forward for pre-legislative scrutiny precisely because we want to ensure that we get it right.
On Question, Motion agreed to; and a message was ordered to be sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith.

Procedure of the House: Select Committee Report
3.25 p.m.
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I beg to move the third Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. In doing so, I should say a word or two of clarification, particularly with regard to the proposals for Thursday sittings. The Procedure Committee sent a short questionnaire to all Members of the House to determine the preferred pattern for Thursday sittings. The clear majority of those who returned the form wished the House to sit at 11 a.m., with Starred Questions at the start, and the House to rise at about 7 p.m. Accordingly, the committee makes that recommendation.
The committee made a further tentative recommendation that, when the main business of the day is the Committee or later stages of a Bill, the House should break for one hour at 1.30 p.m. in order to give those involved in the Bill a break. Other business, such as an Unstarred Question, would be taken in the lunch break. No break would be taken where the main business was a Second Reading, a debate or a series of different items. As at present, it is not the intention that the House should simply adjourn during pleasure without business of any kind.
1160
The committee was divided on that issue. Therefore, the report was written with the option of omitting three paragraphs so that the House itself could decide. If the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Carter, is agreed to, the House will normally consider the main business of the day from 11.30 a.m. until about 5.30 p.m., when an Unstarred Question or other business could follow. If the amendment is disagreed to, the House will break for an Unstarred Question or other business at 1.30 p.m., but only if the main business is the Committee or later stages of a Bill. That will mean that the main business of the day will conclude at about 6.30 or 7 p.m.
The report also makes proposals regarding the rotation rule and written ministerial Statements. I hope that those items are self-explanatory. However, if any noble Lord so wishes, I am happy to provide further explanations.
Moved, That the First Report from the Select Committee be agreed to (HL Paper 6).—(The Chairman of Committees.)
Following is the report referred to:
1. THURSDAY SITTINGS

In our Fourth Report of last session we recorded that we were circulating a short questionnaire to all members of the House, to be returned by Friday 10 October, seeking views on the timing of Thursday sittings.
By the closing date we had received 368 responses, expressing views as follows:

Option 1 (Thursday sittings to continue as at present):

63 (17.1 per cent)

Option 2 (House sits at 3.00 p.m., rises by about 10.00 p.m.):

100 (27.2 per cent)

Option 3 (House sits at 11.00 a.m. with Starred Questions at the start, rises by about 7.00 p.m.):

200(54.3percent)

Other:

5 (1.4 per cent)

In view of the clear majority for option 3, we accordingly recommend that, from the start of 2004, the House should sit from 11.00 a.m. to about 7.00 p.m. on Thursdays. Starred Questions should be taken at the beginning of business.
We recognise that, when the main business is a committee or later stage of a bill, it may be unreasonable to expect those involved to continue all day without a break. One suggestion made to the Committee was that the business concerned should end at 5.30 p.m., and be followed by an Unstarred Question or other business until 7.00 p.m. Other suggestions were that there should be a one-hour break for other business at 4.30 p.m., or that there should be a break of 1½ hours from 1.30 to 3.00 p.m.
Our recommendation, however, is that where business is of this nature there should be a lunch break of about one hour for other business from about 1.30 p.m. We recommend that, as in relation to dinner breaks, it should be possible to take an Unstarred Question, limited to one hour, during this break. No break would be taken when the main business was a Second Reading, a general debate, or a number of short items of business.
Note: If the House wishes there to be no lunch break on Thursdays then an amendment to the motion to approve this Report to leave out this paragraph and the two preceding paragraphs would produce that result.
The proposed change would require judicial sittings to be moved from their usual time of 2.00 p.m. on a Thursday. The Senior Lord of Appeal in Ordinary has indicated that he sees no difficulty in this.

1161
We recognise that taking Starred Questions at 11.00 a.m. on Thursdays could cause difficulties for those asking and answering topical questions. Accordingly we recommend that the topical question now taken on Thursday should be moved to Monday, with the ballot drawn at 2.00 p.m. the previous Thursday.
2. THE ROTATION RULE
The Committee recommends that the Chairmen of the Constitution and Economic Affairs Committees should be exempt from the application of the rotation rule for up to three sessions. This would bring these committees into line with the Science and Technology Committee and the sub-committees of the European Union Committee.
3. WRITTEN MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS
The Committee recommends that the House should adopt, from the start of 2004, the practice of the House of Commons, introduced at the start of the last session, permitting the publication in the Official Report of Written Ministerial Statements. These would replace "planted" questions for written answer, removing the need for a Lord to be asked to table a question. They would be printed separately from written answers in the Official Report, thus eliminating any possible confusion between "planted" and other written answers.
In the Commons notice has to be given on the Order Paper of such Statements. We see no need for such a provision in this House.
We propose that Written Ministerial Statements should be placed in the Library as soon as they are received, so that they are available to Members before they appear in the Official Report.
Lord Carterrose to move, as an amendment to the above Motion, after "That" to insert ", with the omission of paragraphs 4, 5 and 6,".
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I tabled this amendment in order to enable the House to make a clear decision regarding the arrangements for Thursday sittings. Perhaps I may briefly remind the House how we have reached the present position. In April last year, the Leader's Group on working practices recommended:
"On Thursdays, the House should sit at 11 a.m. and adjourn not later than about 7 p.m.".
On that committee were the noble Lords, Lord Strathclyde and Lord Roper, and the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, and it was chaired by my late friend Lord Williams of Mostyn. The report was referred to the Procedure Committee—
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the recommendation was that the House should sit for government legislation until 7 o'clock but the House would not adjourn until 9 o'clock so that an Unstarred Question could be taken.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I quoted directly from the report. That is all that it said. I believe that the noble Lord is mixing up the point that I am about to make. The report of the Leader's Group was referred to the Procedure Committee for implementation. The committee interpreted the recommendation of the working group to sit from 11 a.m. until 7 p.m., with the arrangements that we have had for the past year whereby the House sits from 11 a.m. until 1.30 p.m., there is a break from 1.30 to 3 p.m., Starred Questions take place at 3 p.m. and whipped business finishes at 7.30p.m., followed by an Unstarred Question and the House rising at 9 p.m.
1162
That arrangement was clearly unsatisfactory. In June this year, I tabled a Starred Question on the subject and suggested that the views of the House should be sought through a questionnaire. The noble Lord the Chairman of Committees may remember that, in the exchanges at Question Time, he said that a majority of the Deputy Speakers preferred:
"the pre-Recess Thursday arrangements whereby the House meets at 11 o'clock for Questions and goes straight through".—[Official Report, 4/6/03; col. 1322.]
I mention that because of the clear understanding at the time that something resembling the pre-Recess Thursday arrangement would apply if option three in the questionnaire were accepted. As we have heard, the response to the questionnaire was quite clear: 368 Peers voted and there was a majority of 54.3 per cent for starting at 11 a.m. with Questions and for going through until 7 p.m. I have spoken to a number of Peers from all parties who have supported that option. They clearly thought that their vote was for something similar to the pre-Recess Thursday arrangements with no lunch break.
Once again the Procedure Committee has decided to interpret that result with, in my view, the very confusing recommendation, which is now before the House, that the House should sit on Thursdays without a break when there is a Second Reading, a general debate or a number of short items of business, which are undefined, but that there should be a break if the House is in Committee or is considering a Bill in its later stages. As we have heard, Unstarred Questions will be taken in the lunch break on those occasions.
Clearly the Procedure Committee was uneasy about its own recommendation as it helpfully indicated how to amend its report if the House did not want a lunch break on certain Thursdays. Equally helpfully, I have tabled the amendment that the Procedure Committee suggested to enable the House to reach a clear decision. I cannot help wondering why the Procedure Committee suggested such an amendment if it were confident that it was properly reflecting the wishes of the clear majority in response to the questionnaire.
My amendment enables the House, if it wishes, to approve an arrangement that on every Thursday the House will start at 11 a.m. with Questions, go straight through until 5.30 p.m. when whipped business will finish, conclude with an Unstarred Question and rise at 7 p.m. That was the original recommendation of the Leader's Group on working practices. From the questionnaire it was found that that group strongly supported an early start and finish on Thursdays.
I feel that the proposal of the Procedure Committee is something of a muddle. In my view it goes against the clear wishes of the majority of Peers who responded to the questionnaire. What happens on a Thursday if there is a Statement? The House will have to take the Statement and have a lunch break; it will have to do so because an Unstarred Question will have been tabled for the lunch break. So we shall have a Statement and a lunch break.
The proposal is illogical. If the House has a Second Reading debate or a general debate on a Thursday, the Front-Benchers are expected to be present for the

1163
whole debate. We all know—no one objects—that Front-Benchers must have some refreshment on those occasions. Equally, the same could apply if a later stage of a Bill were being considered. If there are a number of items of business—say, two Third Readings or the completion of one stage of a Bill and progress on another stage, which happens—will there still be a lunch break even though different Front-Benchers will be involved? We have a pre-Recess Thursday tomorrow. The House will sit at 11 a.m., it will start with Questions and will go straight through without a break. If we were to be in Committee or on Report or if we had a Third Reading tomorrow the House would still go through without a break.
If the Procedure Committee's proposals are accepted on some Thursdays the House will break and on others it will not; on some Thursdays when government business is tabled the House will break and on other Thursdays when government business is tabled the House will not break. If it is a pre-Recess Thursday, the House will go straight through anyway, whatever the business. What a muddle.
If my amendment is accepted, the Government gain nothing. They will lose half an hour of government business compared with our present arrangements. We have to consider the clear advantage to the House of the whole arrangement that will apply to all Thursdays, with whipped business always finishing at 5.30 p.m. I have spoken to a number of colleagues who have to travel from the north or from Scotland, and such an arrangement would be to their advantage. It would give them a chance to get home on Thursday evenings. However, it is an arrangement which, in my view, a clear majority of the House supported when opinions were sought. I beg to move.
Moved, as an amendment to the Motion, after "That" to insert ", with the omission of paragraphs 4, 5 and 6,".—(Lord Carter.)
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I thank the Chairman of Committees for introducing his Motion. I hope that we shall not have a long debate on it. There is a great deal of serious business to do, including an important Statement. I regret the amendment that has been moved by the noble Lord, Lord Carter. I hope that he withdraws it. If he puts it to a vote I hope that the House will support the conclusions of the Procedure Committee which has made its recommendation, as outlined by the Chairman of Committees.
The committee report accepts a very substantial change to the way in which we have always carried out business; namely, that Questions should be taken every Thursday at 11 a.m. Many noble Lords are not
1164
retired and still work. They have devised their working schedule to ensure that every single morning is free: free of Questions and free of their obligations to the House of Lords. That will now change and as a result a topical question that was kept for a Thursday will now be taken on a Monday.
The issue before the House is whether there should be a break on Thursdays as there is on every other day when we deal with government legislation. In itself it is not an issue of earth-shattering importance, except to those who are most affected by it; in other words, those on the Front and the Back Benches who actively consider legislation, which is not the majority of (he House.
My view is that that is precisely the kind of matter that should be left to the usual channels to decide, as appropriate. As a former member of the usual channels, I would have hoped that the noble Lord, Lord Carter, would have agreed with that. Of course, there should be no break when there are Second Readings. There is no dinner break for Second Readings on any other day and there is no muddle and no confusion, so there is absolutely no reason for there to be any confusion on Thursdays. There is nothing complex about it. Likewise Statements will be taken in due course as they are on any other day of the week. But legislation is difficult, it is hard, and those on the Front Bench dealing with amendment after amendment need and deserve some time off, as do Back-Benchers who play a part.
The questionnaire that was sent out was originally drafted to pose questions about an hour off during the course of the day, but it was deemed by the Procedure Committee to involve far too many options and to be too complicated. Therefore, it was brought down to a minimal and simple level that we could all understand and detailed consideration was left to the Procedure Committee. That is what was done.
I do not quite understand the motivation of the noble Lord, Lord Carter. Does his amendment just concern finishing at 5.30 in the afternoon rather than 7 p.m. or 6.30 p.m.? I cannot believe that it does. As the noble Lord has just said, accepting his amendment reduces the amount of time available for scrutiny of government legislation by half an hour every Thursday. We sit roughly 30 Thursdays a year so we are talking about 15 hours and that is about two-and-a-half days. Will the Government find a way of making up that time or are they embarrassed about the House scrutinising their legislation on the Floor of the House in the way that we do?
I have long championed the obvious solution to this whole problem of Thursdays, which is to swap Wednesdays and Thursdays. Thursdays could be a general debating day, so we would not have to worry about whether there is a break or not, but in the past that has not found favour. I believe it is a solution to which we should return. I think the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, thinks it is a good idea as well. Surely

1165
that would be an infinitely more sensible way of going forward, rather than dealing with the situation in this manner. If that is the view of the House, I hope that the Procedure Committee can return to the matter extremely quickly. In the light of that, I hope that the House will support the recommendation of the Procedure Committee and reject the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Carter.
Lord Roper: My Lords, while I do not accept the views of the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, about Wednesdays and Thursdays—and fortunately that issue is not before the House on this occasion—his remarks show the great advantages gained when leaders of political parties have previously served in the "usual channels", and therefore understand the concerns of opposition Front Benches having to deal with legislation on Thursdays.
The noble Lord, Lord Carter, was perhaps overstating the matter when he said that the current arrangements for Thursdays are clearly unsatisfactory. There are some who feel they are unsatisfactory. They are complicated and not totally satisfactory; there are problems, but inevitably they are a compromise.
However, as the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, said, we have a difficult problem. We have a conflict of interests—a perfectly open one. First, we have the interests of those on opposition Front Benches who deal with legislation in Committee, on Report or at Third Reading, and who would be expected to be on the Bench continuously—unlike the situation, with great respect to the noble Lord, Lord Carter, in a Second Reading or a general debate—from the time consideration of the legislation commences until it ends. Secondly, we have the interests of government Back-Benchers, who are obviously not terribly keen to be whipped here for longer than is necessary. That is a perfectly understandable difference of interests.
However, I think that the interests of those who have to carry out the task of scrutiny of legislation in detail, of holding the Government to account on their legislative programme, should also be taken into account. Like the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, and the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, I served on the working practice committee of the former Leader of the House, Lord Williams of Mostyn.
In that committee, one of the things on which I worked very hard in terms of moving more legislation into Grand Committees was to stop the situation of government Back-Benchers being kept in the House until absurd hours in the evenings because there was a risk that a Division might be taken later. That is why we have the target time of 10 o'clock. But that was part of a package. Now we are seeing—long before we have a chance to review the package as a whole—the process being interrupted and the legitimate position of opposition Front Benches being addressed in this way.
1166
I have to say that there is no difference of opinion between the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives on this issue. I therefore hope that the noble Lord, Lord Carter, having taken into account the points that have been made, will withdraw his amendment and accept the recommendation of the Procedure Committee.
Lord Monson: My Lords, last Thursday we had a very full day and sat for seven hours exactly. We had an important Second Reading debate on the Energy Bill, an important Statement on the Defence White Paper and an Unstarred Question on hepatitis. Despite that, we still rose at the very civilised hour of 7.32 p.m., which I think is perfectly acceptable, and of course we had time for party and Cross-Bench meetings—and dinner as well. Under the proposal, we would have risen at two minutes past six, whether or not the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Carter, were accepted, since the Unstarred Question on hepatitis would have been taken in the lunch hour.
However, we would still be faced with the problem of when to hold the weekly party and Cross-Bench meetings, since I understand that the next week's business is not known until late on Wednesday. Moreover, if the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Carter, were accepted the Government and opposition Front-Bench teams would have no opportunity for lunch, as the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, has pointed out. Unfortunately the status quo is not an option, but if change there must be, the Procedure Committee's recommendation, as it stands, is the lesser of two evils.
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I do not think that there is much that I can add to the report. Noble Lords have not asked any specific questions regarding my role. I think that it should be left to the noble Lord, Lord Carter, to decide what he wishes to do with his amendment.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I shall be extremely brief as there are some important debates to follow. Perhaps I may respond to the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde. As he correctly says, the debate that has continued for many years about Thursday mornings is over. In fact, we have all agreed that we should start at 11 a.m. with Question Time.
The noble Lord referred to the "usual channels". Of course they were strongly represented on the Procedure Committee which produced the report. Modesty forbids me saying that the usual channels are not what they used to be.
The point about Statements is very simple. If we have a lunch break with an Unstarred Question tabled and there is a Statement, we will have a Statement and a lunch break, so the Front Benches will get two breaks and not none. After 10 years on the Front Bench in opposition and five years on the Front Bench in government, I know how it is possible for Ministers and other Front-Benchers to slip out to get some refreshment.

1167
The noble Lord, Lord Roper, said that the package should be considered as a whole. I can only quote what the noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley, said when I asked my Starred Question about this matter in June. He said:
"is the Chairman of Committees aware that I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Carter, that this matter is separate from the other aspect of the changes introduced last year and could be considered separately by the Procedure Committee".—[Official Report, 4/6/03; col. 1323.]
The only thing to do is to seek the opinion of the House. We need to make a clear decision on this matter once and for all.
3.46 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 122; Not-Contents, 152.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Ahmed, L.

Golding,B.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Goudie, B.

Amos, B. (Lord President)

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Andrews, B.

Grantchester, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Greengross, B.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Gregson, L.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Grocott, L.

Bach, L.

Harrison, L.

Barnett, L.

Hayman, B.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Healey, L.

Berkeley, L.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Billingham, B.

Howe of Idlicote, B.

Blackstone, B.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Boothroyd, B.

Howie of Troon, L.

Borrie. L.

Hoyle, L.

Brett, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Brookman, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Jeger, B.

Burlison, L.

Jones, L.

Burns, L.

Jordan, L.

Campbell-Savours, L.

Judd, L.

Carter, L. [Teller]

Lea of Crondall, L.

Christopher, L.

Levy, L.

Clark of Windermere, L.

Lipsey, L.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Livsey of Talgarth, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Lockwood, B.

Condon, L.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Crawley, B.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

David, B.

McIntosh of Huclnall, B.

Davies of Oldham, L.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Marsh, L.

Desai, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Dixon, L.

MasseyofDarwen, B.

Donoughue, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Dubs, L.

Mishcon, L.

Elis-Thomas, L.

Molyneaux of Killead, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Morgan, L.

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

Morris of Aberavon, L.

Falkender. B.

Morris of Manchester, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Nicholson of Winterbourne, B.

Filkin, L.

Ouseley, L.

Fitt, L.

Patel of Blackburn, L.

Gale, B.

Pendry, L.

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Peston. L.

1168

Pitkeathley, B.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B

Temple-Morris, L.

Richard, L.

Thomas of Macclesfield, L.

Rogan, L.

Tomlinson, L. [Teller]

Rogers of Riverside, L.

Turnberg, L.

Roll of Ipsden, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Rooker, L.

Uddin, B.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Warner, L.

Sheldon, L.

Weatherill, L.

Sheppard of Liverpool, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

Whitaker, B.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Whitty,L.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Wilkins, B.

Strange, B.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ackner, L.

Grenfell, L.

Addington, L.

Griffiths, L.

Alderdice, L.

Hanham, B.

Alli, L.

Harris of Richmond. B

Alton of Liverpool, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Ampthill, L.

Higgins, L.

Anelay of St Johns, B.

Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, L.

Armstrong of Ilminster, L.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Astor, V.

Hooson, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Howarth of Breckland, B.

Attlee, E.

Howe, E.

Baker of Dorking, L.

Howe of Aberavon, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Howell of Guildford, L.

Biffen, L.

Hunt of Wirral, L.

Blaker, L.

Hurd of Westwell, L.

Bledisloe, V.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Bowness, L.

Jopling, L.

Boyce, L.

Kimball, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Kirkham, L.

Brigstocke, B.

Laing of Dunphail, L.

Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, L.

Lamont of Lerwick, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Lang of Monkton, L.

Buscombe, B.

Lawson of Blaby, L.

Byford, B.

Liverpool, E.

Caithness, E.

Lyell, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Macfarlane of Bearsden, L.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

MacGregor of Pulham Market,

Chan, L.

L.

Chorley, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Clement-Jones, L.

Maddock. B.

Cobbold,L.

Mar,C.

Cockfield, L.

Mar and Kellie, E. [Teller]

Coe, L.

Marlesford, L.

Cope of Berkeley, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Courtown, E.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Craigavon,V.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Crickhowell, L.

Monson, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Montrose, D.

Dahrendorf, L.

Moynihan, L.

Darcy de Knayth, B.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Denham, L.

Naseby, L.

Dholakia,L.

Noakes,B.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Northesk, E.

Dundee, E.

Northover, B.

Eden of Winton, L.

Norton of Louth, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Ezra,L.

Peel.E.

Falkland, V.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Fearn, L.

Prior, L.

Ferrers, E.

Quinton, L.

Fookes, B.

Rawlinson of Ewell, L.

Fowler, L.

Reay, L.

Geddes, L.

Redesdale, L.

Glentoran, L.

Rees, L.

Goodhart, L.

Renton, L.

Greaves, L.

Renton of Mount Harry, L.

Greenway, L.

Roberts of Conwy, L.

1169

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Thomas of Gresford, L.

Roper, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Rotherwick, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Ryder of Wensum, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Trefgarne, L. [Teller]

Sandwich, E.

Trumpington, B.

Scott of Needham Market, B.

Tugendhat, L.

Seccombe.B.

Vivian, L.

Sharples, B.

Waddington, L.

Smith of Clifton, L.

Wakeham, L.

Walker of Worcester, L.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Steel of Aikwood,L.

Walmsley, B.

Stevens of Ludgate, L.

Walpole, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Warnock,B.

Sutherland of Houndwood, L.

Wilcox, B.

Swinfen, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Tanlaw, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Taverne, L.

Williamson of Horton, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Business
Lord Grocott: My Lords, perhaps I may say a word about timings on the two timed debates, which, I regret, were omitted from the note that noble Lords will have seen. However, none of this will come as any surprise to anyone.
The first debate on maritime policy is time limited to two and a half hours. That means that, with the exception of the winding-up speech, which can last up to 20 minutes, all speeches should be limited to a maximum of 15 minutes. In the debate on road deaths and casualties, which is again time limited to two and a half hours, with the exception of the opening speech by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Needham Market, which may last 15 minutes, and the winding-up speech of my noble friend Lord Davies, which may last 20 minutes, all speeches should be limited to 12 minutes.

vCJD: Blood Transfusion Incident
3.58 p.m.
Lord Warner: My Lords, with permission, I wish to repeat a Statement made by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health in another place. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, Mr Speaker, I wish to make a Statement about a blood transfusion incident involving variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease (vCJD). It may assist the House if I begin by setting out the basic facts before discussing the implications.
"In March 1996, a blood donor, who was at the time free of the signs of variant CJD, donated blood to the National Blood Service. Shortly after that, the donated blood was transfused into a patient who underwent surgery for a serious illness. In
1170
continuing my description of the events to the House, I will from now on refer to those individuals as the 'donor' and the 'recipient' of the blood.
"The donor showed no signs of variant CJD at the time the blood was given, but developed the disease three years later—that is, in 1999—and died from it. The recipient of the blood died in the autumn of this year.
Initial post-mortem examination of the recipient of the blood showed changes in the brain indicative of CJD. Further examinations and tests of this patient's brain confirmed the diagnosis of variant CJD. The link between the donor and the recipient was first reported to officials in my department on 9th December 2003 at which time the diagnosis of variant CJD in the recipient was still being confirmed.
"I was first alerted to the developments on Friday 12th December and was briefed by the Chief Medical Officer on Monday and Tuesday this week. Today I am bringing this information to the House at the earliest opportunity. I have given and will give the minimal clinical details of the recipient, because the family has indicated that it wishes to have its privacy respected.
"In the light of the facts I have outlined, it is therefore possible that the disease was transmitted from donor to recipient by blood transfusion in circumstances where the blood of the donor was infectious three years before the donor developed variant CJD and where the recipient developed variant CJD after a six-and-a-half-year incubation period. This is a possibility, not a proven causal connection, because it is also possible that both individuals separately acquired variant CJD by eating BSE-infected meat or meat products.
"This is a single incident, and it is possible that both individuals acquired variant CJD by eating infected meat products, but it is impossible to be sure which was the route of infection. However, the possibility of this being transfusion-related cannot be discounted. That is the conclusion of the Chief Medical Officer and experts who report to me.
"It is because this is the first report from anywhere in the world of the possible transmission of variant CJD from person to person via blood that I thought it right to come to the Dispatch Box to inform the House—even if only on a precautionary basis.
"This incident was discovered by good surveillance. In 1997 the Department of Health funded the Transfusion Medicine Epidemiology Review study to examine links between all variant CJD cases and any form of blood transfusion. It is through this research study that the association between these two patients was identified. I should also point out that this emphasises the importance of post-mortem examination. Without it we would never have known about these matters. I would like to thank our NHS pathologists for their expertise and constant vigilance.

1171
"I can inform the House about matters which some will already know. There is as yet no blood test for variant CJD, or for that matter BSE, let alone one that could detect the disease years before symptoms develop. So there is no way yet of screening blood donations for the presence of the CJD group of diseases.
"Fortunately, however, a range of precautionary measures have been put in place by the Government since 1997, even though there was at that time no evidence of the risk of person-to-person transmission of the disease via blood. For the benefit and reassurance of the House, it is right briefly to set out the action that has been taken to date and the further action that we now propose.
"First, since 1997 all cases of variant CJD that are reported to the National CJD Surveillance Unit and diagnosed as having "probable" variant CJD result in a search of the National Blood Service blood donor records. If the patient has given blood, subsequently any stocks of that blood are immediately destroyed.
"Secondly, on 17th July 1998, acting on expert advice, the Government announced a £70 million programme to remove most of the white cells from blood destined for transfusion. White cells were considered by experts at the time to be a potential source of infection. This process of so-called leuco-depletion was then a highly precautionary measure to reduce what was then a hypothetical source of infectivity. The process of leuco-depletion, that is removal of white blood cells, was implemented by the National Blood Service over time and completed by October 1999.
"Thirdly, on 12th November 1998, again acting on expert committee advice, the Government announced a £30 million programme to phase out the use of United Kingdom-sourced plasma in the manufacture of blood products. This was at the time, in the absence of any defined risk, another highly precautionary measure. Therefore, from the end of 1999 all blood products have been made using plasma sourced from the United States of America. To ensure continuity of supply the Department of Health purchased on 17th December 2002 the largest remaining independent US plasma collector, Life Resources Incorporated, as part of our attempt to ensure plasma-related resources were derived from outside the UK.
"Fourthly, the National Blood Service has informed us that 15 people received donations of blood from donors who subsequently developed variant CJD. Of the 15 individuals, we have been informed that five received blood after leuco-depletion had been implemented, the remainder before. The earliest such transfusion was in 1993 and the latest in 2001. Working with the National Blood Service, the Health Protection Agency is in the process of contacting these individuals. All will be told about the circumstances of their case and have the opportunity to discuss the risks with an expert counsellor.
1172
"Many more patients of course, including haemophiliacs, will have received plasma products before plasma was sourced from the USA. They will have received products derived from large pools of plasma donated from many thousands of people and thus heavily diluted. The UK-wide CJD Incidents Panel considers the risks for this group to be even lower than for those who received whole blood. It is very difficult to trace all individual recipients of products made from these plasma pools. However, the CJD Incidents Panel will be advising on a case-by-case basis which recipients will need to be contacted as the necessary information becomes available. This group of patients will also have the opportunity for a discussion with an expert on an individual basis. Any person with concerns may ring NHS Direct on 0845 4647.
"Fifthly, before these events expert groups were already deliberating on whether further measures were required in relation to variant CJD and blood. In October of 2003 our expert committee on the Microbiological Safety of Blood and Tissues for Transplantation advised, on the basis of a risk assessment, that further action, such as stopping people who have received a blood transfusion from giving blood, was not necessary.
"However, in the light of today's statement, we have asked this committee to look comprehensively at whether further precautionary measures could be taken which would not adversely impact on the safety or availability of blood.
"Sixthly, it is apparent that much more blood and blood products are used clinically than need to be. There have been many past attempts to reduce the use of blood to situations where it is absolutely needed medically, but these have been only partially successful. I will be asking the National Blood Service to have urgent discussions with the medical Royal Colleges and NHS hospitals to address this area of clinical practice. More appropriate blood usage will reduce all the risks associated with blood and will make more effective use of our precious blood supplies.
"A finding of this kind, albeit one whose full medical significance is still far from clear, inevitably will give rise to concern. It is therefore important that this House and the wider public take account of the wider context in two respects.
"First, since the events in 1996 approximately 24 million units of blood or blood components have been given to patients in the United Kingdom. Blood transfusion can be a life-saving treatment, but no medical treatment is free of all risks. Indeed, it is an unfortunate fact that already each year approximately 12 people die as a complication of blood transfusion. Many people receiving blood transfusion are already very ill, some in life and death situations.

1173
"A wide range of measures are routinely used to reduce the risks of transfusion by screening for HIV/ AIDS, hepatitis B and hepatitis C and other infections. For specific high-risk patients, even more detailed screening takes place.
"These wider measures should be seen in the context of the precautionary action also being taken on variant CJD and a recognition that so far we have only one single report of a possible link between a single donor and a single recipient.
"We are generally regarded internationally as having a very safe blood service, especially because of our precautionary approach to screening for infection, careful donor selection and the tradition of volunteering in this country, which means that our donors generally have a lower incidence of many viral diseases compared to those in other countries who are paid for their donations.
"Secondly and finally, as for the wider situation for variant CJD, thankfully we have not so far seen the thousands of cases of variant CJD that some projections suggested. As of 1st December 2003, there have been a cumulative total of 143 cases of variant CJD in the United Kingdom. Over the past three years, the annual number of new cases has fallen each year. However, there should be no complacency. It remains premature to conclude that the epidemic has peaked and any single case of variant CJD is tragic for the patients and families concerned.
"I hope that my Statement has given the House a clear and accurate account of this finding in the full context in which it needs to be seen. I have asked the Chief Medical Officer to oversee the further work and investigation that is required and to keep me closely informed, and the House may be assured that I will of course keep it informed of any major developments in this area".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
4.12 p.m.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement, which is both significant and disturbing. While it was helpful in explaining the facts surrounding the transfusion and the possible transmission of CJD by the donor to the recipient, and in explaining the actions that the Government are taking, one or two questions inevitably arise.
My first question relates to risk. The Minister sensibly thought to put the scale of the risk from contaminated blood into context and mentioned a number of safeguards already in place. Clearly, we all welcome those. As yet, we are dealing with one possible case of transmission of variant CJD by blood. So far, transmission by this route is only a hypothesis, but there may be a genuine causal link and the Government must act as though there is.
In the light of that, will the Government seek to commission some computer modelling on the scale of any enhanced risk posed by these findings? On that
1174
issue, the Minister mentioned that all probable cases of CJD are subject to a search of the National Blood Service blood donor records to establish whether the person was ever a donor. For every such case, will the question of whether the individual was ever a recipient of blood also be investigated? That is important in advancing our knowledge of the epidemiology. Will the Minister confirm that there is full traceability for all blood donated in the NHS?
The Statement reminded us that all blood plasma used in the NHS is now sourced in the USA. Will the Minister confirm that no cases of variant CJD have been recorded in the United States?
On the incidence of variant CJD in this country, I welcome the fact that the statistics do not show an increase over the past few years but show a slight fall. Notwithstanding that, is there a geographic bias or pattern to variant CJD cases recorded in the UK?
I note that the Health Protection Agency is in the process of contacting the 15 individuals who received blood donations from donors who subsequently went on to develop variant CJD. To inform them of the possible risk of their developing variant CJD does not seem to me to be an ethically straightforward decision. Some might argue that it would be better for those people not to know because it will only give rise to psychological and emotional pressure over a long time. Clearly those individuals must be prevented from donating blood, but I would have thought that to be a separate issue. Will the Minister comment on that point?
Finally, the Minister mentioned that the expert committee has been tasked with considering what further safeguards can be put in place. Can that matter conveniently be reported to your Lordships' House by means of an inspired Written Answer in Hansard? It would be helpful if the Minister could take that suggestion away with him.
4.16 p.m.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I, too, thank the Minister for repeating the Statement and the Secretary of State for bringing these facts and findings to both Houses so speedily. I, too, welcome many aspects of the Statement, in particular the fact that we are not faced with an epidemic of vCJD. However, the Minister having said that the Government are acting in accordance with the precautionary principle, I feel bound to ask questions which probe whether it does in fact constitute a full precautionary principle.
The Minister will be aware that during the past year I have asked many questions on blood safety and I feel that many questions arise out of today's Statement. First, some factual questions arise in following up the incident. Have other people who have received blood from the same donor been followed up? The Minister said that 15 people who had received blood, which I presume was from another set of donors, have subsequently developed vCJD. Is there an automatic record-keeping process to monitor follow-up whenever a case of vCJD is identified, indicating whether the person has donated blood?

1175
Many of us welcome the Government's commitment to imported fresh frozen plasma for young babies born after 1996. However, it appears that that is not universally available and administered across the UK, despite the announcement made some considerable time ago. It will be useful to have the Minister's clarification on that.
It would also be useful if the Minister could expand on the availability of a vCJD blood test. Not only is such availability of great importance, as is research and government funding, but also the contingencies the Government are making. If such a test becomes available, what will happen as regards public perception? Will blood donors be reluctant to submit themselves to such tests? What precedents can we rely on, and what contingency plans is the National Blood Authority making in the circumstances?
It is peculiar that we are dealing with a panel report that is more than two years old. I have not had time to probe the matter since the Statement was announced, but it seems peculiar that it has taken two years for the report to come to light.
Increasingly, in many countries, people are entitled to store their own blood in blood banks against the contingency that they may need it in future. That is an eminently sensible procedure that gives people the satisfaction of knowing that their own blood is being transfused to them. It would be useful if the Minister expressed a view on that.
My final point is the key thrust of my comments today. Virtually every question that I have raised since last September has been on viral inactivation of fresh frozen plasma. I have asked around 30 questions. On each occasion the Minister, his predecessors, and indeed the Minister's surrogate, the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, responded that viral inactivation was not necessary. The implicit reply has been that it is not proportionate to inactivate fresh frozen plasma virally. We have seen contingencies—the use of US blood and other ways of dealing with the issue. Taking out white blood cells is another such solution. I recognise that there are two infections that one cannot get rid of by viral inactivation, but the thrust of my questions has been that viral inactivation is almost foolproof and is an absolute necessity. That is where I differ from the Government in regard to the precautionary principle. A true precautionary operation would be to ensure that we virally inactivated our fresh frozen plasma.
4.22 p.m.
Lord Warner: My Lords, I am grateful to both Front-Bench spokesmen for their thoughtful responses on this particularly difficult issue.
In response partly to the noble Earl's question about computer modelling and other questions from both noble Lords, I should say that the CJD Incidents Panel has gathered information and tried to make a complicated risk analysis of people who have been transfused and a much larger pool of plasma recipients. Plasma is a pooled product; it comes from a much wider pool of people who have given blood. The
1176
Government's medical and scientific advice is that pooling reduces by dilution the risks to recipients. The highest risk applies to direct blood transfusion rather than use of plasma products.
The CJD Incidents Panel has used the information that it has on people who may have had a transfusion of blood or blood plasma from someone subsequently found to have variant CJD in order to look at the risks for that patient. That risk is changing after leuco-depletion. We have two groups of people in the risk analysis: those who preceded the 1999 changes of leuco-depletion and the removal of white cells, and those who did not. This is an extraordinarily complicated risk analysis to set out in detail to noble Lords in the circumstances, but I will be happy to write to noble Lords to outline in more detail the basis of the analysis.
I cannot give the number of recipients who were also donors, but I will look into the matter and, if the figure is known from this kind of risk analysis, I shall include it in my response. There is full traceability. The fact that we can make a Statement about the 15 people demonstrates our capacity to track people in those circumstances. It is a trickier job in relation to the much larger numbers of plasma recipients, but the CJD Incidents Panel is working on that.
The noble Earl asked about the ethically difficult decision whether to tell the 15 people involved. It is a difficult issue, but if the risk analysis suggests that an individual is highly unlikely to be at risk, it may be decided not to make the information known. However, at present, the starting premise is that people probably ought to be told and will want to know about the risks to which they may be vulnerable. Work to track down the individuals is going on with that intention.
As I said, we have put a lot of work into working with expert committees and seeking expert advice. It will be up to those committees to advise the Government on some of the extra safeguards that the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, mentioned. I am certainly willing to assure noble Lords that, as more information in this area becomes available to us, we wish to put it into the public arena by such means as the noble Earl proposed—an arranged Written Answer. The Government certainly wish, as I hope the Statement indicates, to disclose fully any new information about safeguards that can be taken.
I must respond to several issues that the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, raised. As I understand it, one other person received blood from that same donor, but that person subsequently died—a long time ago, before we knew that that person was at risk and before the donor died. We have no additional knowledge other than that there was another case.
I am not sufficiently expert to know the pros and cons of people storing their own blood, but I will be happy to look into the matter and to write to the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones.

1177
Virally inactivating plasma is one of the precautionary issues that the Government will study, and on which we are seeking expert opinion. When we have that expert opinion, we will make the information available.
In the time available, I have tried to respond to as many questions as possible. I was asked why it has taken two years to publish the report. The matter was referred to the CJD Incidents Panel, which has conducted a very complicated risk analysis. The panel returned with the results only recently, and we put that information in the public arena as quickly as possible when we knew about the episode.
4.29 p.m.
Lord Chan: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that report. I wish to ask him about how the Health Protection Agency works with the National Blood Service. As the Minister said, it is important that we have a broader review on the use of blood. What steps are being taken to ensure that the clinical guidelines for the use of blood and blood products are implemented? Is there any monitoring? Will there be an overall review of other types of infection and reactions from blood products that can take place through transfusion?
Lord Warner: My Lords, before I respond to that point, I forgot to answer a question asked by the noble Earl, Lord Howe, to which I have the answer. No cases of variant CJD have been found in the USA. I hope that that reassures him.
On the measures that the Government have taken to ensure blood safety, I can tell the noble Lord, Lord Chan, that we have taken a number of precautionary measures. All cases of CJD are reported to the CJD Surveillance Unit. If the patient has been given blood, blood stocks are destroyed. I have already mentioned the £70 million programme to remove white cells from blood for transfusion and the steps taken in 1998 to phase out the use of UK-sourced plasma and all blood products made using US-sourced plasma from October 1999.
The advice that I have been given is that the arrangements for monitoring blood safety are rigorous and, in the Government's view, adequate. However, one is always looking for new precautionary measures that might make matters safer. As I said in my Statement, that is a matter on which the Government will be seeking further expert advice.
Lord Williamson of Horton: My Lords, I thank the Minister for the information about a case which may involve transmission from a blood transfusion. Will he ensure that we have regular information not only on the number of suspected and actual cases of new variant CJD, but on the trends in the number of cases of BSE in the cattle herd, with appropriate commentary? That is important. As we gradually reduce BSE cases in cattle to zero, which is certainly possible, we regain control of the human risks of new
1178
variant CJD, including the possible risks to which the Statement refers. The whole picture should always include the state of BSE in cattle as well as the risks of new variant CJD.
Lord Warner: My Lords, I am sure that that is right and that my noble friends in Defra will consider the point. The noble Lord is certainly right that, as we take BSE out of the herd, the risk to humans is reduced.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, as blood products which infected haemophiliacs with HIV came from the USA, is the Minister confident that something else nasty may not come again from imported blood from the USA? Is he aware that there are ways of cleaning blood to make it safer? I know that that is done in Vienna, in Austria. Will the Minister look into that? Following the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, about people using their own blood, I am sure that, when this Statement goes out into the wider community, people will want to know that information.
Lord Warner: My Lords, I take note of the point made by the noble Baroness about people storing and having access to their own blood. As I said, I will look into the matter and write to the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and make sure that other noble Lords have copies of that letter. There are controls over blood sourced from the USA. Plasma for fractionation—for albumin and factor 8—is taken from volunteer donors. Although it has occasionally been suggested, the donor population does not include any jail inmates. Additional testing over and above that carried out on UK plasma is applied in this case.
Fresh frozen plasma for children born after January 1996 is taken from volunteer donors. Donations are subject to additional testing over and above that carried out on UK donations and are then treated with methylene blue which inactivates most viruses that are transfusion transmissible such as HIV and hepatitis B and C.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I am sure that everyone is grateful to my noble friend and his department for coming forward with this Statement so early. Obviously, however, there is great uncertainty, and that uncertainty is likely to remain when there are so many questions about transmission routes for variant CJD and the course of the disease itself. However, what is not uncertain is that, every day of the year, blood transfusions save lives in the health service. What is being done to reassure potential donors and those receiving blood products about the security of the service and the effects of the decision on leucodepletion, for example, in order to minimise the risks which we all recognise cannot be totally eliminated?
On a separate point, I recognise that variant CJD is a very different disease from sporadic CJD or other variants. However, if I heard the beginning of the Statement correctly, there are long periods before symptoms become apparent in either the possible

1179
donor or donee. Has that sparked a concern that we need to examine the donation records of those suffering from CJD rather than variant CJD?
Lord Warner: My Lords, I do not have a direct answer to the last point. However, when I write to the noble Baroness, I shall certainly ensure that that issue is being examined through the CJD Incidents Panel.
On the security of blood donations, as I have been trying to say, we have to be open while at the same time maintaining some balance in the information and interpretation of the information provided. We do not want to do anything to drive down the numbers of people donating blood. We need, give or take, about 9,000 donations a day. The donor base is decreasing, so it is very important that we reassure people in this area. We want people to give blood and for donations to continue. That is why I also said in my Statement that the Government are concerned and will be working with the Royal Colleges and others to see whether we can ensure that blood is used only when absolutely medically necessary. That is a matter of clinical practice that must be taken forward with the profession.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, following on from the question asked by my noble friend Lord Williamson of Horton, is it not the case that the causal link between BSE and CJD is still an hypothesis? If my assumption is correct, what research is still being conducted in order to establish any causal link, or a cause of BSE and CJD that may be similar in both creatures but is not a direct link?
Secondly, the Minister made much of the risk analysis, and the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, said a great deal about the precautionary principle on which I support him entirely. However, does not the Minister agree that the precautionary principle should also be exercised with a view to cost-benefit analysis? If we compare the millions and millions of pounds that have been poured into research into a disease which has caused 143 deaths to date, compared with the 5,000 deaths a year from hospital-acquired infections, should we not look at the proportionate application of the precautionary principle?
Lord Warner: My Lords, I had hoped that what I said in my Statement and my subsequent answers would suggest that we are being proportionate in our response. We rely on expert analysis and advice. We look to the CJD Incidents Panel to interpret extremely complicated information and to give expert scientific advice on which we can act. I have no reason to think that it does not also act proportionately in its risk analysis. As I said, I will write more widely to noble Lords about the detail of that risk analysis.
I am not sure that I can give the noble Countess a detailed explanation on the subject of BSE in the way that she asked for. However, I am happy to look into the matter and write to her with, 1 hope, some reassurance.
Lord McColl of Dulwich: My Lords, the Minister assured us that he would ask the medical profession to
1180
be sure that it did not use blood unnecessarily. I must point out that the medical profession has always had that policy. We never use blood unless it is absolutely necessary. Many of the medical professionals in England are Scots, and I assure the Minister that we never waste anything.
Lord Warner: My Lords, to avoid doubt, I must stress the point that I made in the Statement, without making any adverse remarks about Scots or others. In the Statement, I said that my right honourable friend would ask the National Blood Service to have urgent discussions with the medical Royal Colleges and NHS hospitals to address clinical practice with regard to the unnecessary use of blood. That is an important issue, and concerns have been expressed about it. We have listened to the advice of the Chief Medical Officer on the matter.

Maritime Policy
4.41 p.m.
The Earlof Caithness rose to call attention to the opportunities to the United Kingdom that a comprehensive maritime policy would bring; and to move for Papers.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, as I am back in the maritime world, I must first declare my interest: I am an adviser to an American company that advises, among other things, on ports and the handling of freight.
This will be a wide-ranging debate, and I shall focus on three issues. The first is security. In December 2002, the International Maritime Organization adopted new regulations to enhance maritime security by adopting the International Ship and Port Facility Security Code, known as ISPS. The UK was involved in its construction, so there is no excuse that we did not know what was going to happen. The code comes into force on 1st July next year, only some six months away. How ready is the UK, with its tradition and reputation for high standards, to meet the challenge?
I will take shipping first. The international ship security certificate is essential, if a vessel is to trade. I understand that, so far, only two or three ships have been security certified out of a fleet of more than 500. Does the Minister believe that the Maritime and Coastguard Agency has the resources and expertise to complete the work in time? Can he tell me what happens if a British flag vessel is searched under port state control powers and the certificate is found to be flawed? Will the Government, who are responsible through the MCA for issuing the certificate, compensate the businesses, shippers, insurers and ship owners who will suffer financially from such a situation?
At ports, a different organisation—Transec— carries out the validations to ensure that ports comply with the code. The Government have a direct responsibility for port facilities, each of which must be assessed to comply with the new standards in the next

1181
six months. If they do not comply, or their compliance is fudged, overseas shippers, the insurance industry and marine financing will lose confidence in British ports, and our maritime trade will suffer grievously.
There is a great deal of concern among port facility operators, who have been told by Transec to do nothing until they are inspected. Many are still waiting, and there is precious little time for them to make good any recommendations. In contrast, the port of Antwerp is, with 130 port facilities—and, in fact, all the ports in Belgium are—well ahead in terms of preparation and compliance. The later the inspections are left, the less negotiating power operators will have with suppliers because of time constraints and because so many of them will want the same equipment by a certain date. Prices will inevitably rise, and the consumer will be penalised. Is it not the case that the Government have severely underestimated the resources and capabilities needed to carry out such vital work? Why have the Government not issued clear guidance and a timetable to port operators in the past 12 months? Why have the Government not delegated the inspection of both ships and ports to the private sector?
We all saw the consequences for Pan Am of the tragic events over Lockerbie, involving Pan Am flight 103. The Government are playing fast and loose with Britain's reputation, Britain's fleet and Britain's financial and insurance institutions on a matter as important as security.
I turn briefly to ocean liners. The conferences of the past have been replaced by discussion arrangements, but operators are allowed to co-ordinate sailings and landside activities. They are still protected through EC regulation 4056/86, which gives them anti-trust immunity. That is under discussion again in Brussels, and I would like the Minister to tell us what the UK's position is. Does he not agree that it is time to forbid that anomaly and to bring them into the real world in which others operate, for the benefit of our industry and commerce?
I move on to a key missing ingredient of maritime policy for the UK: how to react to the opportunities that increased containerisation has brought. Transport policy is heavily geared to road and railways, with aviation increasingly mentioned. When do we hear the words "maritime policy" spoken, let alone hear a policy enunciated? The Government's policy in the transport 10-year plan, published in 2000, proposed a target figure of £180 billion in public and private sector investment over the decade from 2001–02 to 2010–11. It is an interesting document, but it says nothing about the maritime sector. Our lifeline transport sector is the pariah, when it comes to policy. A comprehensive policy is vital to the UK. It has been made harder to achieve—but not impossible—by devolution, as responsibility for the ports has, basically, been devolved although shipping policy remains with the UK Government. Any policy must include both.
1182
Why is a policy necessary? We are unlike any other major economy in that about 95 per cent of our trade by weight arrives or leaves by ship. Two thirds of seaborne trade is containerised. Thus, every one of us is affected every day of our life by that dependence on the sea. However, as long as there are goods in the shops when we want them, few people care. There is a growing realisation that that laissez-faire attitude is no longer acceptable. Among those who feel that more should be done are those who came together recently to form the Scottish Shipping Initiative, of which I have the honour to be the honorary patron. Its recent conference brought together a wide range of interests to consider the way ahead, as well as the problems and the opportunities facing us.
There are two relatively recent government publications concerning the maritime sector: British shipping: Charting a new course and Modern ports: A UK policy. They are glitzy titles for papers that produce little that is new and show how blinkered the Government are by old-fashioned institutional thinking. I admit that I thought the same when I was Minister of Shipping 10 years ago, so what has happened since then to make me change my mind? I suggest five factors. Then, ocean liners dominated discussion of ocean shipping. Shippers saw the industry as run by cartels and anti-competitive. Change started when the Ocean Shipping Reform Act, which undermined carrier conferences, became law in the United States in 1998. In addition, the European Shippers' Council and others interested in the movement of goods, have been pushing for—and obtaining—some reform through the European Commission.
Secondly, due mostly to that economic dynamo, China, world container traffic has been growing at 8 to 10 per cent per annum over the past decade, and that looks set to continue. That has changed and will continue to change the size of ships, which, 10 years ago, carried a maximum of 4,000 TEU containers but now carry 8,000. Only two ports in the UK, Felixstowe and Southampton, can handle such big vessels, and they need high tides to do so. However, those ports are already congested and out of capacity.
Fourthly, there is an allocation of EU money to assist short sea initiatives and ports, but the Government will not apply for it. Fifthly, the Government have changed the emphasis of their policy from competition and deregulation to sustainability, environmental protection, integration between modes and improved regional and local guidelines. The aim of sustainable distribution was expressed as follows:
"To ensure the future development of the distribution industry does not compromise the future needs of our society, economy and environment".
They are fine words, which I applaud, but no action. However, a maritime policy is just the ingredient that the Government need to help them attain their objective.
What matters to our manufacturers and retailers is reliability of delivery. That is more important than speed and erratic timings. With Felixstowe and

1183
Southampton so congested, shippers cannot guarantee deliveries. Thus, extra costs are being built into the supply chain and inefficiencies created, for which the consumer pays. There is a distinct threat of congestion charging by the shipping lines for visiting ports in the south-east. It is no longer fanciful to envisage the UK having to rely entirely on feeder services from continental Europe to supply our import and export traffic as shipping lines are already moving to continental ports.
If that trend grows, the Government will be guilty of letting Britain lose its place in world trade. Let us not forget that from being a world leader, the UK does not have representation in ownership of the top containerised shipping lines other than the Anglo-Dutch carrier P&O/Nedlloyd, and that is up for sale.
We rely too heavily on lorries to move containers on our roads that are increasingly congested. The cost to move a container by road is up to £1.50 per mile. That will increase as working hours directives continue to limit drivers' hours. Given that, it is inevitable that the cost of running a business increases the further one is away from Felixstowe and Southampton. A container costs about £150 more to deliver to the central belt of Scotland than to the south-east of England. That sum increases to about £350 to move it to Caithness. Our businesses are being penalised due to the current policy.
So could we do better by rail? A little, but not much. Our rail system is designed for passengers, not freight. It would be political suicide for the Government to give freight preference over passengers. Just imagine the headlines if passengers had to wait many hours, if not days, as containers do now at Southampton, to be allowed to use the sparse number of rail services. Later in the supply chain they usually end up on roads, as few British manufacturers have a policy to rail connect their factories.
How can we overcome that dilemma? In order to ease the congestion, Southampton has submitted a planning application at Dibden Bay and there is an application for a London gateway port that will require at least tens of millions of pounds to be spent on dredging alone in order to accommodate the new vessels. Further applications are likely at Harwich and Felixstowe. However, even if the capacity constraints are alleviated in the south-east, the main problem will not go away. We will just have even more containers arriving at the same time to go on to lorries and to create even more congestion. A compounding factor is the shortage of HGV drivers. We are 50,000 drivers short, but that is not just a UK problem. It is a growing world-wide problem. So that most vital of matters to our businesses—reliability of timing—will just get worse, as will noise and pollution.
So what is the alternative? The Government must become proactive. The private sector alone cannot, nor should not, be relied on to safeguard the interests of UK plc. We do not allow it for road and rail, so why in the maritime sector? We have to look for realistic alternatives to keep our position and freedom to trade outside of the EU by ensuring that our ports can
1184
support the bulk of our industry, which is in the Midlands and the north of the country. By introducing bigger ports in those regions, we can lower our inbound and outbound transport costs, which will help to make us more competitive in world markets.
The UK is unique in its attitude to ports. We have private ports, trust ports and local authority ports, none of which gets taxpayers' help. On the Continent, that is unheard of and they think that we are crazy. They are right. Their governments help their ports in the same way as their roads and railways. Can one seriously imagine Antwerp, Rotterdam, Le Havre and Hamburg not receiving financial aid? Part of the reason that they do so is due to their strategic importance to their countries. How much more that logic applies to us where we have no land borders.
Given our island status, the number of ports that we have, the changes in shipping patterns, the congestion on our road and rail systems, with the environmental damage that causes, and the subsidised competition in Europe, is it right to let Hutchison, ABP and P&O in the overcrowded south-east or Hunterston and Scapa Flow in Scotland slog it out to try to provide the container capacity that we need, without a sensible framework in which to operate? We need the Scottish Executive and the UK Government to agree that in future the major container ports will be primarily transhipment terminals for short sea shipping. That is often seen as just relating to the minor bulks, such as gravel and small tankers.
However, at Felixstowe, it is estimated that 35 per cent of container trade is already transhipped. EU and taxpayers' money will have to be spent at a number of feeder ports so that they can readjust their business, but that money would be better utilised there than the huge amounts that are being spent on the roads. Not only will such a policy mean that our goods are moved more reliably, cost effectively and in a more environmentally friendly way, but it will also bring benefits to our economy, as we can be the gateway to service Europe's needs.
There are a large number of ports in Scandinavia, Russia and northern Europe to which the modern vessels cannot gain access. Due to our geographical location, we, rather than our continental competitors, can be the hub for them. We are blessed with natural deep-water facilities without having to dredge and these should be utilised for the benefit of UK plc. That requires a complete rethink in the Government's strategy, but if the Minister is serious in wishing to minimise congestion, reduce the freight intensity of economic growth, make better use of transport infrastructure, minimise pollution and greenhouse gas emissions and reduce noise and disturbance from freight movements—all laudable Government objectives—the only way forward is through a short sea and coastal distribution policy with modern vessels like the "fast ferries" that are used in the Baltic. We would then start to reduce the long-standing market distortions created and perpetuated through ongoing public sector investment of land transport infrastructure with maritime transport virtually excluded from the public funding process.

1185
I know that the Minister cannot possibly comment on the planning applications before the Government. I would not expect him to and that is not what I want anyway. I want a radical rethink on the whole subject and for the Government to have a vision for the UK by seizing this opportunity to chart a new way forward. In the UK's transport policy, ports are the essential links. The Government's policy makes them the weakest link. I beg to move for Papers.
4.57 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, it is quite a long time since I was on the Opposition Benches as the transport spokesman. At that time, I had the pleasure of crossing swords with the noble Earl quite often, although not often enough. Little has changed. For the most part, the same old lags are still around.
Lord Berkeley: Speak for yourself!
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, they were around about 15 years ago. My noble friend was then a very well researched supporter of mine, and he remains very well researched today. But I am sorry that the noble Earl was so curmudgeonly about the Government's shipping policy, particularly as he presided over an unprecedented collapse of British shipping when he was the Minister for shipping in the 1990s. Nevertheless, I am glad that he has promoted a debate about shipping today.
I should declare that between 1974 and 1979 I was Shipping Minister. In fact, I was Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Companies, Aviation and Shipping. Perhaps I was fortunate in not being the Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Companies, Aviation and Tourism, when I would have had the acronym of PUSSCAT. I was also the commissioner in Europe for, among other things, transport, which included shipping.
When I was the Minister responsible for shipping some 30 years ago, the merchant marine of this country was second only to the Greek merchant fleet. Today, although there has been some improvement so far as the merchant fleet is concerned, regrettably we are still not as strong as we were. In my submission, British merchant shipping matters—which include the skills, experience and expertise of our seamen and officers—are of great importance. However, nothing whatsoever was said by the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, about them. He said not a word, although I think that these matters are vitally important.
In November the Prime Minister, no less, acknowledged the significance to this island of shipping. But it is not possible to subtract from the position of our fleet the supply of maritime skills and experience to which I have alluded. Part and parcel of all that lies in the education that could be gleaned from maritime schools which, with government support, were an intrinsic part of the whole equation. Is it really too late to hope that, after so long, it might be possible to revive them?
1186
What we have now is some repositioning of the strength of ships sailing under the Red Ensign, but we still operate under the handicap of not pursuing sufficiently the other objective which I have tried to outline. For virtually a decade we have had more ships and tonnage sailing under the Red Ensign—60 per cent more than in 1997—but despite that, we have fewer British seafarers. We have seen a reduction of as much as 10 per cent, although some may say that the percentage is even higher, since that year. The gap has been filled by foreign seafarers. More than three quarters of junior officers are foreign nationals. Only around half of all chief engineers and one third of ships' masters are British. I earnestly hope that the Government are far from satisfied with that situation and I should like to hear from the Minister how they propose to address it.
It is not sufficient to be able to laud the fact that there has been an increase in tonnage under the United Kingdom flag. What would happen in an emergency? We hope that one will never happen, but it may. Indeed, we do not plan our defence position on the thesis that "it may never occur". The skills exemplified by experienced seafarers are necessary. They are needed to maintain the safe operation of ships as they go about their duties at sea. They are necessary to ensure that maritime services and industries on land are able to function well. Let us never forget that overseas earnings are boosted by something like £1 billion a year by the efforts of those industries.
In my submission, merely to promote the value of the Red Ensign is insufficient. We have to secure the employment and skills of our seafarers, just as John Prescott, a good friend of mine, argued for five years ago when he launched the White Paper, Charting a new course, comprising some 33 policies to achieve those aims. That is why the Government must act now, before it is too late, in particular as regards the short-sea shipping sector. They must act in the light of the determination of P&O Ferries to cut jobs by no less than 60 per cent. Unhappily, it does not stop there. Shipping lines such as Global Marine Systems, IMT Gearbulk Lines, Hoverspeed, Fishers, Pacific Nuclear Transport, Golden Sun Cruises, DFDS Seaways and Maersk have made similar grisly announcements. More than 1,000 seafarers' jobs have gone.
Is there not something entirely inconsistent and odd about companies receiving benefits under the tonnage tax scheme feeling no obligation whatsoever to employ and train British seafarers? We have a clear duty to see to it that we enhance our maritime skills and increase our maritime resources. Are the present Government able and willing to reassure the nation on this score?
The noble Earl has performed a great service tonight. We do not often debate shipping, but in my view it is vitally important that we do so.
5.8 p.m.
Lord Moynihan: My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Caithness on securing this debate in the ballot, the more so since he succeeded in being drawn from the hat in competition with my Motion on sport

1187
and recreation policy. Nevertheless, through his ingenuity of specifying "maritime" as opposed to shipping policy, I find myself in the fortunate position of being in order when addressing your Lordships on the subject of sport and recreational activity in our coastal waters around the United Kingdom.
I do so because the level of sporting use of the sea is low for a country with such a remarkable resource available to so many people living in our seaside towns. Indeed, the challenges faced by clubs, schools and governing bodies seeking to use our coastal waters are considerable. Real opportunity is to be found in a very special relationship—the co-operation demonstrated between schools, governing bodies, clubs and local authorities in our seaside towns and their catchment areas. The need to recognise the sea as a major sporting resource is all the more important given that the level of participation in sport and recreation is, according to my research and relative to the size of the population, lower than it has ever been in the recorded history of the past 200 years.
In a Parliamentary Answer 10 days ago, the Government admitted that they are overseeing a generation in our schools where participation in school sport has declined to the position where barely a third of our five to 16 year-olds spend a minimum two hours on PE and school sport. That is not two hours a day; it is two hours each week. No wonder we face the problem of obesity.
I call on the Government to introduce a new national coastal sports policy to transform participation among our schoolchildren living by the sea through the direct co-operation of clubs, governing bodies, local authorities and schools.
But today's debate goes wider than schools for there are in the United Kingdom a number of sports which have a vested interest in the maritime policy adopted by the Government. Of these the most significant are angling and sailing. Angling has the highest participation of any sport in the United Kingdom. Sea angling alone has in excess of 1 million regular participants. Sailing and the other water sports which fall under the umbrella of the Royal Yachting Association, such as windsurfing and water-skiing, are also extremely popular both at recreational and competitive levels.
But we should not limit ourselves to these sports alone. The surfing community plays a very active and highly positive role both in community life through the Surf Life Saving Association of Great Britain and on the environmental front through organisations such as the commendable Surfers Against Sewage. Their concerns must not be overlooked, nor those of the coastal rowing clubs and the Channel Swimming Association, or any of the many smaller sporting associations and numerous local seaside-located clubs with a vested interest in maritime policy.
The perception in some quarters is that the Government are attempting to push aside or smother in red tape sports which are, by all accounts, net contributors to their local societies. I should like to address some of their concerns.
1188
There are more than 350,000 active sailors throughout the United Kingdom. Consequently, the Royal Yachting Association has been held up consistently as an example of how a sport should be run. Minimal regulation, good organisation and responsible education programmes for participants have meant that sailing in the UK is in fine fettle. This is reflected both in participation levels and also in the regular success of sailors such as Ben Ainslie, Shirley Robertson and Iain Percy at World and Olympic levels. Furthermore, let us not forget the wonderful courage and achievements of Tracy Edwards and Ellen McArthur, to name but two.
There are, however, worrying signs emanating from the corridors of Whitehall. The Government are finding it hard to resist requiring the sport to adopt many additional legislative measures, increased taxation and bureaucracy—for example, automatic identification systems for recreational craft; light dues for pleasure boaters; compulsory testing and regulation of all vessels. For all the merits and overriding importance of health and safety measures—which no one on either side of the House doubts—they must be practical and reasonable. Britain has an outstanding recreational boating safety record. This record is maintained, by and large, by the Royal Yachting Association's comparative independence and its commitment to education. Governments past and present have consistently reiterated their support for the RYA policy of "education not legislation". I seek assurance that this policy will continue.
As I mentioned earlier, sea angling is immensely popular. The Government Strategy Unit estimates that its contribution to the economy—and largely to the coastal and rural economy—is more than £1 billion per year. The Labour Party appeared to recognise the significance of sea angling in its much vaunted Anglers' Charter published in 1997. Yet this year the National Federation of Sea Anglers has been largely ignored by government in discussions regarding the use of funds to promote participation. Surely a sport which brings so much to society should be rewarded and encouraged rather than sidelined?
From a political perspective, I should be interested to hear from the Minister whether discussions between Defra and the DCMS as to how recreational and commercial angling should be prioritised have been resolved. Where does the sport of sea angling fit best in the relationship between these two government departments and what steps are being taken to ensure greater co-operation between them on matters involving sea angling?
Surfing is one of the fastest-growing sports in the UK, with between a quarter of a million and half a million regular participants. Yet, despite this, the British Surfing Association has been unable to secure funding support except through hard fought yet admirable attempts to acquire limited sponsorship. However, if we are to look to increased participation from among local coastal communities, build links with schools and local authorities, ensure inclusion and encourage those youngsters who could be

1189
involved in maritime sports to do so rather than to drop out in our coastal towns, policy initiatives with government—from sea angling to sailing and surfing—should be reviewed and appropriate funding secured from the sports funding agencies.
The biggest issue that the British Surfing Association is facing at present concerns the licensing of surf schools. Currently anyone can set up a surf school, leaving the door open for unqualified instructors to put the safety of young holidaymakers at risk. The BSA is doing everything possible to prevent this from occurring. It has its own system of accreditation for qualified instructors and has successfully lobbied local authorities in Cornwall to introduce a licensing system. For this fine campaign it has received no support from government.
The Surf Life Saving Association of Great Britain is a great example of the good work being done by smaller sporting authorities around the country.
Lord Patten: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to my noble friend for pointing out to the House—and certainly educating me—that surfing, which is a growing and extremely popular sport, is particularly valuable in dealing with youngsters who suffer from problems of social exclusion in many of our seaside towns—where, as your Lordships will appreciate, there are considerable problems of poverty and not enough to do for youngsters, particularly during those long summer months.
Can my noble friend educate me a little further and suggest why the Government seem to be so biased against surfing and so disinclined to support such a popular and growing sport which promotes inclusion? Why are they being so exclusive towards it?
Lord Moynihan: My Lords, in replying, perhaps I may commend my noble friend. For many years now he has been passionately concerned about how we can get young people involved in wider participation in sport rather than only in elite development. What worries me about government policy in this context is that it seems to be heading in the wrong direction. The best example of that recently is the priority sports list, under which limited resources are going to a small number of big sports rather than to a wider base of support for the organisations to which I have referred.
My noble friend is right about many of our coastal towns. If one takes Brighton as an example—the Minister knows more about Brighton than anyone in the Chamber today—he will attest to the fact that in the locality where I live, between Folkestone and Hythe, there is huge deprivation in those communities, as there is in parts of Brighton and in Dover more than anywhere.
We need to engage with such youngsters and we have a fabulous resource with which to do so. We have in the sea a fabulous resource for sport and recreation to enable us to bring them off the streets—away from deprivation and away from a life without hope—and into sport. I am asking the Government today, in
1190
developing a policy for sports associated with the sea, to recognise this principle and to sit down with the local authorities, the clubs and the schools and to build hope for those youngsters through a policy which engages the clubs and governing bodies to which I have referred.
My noble friend intervened when I was referring to a good example—the Surf Life Saving Association of Great Britain. Not only does that organisation have many members and a strong local base of more than 80 clubs, it has also an important social role to play. Since 1964 it has made more than 22,000 rescues, saving at least 45 lives a year. It also trains the Royal National Lifeboat Institution beach rescue guards. It undertakes that function while at the same time being highly successful in elite competition. I pay tribute to the British surf life saving team; it is ranked fourth in the world. Rugby Union is not the only sport in which we have recently beaten Australia in Australia. At the 2003 European championships, the British surf life saving team also won 15 gold, nine silver and four bronze medals.
Yet despite all this work, including the social work that my noble friend's intervention led us to debate, and the elite performance of that sporting governing body, the SLSA has just been informed that its £22,000 of Exchequer funding has to be cut to £7,500. Furthermore, in 2005, Sport England will withdraw even this token donation because surf life saving, as I mentioned a moment ago, has been excluded from the priority sports list. I hope that your Lordships on all sides of the House will recognise that that is patently unacceptable.
Of paramount relevance, however, to all these sports and concerns is the quality of the water, in which more than 3 million water sports enthusiasts, excluding casual bathers, are expected to practise their activities. The cleanliness of sea water is currently regulated by the 1976 bathing water directive. Yet in too many areas, the levels of pollution are unsatisfactory and need addressing by the Government.
At least 5 million people in the United Kingdom use the sea to enjoy sport. The sports concerned all have a great deal to offer society, whether it be through improving the local economy, helping to keep fellow bathers safe, supporting education, inclusion and awareness programmes, and giving opportunities to young and older generations alike.
The concerns and requests made by governing bodies and brought to the attention of the House today are all eminently reasonable. All they ask for is due consideration from those government agencies vested with the responsibility to direct supporting functions to their activities. They want a closer, more productive relationship between the relevant government departments and agencies, reasonable respect for and recognition of their views and a clean, well maintained maritime environment in which to enjoy their pursuits.

1191
Currently, the granting of these modest requests seems to be a lifetime away, and I urge the Government to take immediate steps to establish a new, comprehensive and, above all, fair policy for maritime sports in this country.
5.22 p.m.
Lord Boyce: My Lords, I also very much welcome the initiative of the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, in raising this important matter. It is very good to hear the word "maritime" in this House. It is an unfortunate fact that United Kingdom shipping and seafaring currently have a very low profile, especially away from coastal areas. It is easy for far too many to forget not just our maritime heritage but also the dependence on the sea that we still have today. So awareness of maritime issues can often be limited to a negative focus on loss of life and on pollution, which can quickly undermine the very positive outlook of our maritime community. This "sea blindness" masks the fact that the entire maritime industry is, and will continue to be, essential to the United Kingdom economy.
Facts and statistics underlining this dependence have already been bandied around, but let me add a couple more, possibly of a slightly more upbeat nature. The UK today boasts the largest maritime sector in Europe, with a turnover of £37 billion—twice the size of aerospace or agriculture—and employs some 250,000 people. The maritime sector makes a massive contribution to the economy. We have heard that 95 per cent of British imports and exports go by sea, while 50 million people travel from, to and around the UK by ferry each year. Each day there are more ship moves in the Dover Straits—the busiest in the world— than there are air traffic moves at Heathrow. London is the world centre for maritime financial and legal services, and the Royal Navy is the second strongest navy in the world.
I am sure that a comprehensive maritime policy would, in addition to other benefits, allow this "sea blindness" to be addressed coherently. It would be a policy with which I am sure the Ministry of Defence and the Royal Navy would wish to be associated.
The Royal Navy is, of course, charged with contributing to the promotion of international stability and freedom upon which our national security and prosperity depend. Given our dependence on sea trade, this involves, among other things, looking to the maintenance of the freedom of movement on the high seas as well as countering crime there.
The Ministry of Defence acts in concert with other government departments in exploring ways of combating crime on the high seas. It actively engages with national and international defence intelligence and maritime security communities, as well as commercial shipping and other organisations, to promote wider awareness, understanding and co-operation. It also produces the Worldwide Threat to Shipping report, which is published on the Internet.
1192
It is for these high level reasons that I am sure the Royal Navy would have a clear interest in the theme and the outcome of this debate, but it might be helpful if I gave some practical examples of why this might be. Let me take the event of an unlawful act, where a Royal Navy warship would intervene if a UK entitled ship were involved, or if Her Majesty's Government had agreed to a request for assistance by the vessel's flag state of registry. The sort of incidents I am talking about might range from hostage-taking through the use of a maritime platform by terrorists as a means of transport to the employment of a vessel as a weapon, possibly of mass effect. Clearly, close co-operation with the maritime industry is essential if we are to be ready with the right sort of contingency plans, and actions, when required.
Let me turn to a wider geographical focus. If, in a particular region, the threat to merchant shipping has been determined to be sufficiently high, a system of escorting entitled merchant vessels by Royal Naval warships can be established, such as that which was introduced for Operation TELIC—the Iraqi operation—earlier this year. Indeed, there is particularly close co-operation in the Arabian Gulf, where the Royal Navy's maritime trade organisation, based in Dubai, provides a traffic advice service to assist in the safe passage of white shipping to and from the Gulf.
Of course, Operation TELIC was an important test of that organisation and also the United Kingdom's strategic lift. More than 139,000 linear metres of equipment were moved in 93 sailings over a two-month period, using a total of 64 ships. As I am sure your Lordships know, 95 per cent of all military equipment is moved by sea.
As I have implied, relationships between the merchant navy and the Royal Navy are strong. One of the closest is through the Ministry of Defence's links with the Chamber of Shipping, the trade association for British shipowners and ship managers. This is achieved primarily through two bodies. The first is the Shipping Defence Advisory Committee. This non-executive body, formed of Ministry of Defence and other government departments and British companies, aims to promote mutual understanding and take forward areas of common interest. Chaired by the Assistant Chief of Naval Staff, the committee provides a valuable opportunity for networking and allowing colleagues from industry and the MoD to work collaboratively on developing initiatives. The 59th annual meeting took place only three weeks ago; its key output was to facilitate closer integration across government on maritime security issues.
Equally importantly, the Assistant Chief of the Naval Staff is an ex officio member of the board of the Chamber of Shipping—a close and essential linkage that is highly valued by the Royal Navy. Incidentally, your Lordships will wish to be aware that the 2001 Shipping Defence Advisory Committee formulated a concept for promoting maritime issues on behalf of the entire industry. This work crystallised in a national campaign called Sea Vision UK, which was officially launched in January this year. The campaign aims to

1193
raise awareness of the importance of our maritime sector in terms of the wealth and defence of the country and to promote the wide range of exciting and challenging maritime careers available. That may help to answer the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, about the relatively low numbers of British seafarers. The Royal Navy is a strong supporter of Sea Vision, and is closely engaged.
I would also like to mention SeaBritain 2005. At one time this was titled Year of the Sea, but now SeaBritain 2005 is a national maritime celebration with festivities and events taking place throughout the year to highlight the ways in which the sea touches all of our lives. Naturally, at its heart, is the Trafalgar festival 2005, the bicentennial commemoration of the great battle and Nelson. The SeaBritain 2005 team is working in close partnership with VisitBritain and Sea Vision UK, and it is still hoped that the highlight of the year will be an international fleet review in the Solent.
I mention all this because the Sea Vision campaign and SeaBritain 2005 would indeed be opportunities that could be exploited by a comprehensive maritime policy whether that covered pleasure or sporting activities on the sea or container ships.
Finally, I shall briefly cover one other area that could benefit from such a policy—that of navigational safety around our shores, a subject that is giving serious concern to Trinity House. I declare an interest, as I am a Younger Brother of Trinity House.
Sea traffic is busier than ever; I have mentioned the Dover Straits. Ships are deeper and going faster, with over-reliance on poorly integrated albeit clever technology through waters that are restricting shipping patterns and increasing safety problems because of the wind and wave farms being built in navigable seaways. A comprehensive maritime policy could provide impetus to address properly such issues as the need for an integrated monitoring organisation in our complex offshore environment, or to raise watch-keeping standards and knowledge. I fully support the need for a comprehensive maritime policy.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, I also congratulate the noble Earl on securing the debate. It is a very wide subject, covering a wide range of different issues, but I shall cover the questions of maritime policy and enforcement—or lack of.
The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Boyce, referred in closing to the difficulties of maritime policy. Although Britain has such a large coastline and maritime industry, we must recognise that we are part of the European continental shelf. Therefore, many of the policy issues that affect the maritime environment and operations emanate from Brussels. It is easy to blame Brussels for everything that goes wrong—for delays in enforcement and implementation—but some of the policies that are being introduced are very helpful. That applies not only to sea but to air. It is clearly appropriate that there should be European policies on many of those matters, rather than a UK one alone.
1194
In the past year or so, I have been struck by something that the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Boyce, referred to. The demand for maritime transport is increasing dramatically and very fast. We have spent a lot of time in your Lordships' House discussing road traffic congestion and, sometimes, railways as well. However, I understand from some of the major shipping lines that they expect there to be two to three times the number of containers coming into this country in 20 years. Whether it is two or three times the number does not matter very much. It is not only the containers coming in full that we are talking about— they will probably have to go out again empty, although that is a matter for a different debate. However, there is likely to be an increase in coastal trade and shipping, which will be good for our economy and ports but demands a policy to deal with it.
The noble Earl, Lord Caithness, said that maritime policy was important, and I agree with him. It primarily concerns freight, and it should of course be part of an overall transport policy, which includes not only the maritime part—the shipping—but the ports, railways and inland terminals. I declare an interest as chairman of the Rail Freight Group.
The noble Earl, Lord Caithness, mentioned devolution. Scotland deserves congratulations on what it has achieved already. One of the main achievements is the roll-on, roll-off ferry from Rosyth to Zeebrugge. As people in Scotland tell me, the great thing is that it avoids England and the congestion that England has created for itself. It is doing well in a comparatively short time and perhaps England—or Britain—should do the same.
Ports are very much part of the logistics chain, which probably starts in China or Eastern Europe, and ends up on our supermarket shelves or in our town centres. I understand that Ministers cannot really speak about ports at all at the moment, because of the planning applications that are under review. That is all right, but we can talk about the need for ports.
It is odd to reflect that the private sector provides the investment and efficiency in this country, in shipping and ports and so on. That does not happen on the continent, as the noble Earl said. That produces some anomalies, because when one goes to ports and terminals on the continent, one finds that they are lovely. There is enormous expenditure on them, and costs are low—there are no light dues on the continent, and so on. There is a lot of benefit from the private sector and the trust ports doing as they do in this country. However, if the private sector or the trust ports are going to invest to cope with the doubling or trebling of traffic in 20 years, they need the confidence that the Government will facilitate the road and rail infrastructure that leads to the ports—which, on the whole, cannot be provided in the private sector. If that is not done, they will go elsewhere; they will even go to France, the Netherlands and Antwerp, and we will end up as a country of feeder services, which will cost us more, and will mean that the goods take longer to get

1195
to market. Whether that is a good or a bad thing we can debate, but a lot of people believe the matter to be serious.
Do the Government believe that there is a need for a maritime and port policy, and a need for more UK port capacity? From that question follows the inevitable question, if the Government are going to facilitate the growth of ports around the country, do they believe that they have an obligation to facilitate the road and rail infrastructure that connects to the ports?
I take issue with the noble Earl on rail matters. He said that rail did not have a big part to play, but I would disagree, as he would probably expect me to. For example, Immingham is the biggest rail freight terminal in the country; it does not take as many containers as other terminals, but it takes an enormous amount of bulk goods, including coal. The noble Earl may not be aware that 25 per cent of electricity in this country is generated by coal that is moved around by rail. Sadly, much of it is imported and is just-in-time delivery. Sometimes, when the coal is in the train, the train is told to go to a different power station, which is quite difficult to organise.
To take another example, Southampton has very good rail freight services. The problem is the lorry queues; because of road congestion, it sometimes takes four, six or eight hours before lorries can get into the port. The rail services are quite good, however. Rail freight can cope, and can sometimes get priority over passenger trains it depends who arrives first on time. I do not believe that I need to go into that matter. However, it is important to have a policy that covers the maritime industry, the ports and service transport in a single framework, in which companies can be encouraged to invest.
It is interesting to draw the comparison with the White Paper on the 30-year policy for air, which came out yesterday. Why do the Government believe that we need 30 years for air when we have a 10-year policy for road and rail and, as other noble Lords said, not much about sea? It is important to have long-term policies, as it does not take much longer to build another runway or airport than to get an extension such as Dibden Bay or Barside Bay at Harwich, or anywhere else. There must be the public inquiry, and everything else. Why are we predicting and providing for air for 30 years ahead while doing nothing on the maritime side, although one hopes that we shall have a review of the transport policy next year?
1 turn to regulation and enforcement. We have discussed the issue of increased shipping. Who regulates that, ensures that is safe and enforces it? I declare an interest as president of the UK Marine Pilots Association. I succeeded my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis in that role. As an example of the problem, the "Prestige" sank off Portugal last winter and is, apparently, polluting UK beaches.
The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, referred to water quality, and he is quite right. I have a pilot friend who recently told me about a ship which he got on to pilot into a port on the east side of England—I shall not get
1196
any closer than that. He asked where the radar was, and was told that it was bust. He asked were the GPS was, but that was bust. When he asked where the compass was, they told him that there were two compasses. "Can I see them?" he asked. "Yes, they said, one is bust but one is working". He asked to see the deviation card which helps sort out magnetic anomalies. He found that the magnetic deviation was such that the compass always pointed north—a random direction—so that the compass was quite useless. He asked the captain how he managed to get from northern Europe to his destination, to which he replied, "I followed someone else". The captain was in charge of a big cargo ship. There are many examples of, "I followed someone else". It was lucky that the weather was not foggy.
Noble Lords will recall the incident that I believe took place in late May where a large container ship, which I believe was registered in Monrovia, ran down a yacht. Luckily, the people in the yacht were rescued somewhere between Southampton and Cherbourg. At the time I asked a Minister who would enforce action against the ship that was clearly speeding in extremely dense fog. The answer was, "It is registered in Liberia, isn't it?"
Do members of a crew speak the same language? Can they communicate with one another? The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, referred to that. We must do something about this matter. Just imagine if an airline pilot could not communicate with his navigator as they did not speak the same language. That would not be allowed, would it? So why should the maritime industry get away with that? There are some extremely good shipping lines and coastal shipping lines in the world but there are also some awfully bad ones. The Government could take a lead, at least starting within Europe, on getting proper enforcement, proper rules and proper penalties, well ahead of whatever the IMO might achieve in 10 years or so, to ensure that we have at least taken some measures to prevent the next major accident when everyone will cry out for action. Would it not be nice if we thought of that first as part of a total maritime policy?
5.41 p.m.
Lord Greenway: My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, for initiating this debate on shipping—a matter that we do not discuss often enough in this House. I congratulate him on the speed with which he has managed to obtain this debate in the new Session.
It is a pleasure to see that the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, will reply to this debate. He is a rather unfamiliar personage to be speaking on this subject. However, he will be pleased to hear that I shall join the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, in giving the Government a pat on the back. The Government have done a lot for British shipping. Their bold decision to have a proper look at the tonnage tax, setting up the report of the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Weedon, bringing forward the White Paper and acting on it was very commendable, and it has brought results. As I think the noble Earl said, UK-owned tonnage has

1197
risen by 85 per cent since then. UK flagged shipping— which includes a number of ships coming in from other registries—has grown by more than 200 per cent. That is all very good for UK shipping.
The Government also made changes to the Marine and Coastguard Agency which proved to be very successful. The Deputy Prime Minister, who played a big part in pushing through the tonnage tax, also played a part in the changes I have just mentioned as I believe that he championed Maurice Storey, who became the chief executive of the MCA. Maurice Storey has done a remarkable job in transforming the industry, in setting standards that are the envy of the world, and in particular in working in partnership with ship owners which has attracted many foreign ship owners to flag into the UK register. I willingly add to the plaudits that he has received on his recent retirement. He has returned to the shipping industry from whence he came. The Deputy Prime Minister made a successful move in championing someone who came from the industry. I am delighted to see that Maurice Storey's successor, Captain Stephen Bligh, formerly with P&O, is also an industry man. That bodes well for the future of the MCA.
The tonnage tax carried with it a training requirement which has also notched up a certain success. Nowadays we have upward of 600 officer cadets training as opposed to just over 200 some years ago. Indeed, the number has gone up 30 per cent over the past year. That is very welcome but there is no point in training young people to go to sea if we cannot find berths for them when they have completed their training. That is one of the problems we have yet to face. Although our cadets are extremely well trained, they are also fairly expensive compared with officers from other countries. That problem must be addressed if we are to help with the general safety of shipping. As my noble and gallant friend Lord Boyce said, shipping is basically under threat from the seafarers who operate it. That is the main problem at sea today—the standard of officers. Your Lordships will remember the case of the "Tricolor", the Norwegian car carrier that sank after a collision in the Channel. There are several well publicised cases of ships actually running on to the semi-submerged wreck. Since then, up to one ship a week has passed within the wreck marking buoys. What does that say about standards of seamanship today?
The Government's White Paper was very good in so far as it went but there are still a number of outstanding matters that remain to be addressed, which I shall outline briefly. One is the possible extension of the tonnage tax to other sectors of shipping such as aggregate carriers and specialist North Sea vessels which come up against a great deal of foreign competition. There is also the question of foreign earnings deduction, which is an income tax alleviation available to deep sea crews spending more than 183 days overseas. However, that is not available to crews on domestic and limited short sea services
1198
who are employed away from home on similar employment patterns. Companies involved in those sectors have real problems in retaining their officers.
There is also the question of extending crew relief costs to short sea shipping and assistance with training where the aid regime currently averages 40 to 50 per cent of the training costs. In the industry's opinion it should be increased to 100 per cent.
The tenor of the debate has concerned a maritime policy. The Government love to talk about joined-up government but I see no real progress in joined-up government in relation to maritime matters. As I said, just as one department of the Government has a certain success then along comes another department such as the Treasury and puts its foot in it without prior consultation with the interested parties. We have had two recent proposals which might have jeopardised the recovery of British shipping. One was a proposal to withdraw the exemption of merchant shipping under Section 9 of the Race Relations Act, which admittedly came from Europe, but would have meant that all non-resident crew on British vessels would have had to be paid at UK rates. That would have resulted in a loss of 400 ships to the British register.
There was also a problem with National Insurance contributions. The Inland Revenue announced that the employers' exemption for seafarers paid offshore would be withdrawn. That proposal has been partly modified though not to the satisfaction of NUMAST.
I am pleased to say that nothing came up in the Pre-Budget Statement last week, but there are threats emerging that may affect the continuing resurgence of UK shipping. One involves changing the leasing arrangements under corporation tax. The other is the old chestnut of taxing the domiciled Greek ship owners in the City of London. Greek ship owners have played a very important part in the City of London and in particular in the Baltic Exchange for many years. Their offices in London act as a line of communication with the Greek shipping companies and, at present, Greece controls the largest shipping fleet in the world. As a result, much business flows into maritime London for the ancillary services, insurance, banking and legal affairs and so on. Therefore, I believe that the Government would be ill-advised to apply such a tax. Such people supply much to the country, not only in respect of shipping but in other areas as well.
Ports have been mentioned quite a lot in the debate and so I shall not say too much about them, other than that I warmly support what has been said about them and the urgent need for more container capacity in the south east. Over the years, our planning procedures have been gargantuan and over-lengthy. Although the Government have made noises about speeding things up, something must be done more urgently because there is no doubt that the big shipping companies will take their ships, which are becoming larger and larger by the day, to continental hubs and goods will be feedered across to us, resulting in more expense for the shippers.

1199
Light dues have been mentioned in passing. Here, like the noble and gallant Lord, I declare an interest as a Younger Brother of Trinity House. Last April, the Government announced that they are making no changes to the philosophy of light dues. However, I understand that further consultations are taking place. The options being considered include a more equitable method of charging. That would please operators with large container ships, which call at UK ports only six or eight times a year compared with the ferries, which are in and out every day. I believe that that would be a useful avenue to consider.
The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, dwelt on the leisure side of the maritime industry. I fully support what he said. It enables me to dismiss that subject— not that I was intending to talk about it, but it is a very important part of maritime Britain. In passing, the noble Lord mentioned light dues. I know that the Government have considered the possibility of charging yachtsmen and yachts. The difficulty is how one goes about that. I do not believe that at present the Government want to adopt a registration scheme for yachts, especially with an election not too far away, because a large number of people go sailing.
It is not strictly true to say that light dues are not paid on the Continent. They are not paid in France, Holland or Germany, where they come out of general taxation, but you can bet your boots that they are hidden in other port charges, which the shipping companies do not necessarily see. If one looks at the world situation and takes the top 50 countries, it is interesting to note that a third of them cover the cost of lights and voyage from general taxation, a third part-fund them from light dues, and a third charge light dues. Therefore, the issue is not as clear cut as some people believe.
I now turn to the subject of safety, which has also been mentioned. Here again, the MCA has done an excellent job, and the setting up of SOSREP—the Secretary of State's representative in case of maritime disasters—has worked extremely well. That came out of the report of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson: Safer Ships, Cleaner Seas. It must be said that the efforts made in that respect, coming as they did from the "Sea Empress" disaster and the experience of earlier disasters, such as that of the "Torrey Canyon", have again placed us in a pre-eminent position with regard to the rest of the world so far as concerns safety.
Initially, the International Salvage Union was not very keen on the SOSREP idea, but it has come to accept its merits fully and now promotes our system as a model for the rest of the world. Indeed, that is happening. Europe recently set up its own safety agency—the European Maritime Safety Agency— which is to be based in Lisbon. However, I believe that there is a slight danger here. If Europe tries to take over all European safety, that may affect our present pre-eminent position by dumbing down to a general level.
Ports of refuge have not been mentioned. That subject is under discussion and I believe that something must be done by next February. Perhaps
1200
the Minister can confirm that. The issue has arisen from several maritime incidents—in particular, the "Prestige" off Spain. In the opinion of most maritime experts, that ship and her cargo could have been saved had she been towed into one of the many inlets that exist on that part of north-west Spain. It is important that countries designate—they do not necessarily have to publish them—ports of refuge where ships in trouble can be towed.
Some of your Lordships may remember the incident involving the "Flying Enterprise". Heroic efforts were made by the captain and the mate of the tug "Turmoil" to save the ship but, sadly, they failed. However, nowadays, it seems to me that at the first sign of trouble the crew are whipped off by helicopter and the ship is left to its fate. That cannot make good economic sense. I believe that the insurers and the banking fraternity can play a more important and far larger part in ship safety and in helping to rid the seas of sub-standard ships.
On the question of the "Prestige", we have seen unilateral action taken by Europe in banning from ports single-hull tankers carrying heavy fuel oils. We have seen the extraordinary situation whereby perfectly sound ships have been escorted some 200 miles off the coast of Spain. To my mind, that must go against the law of the sea. I am surprised that no one has yet brought a case. It is far better to leave such actions to the International Maritime Organization, which is the international body for dealing with such matters. Europe has now acted and that has set a precedent, which, for me, is a danger for the way ahead. I believe we must deal with shipping internationally—it is an international business. While I am on the subject of the IMO, I pay tribute to Bill O'Neill, who is just retiring after 14 remarkable years there. I believe that he has done a splendid job.
I want to comment briefly on short-sea shipping, which was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley. I believe that efforts are being made to increase the use of the sea with short-sea shipping, and a new Short Sea Bureau has been set up under Professor James McConville. That is a welcome development.
I welcome what the noble and gallant Lord said about the Sea Vision UK project and SeaBritain. It is a welcome step for the public and the media, in particular, to be educated in shipping matters.
I was going to say a few words about the ghost ships but I shall pass on that. Suffice it to say that in this country we have been breaking up ships for years and I believe that the whole thing has been an utter nonsense.
In the future, global shipping will be influenced by one thing in particular—that is, the growth of China. We shall see a huge increase in Chinese shipping. Chinese crews will be the main source of seafarers in the future.
In conclusion, it is desirable that Her Majesty's Government recognise the importance of shipping and its advantages and that they maintain a strong and well run maritime transport sector. How do we do that in

1201
terms of a shipping policy? I have mentioned previously the prospect of a possible Minister for the sea. I do not believe that we can go down that road now, but the Government are very fond of tsars. Perhaps a shipping tsar would be another way of tackling the issue.
5.59 p.m.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, for giving the House the chance to debate these matters. When I first saw the title of the debate I was interested to find out what a comprehensive maritime policy was. So far we have heard a wide range of ideas and I have learned a little more. I hope to bring into the debate my ideas of what maritime policy should involve, maybe widen the debate and possibly stray into devolved matters.
Five years ago I would have cried "foul" but I am happy for Scotland to be debated here now that we have successfully restarted the Scottish state. In that context, I mention in passing that having a First Minister who was brought up on an island is a benefit and having a Deputy First Minister who represents an island is also good and useful.
I acknowledge the ideas of many speakers, although I shall not touch on them myself. I certainly go along with the point made by the noble Earl about Scapa Flow and Hunterston and the point raised by the noble and gallant Lord about defence, beaches, shores and light dues. No one mentioned—although I anticipated that they would—tidal and other forms of energy or oil rig security. The transfer from road to sea was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, who spoke of goods being taken from the port on to the rest of the transport infrastructure. No one mentioned marine nature reserves. The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, mentioned recreation and I was glad to hear at least one other person broaden the debate. Flags and crews were mentioned but no one mentioned coastal defence—I do not mean military defence.
I am certain that maritime policy is about shipping in all its forms—cargo, passenger, holiday-makers, ferries—and hence about the infrastructure that makes shipping activity possible. It is inevitable that the world's fourth largest economy, when based on an island group, will be dependent on ships for all forms of overseas trade. I acknowledge in passing that some economic activity also goes by the tunnel, by air, by underwater cables, by pipeline and by satellite. The noble Earl stated that by weight 95 per cent of trade goes by sea. I am sure that he is correct. It certainly sounds likely.
On these Benches—I wish they were occupied by at least one other person—we are concerned about maritime piracy and armed robbery against ships. That is a serious threat to the well being of our seafarers and our ships but it is also a threat to the marine environment should any ship be sunk or have some of its cargo jettisoned into the sea.
Since I left school I seem to have started to collect islands; at least, I visit them—island bagging, if you like. The result is that I am reasonably familiar with
1202
some of the steamer routes. Visits ensued to Arran, Bute, Islay, Jura, Mull, Iona, Tiree, Skye, Barra, Vatersay, the Uists and Benbecula, Harris and Lewis, Orkney, Hoy and Shetland. Perhaps the gems were Mingulay and St Kilda. The result of all that misspent early adulthood was a reasonable familiarity with many of the mainland coastal ports and harbours. Many of those places are as remote as the islands that their ferries serve. Last summer when in Mallaig I found myself agreeing with the claim made in Mallaig that it is more typical of a Norwegian port than a Scottish one in view of the amount of wilderness that one must travel through to get there by road or train.
The maritime environment provides for much of our food, and sea fishing is an activity that currently finds itself in controversy. With so much of the United Kingdom fishing fleet based in Scotland, one cannot but recognise that over-fishing occurs and that the common fisheries policy of the EU receives most of the blame. Scottish fishermen may well feel that the common fisheries policy has shared out their fishing grounds over-generously and that the scientists are wrong and that the cod have moved northwards to cooler waters rather than being in danger of becoming extinct. I acknowledge that later today we shall discuss that issue further.
While preparing for this debate I mused on the semantics of the Motion. Did the noble Earl really mean to refer to "a comprehensive maritime policy" or did he mean a comprehensive marine policy? I suspect that he meant the latter. My fundamental approach is that a maritime policy concerns the way in which government deal with maritime areas, often remote coastal strips and the islands. It is a sad statistic that the populations of the 98 inhabited islands of Scotland have reduced to less than 100,000 for the first time in living memory. It is obvious that the islands are remote in almost every way and access to markets is a critical one.
1 believe that the Government should make every effort to enable people to populate all of our landmass and to make a living for themselves doing real work. This is not a call for subsidy. Only governments can construct infrastructure and place government work in remote maritime areas. With such a policy the private sector would see that there was less difficulty in following suit. The Government should make every effort to extend broadband into the remote areas. Not to do so holds back those areas, possibly even more so than the more central mainland areas.
I note with interest the endeavours of Scotland's other neighbours, Norway, the Faroes and Ireland. Anyone visiting Norway is bound to notice the efforts made by the southern Norwegians to enable people to live and work in the north of Norway. The infrastructure is magnificent and Norway wants its remote areas populated. By contrast, northern Sweden is relatively empty. That is their choice. It has to be reflected upon that Norway and Scotland both have oil and gas fields. However, the two countries have made different use of the revenues. In the Faroe Islands it is also striking how much effort is made to make life practical throughout that island group,

1203
where the terrain is largely perpendicular. In mentioning Ireland, I shall pick out its, requirement that 25 per cent of all inward investment must be placed in the west of Ireland.
Lest it be said that I spoke only of Scotland, not all islands suffer from remoteness problems. While visiting the Isle of Wight I saw an unusual amount of economic activity, as I did in Jersey, Guernsey and the Isle of Man. Of course that was for different reasons. Those three islands enjoy many institutions of state on their islands with the economic benefits that they bring.
Despite my obvious enthusiasm for matters Norwegian, I wonder whether it is good that Norwegian companies own so much of the Scottish fish farming industry. That market dominance and the problems of pollution, fish diversity and over-supply should be in local rather than overseas hands. The noble Earl has done well to bring a focus to the United Kingdom's interface with the rest of the world. I hope that that attention will be well used by the Government.
6.8 p.m.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for introducing the debate. He is extremely knowledgeable on the subject of maritime policy, having been a Minister in this House responsible for a Conservative government's policy on maritime issues. He has demonstrated his expertise today. Most noble Lords who have spoken have some form of expertise, but I probably have the least of any noble Lord speaking in the debate. However, I shall do as much as I can. The noble Lord, Lord Bassam of Brighton, is shaking his head, but he at least lives by the sea and looks out at it every morning. No doubt he has a view.
As Conservatives, we have always wanted to see a fair deal for shipping. A number of challenges are coming up that will affect the industry, not least the impact of the EU working time directive and the possible EU ports directive. There is also a debate about light dues.
The statistics in relation to shipping are a success in this country. The noble Lord, Lord Greenway, was right to congratulate the Government. The trading fleet operated by UK-based companies under all registers has grown by 2.5 per cent in carrying capacity to 12.3 million deadweight tonnes, although the total number of ships has remained at about 590. The shipping fleet contributes significantly to our economy in terms of balance of payments and employment. Overseas earnings for 2001 have been maintained at £5.1 billion, of which the contribution to the balance of payments was £2.5 billion. It is a successful industry.
The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Boyce, pointed out the importance of our UK maritime fleet, which has been needed for recent events in the Middle East. With the noble and gallant Lord's experience as First Sea Lord and Chief of Defence Staff, he knows about the necessity of having a strong merchant fleet in this country.
1204
In 1998 the Government published a White Paper on the future of the shipping industry called British shipping: Charting a new course. It was a supposedly comprehensive strategy to secure the future of UK shipping in the form of 33 interrelated measures. They have been mentioned tonight. Will the noble Lord give us some estimation of their success? How many measures have been put in place? The measures relate to increasing skills, encouraging employment, increasing this country's attractiveness to shipping enterprises, and improving safety and environmental benefit. How well do the Government feel they have done in achieving those goals?
The Chamber of Shipping in its annual review has commented on the introduction of the tonnage tax, which, by and large, has been a welcome development for the industry. It stated:
"Since the adoption of the tonnage tax three years ago, 62 shipping groups, representing around 200 companies and operating some 720 vessels, have now entered this tax regime. Aimed to place UK-based companies on an equal footing with their competitors world-wide, tonnage tax has offered companies a chance to be subject to low-level taxation based on the size of the fleet that they operate, rather than on actual profits. This system is increasingly common in shipping, particularly in Europe".
Perhaps the Minister can give us the percentage of the total in terms of the number of ships and tonnes and tell us whether the Government expect that amount to grow.
There are two sub-sectors of the industry that are still not able to benefit from this tax regime—the aggregate carriers and specialist vessels operating on the UK Continental Shelf. What progress has been made? I believe that it is a matter of negotiation with the EU Commission. This is an extremely important area for those companies operating those ships. I should be grateful if the Minister could bring us up-to-date on it.
I mentioned earlier the EU working time directive. Perhaps the Minister can tell us whether the Government have made an assessment of how that is impacting on the industry.
The EU ports directive was the subject of a House of Commons Transport Committee report. I understand that the European Parliament has rejected that directive. Can the Minister give us our position on the issue? There were certainly differing views in the industry about whether its rejection was a good or a bad idea. The Freight Transport Association said that,
"this is a massive blow for the competitiveness of European ports and their customers as the Directive was designed to break down the barriers that prevent private companies operating dockside services in many EU ports".
The International Transport Workers' Federation called the move,
"a milestone victory, not just for the trade unions and workers who campaigned so effectively against this hopelessly flawed legislation".
So, what is the position on the legislation? I should be interested to hear the Government's view.
The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, with his knowledge of the rail industry talked about that issue. Can the Minister tell us a little more about the connection

1205
between container ports and rail? This is an important issue. After all, one train can haul at least 40 containers as compared with the goods going by road. The noble Lord and my noble friend Lord Caithness talked about short-sea shipping. The Government have a duty to play a proactive role in this area because, as we know, container ships are getting ever larger and are carrying more containers. If we can get them moved from ports cheaply—by rail when possible and of course by road when not—it will make a big difference to the economy.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, does the noble Viscount think that the diminution of British seafarers is a good or a bad thing? If he thinks that it is a bad thing, how would he address the situation?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I shall not answer the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, because it is for the Government to respond to the debate. I have a number of questions and, quite frankly, it would take a long time to do that. I shall concentrate on letting the Government set out their stall and saying what their policy is.
I turn to the issue of light dues, which has been mentioned. In opposition the Labour Party promised to scrap this tax. So far as I am aware, it has not been scrapped. What is the Government's view? I would be interested to know whether they have changed their policy or have just not got around to the matter. It is claimed that none of our major competitors levies this tax, which means that we have an extra cost and ships visiting our ports have to pay a tax which they would not have to pay if they visited continental ports.
The House of Commons Select Committee concluded in its ports inquiry report that light dues are,
"inconsistent with other European countries and distort competition".
I urge the Government to consider the entire concept of light dues and, in particular, to progress in the negotiations with the Republic of Ireland over the £5 million subsidy paid by this country for lights in the republic every year. What is the Government's policy on that? It would be interesting to know.
I turn to an area that was raised by the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie—conservation. The maritime industry is not just shipping, but includes pipelines, drilling rigs, underground cables, offshore energy and so on. Which government department has an overall remit for environmental policy? Some of it must come under the Department for Transport, but obviously that department is not responsible specifically for energy policies, so how does that work between the various different sectors?
Finally, I turn to the extremely important issue raised by my noble friend Lord Moynihan of maritime sports. The associations of sea anglers and sea angling have a turnover of £1 billion. I hope the Government will support in principle all sea sports. After all, surfing bodies and pressure groups have made a huge
1206
difference in helping to clean up our beaches and in making sure that more local authorities achieve blue flags on their beaches than ever before. The surfing community is perhaps in the fore in putting on such pressure. It is a sport for the young; it is not expensive; one needs a surfboard, a wetsuit—unless one is very hardy—and one needs to be able to swim. On that note, I look forward to the Minister's reply.
6.19 p.m.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, it is customary in your Lordships' House always to congratulate the originator of a debate. The noble Earl, Lord Caithness, is fully entitled to have rapturous congratulations in having brought these issues before us this evening. It is also customary to comment on the breadth of contributions to debates. That breadth has been excessive in many respects. I pay particular tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, for introducing a dimension to the debate which I think probably, and in fairness and due deference to all other speakers, would have been absent if he had not made such a voluble contribution to what is an extremely interesting subject indeed.
I will probably disappoint the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, by being unable fully to live up to the breadth of his contribution, but I recognise the importance of all the issues that he raised. As he acutely remarked, coming from a seaside resort, I am familiar with many of those issues. I am delighted that, with his customary vigour, the noble Lord is pursuing them, because they are important issues that need to be raised in national policy making.
Probably the most astute observation was that by the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, who observed that I was not as familiar as I might be with the subject. He struck a bull's-eye with that comment. But that does not lessen my great interest in the subject, because I recognise that this is an important debate. When I asked officials when the subject was last debated, there was much head-scratching and no one could remember a debate on shipping and maritime issues in recent times. That is unfortunate and regrettable; we must give the matter constant thought. I do what Ministers usually do at this point and apologise in advance for all the issues that I do not cover in my response.
I should make clear that the Government's transport policy does not just focus on particular problems such as road congestion and the state of our railways and is instead an integrated approach. That is important because it relates to the importance of ports and how they have come to the fore. The growing demand for port capacity, the substantial revival in the fortunes of UK merchant shipping—to which most speakers have referred—and the trend towards larger vessels have made ports and the needs of those who use them topical.
Several noble Lords—the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, and others—referred to the substantial growth in the handling of goods and use of

1207
ports in the European context. We handle more goods than any other European country. In 2001, they totalled 566 million tonnes. Through-put does not necessarily equate to efficiency, but UK ports are among the most efficient in Europe in terms of volume handled per metre of quay and per hectare of container storage. We anticipate that that efficiency will continue steadily to increase.
As the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, said at the outset, not only does this country have a long maritime tradition but 95 per cent of our international trade is by sea. As an island nation, we have 10,500 miles of superb coastline. Shipping that is safe and clean is therefore essential to the prosperity of the United Kingdom. The maritime industry also makes a significant contribution to the UK economy. In its "Sea Vision" campaign, with which we are delighted, which promotes UK shipping, the Chamber of Shipping recently estimated that the UK maritime industry has a turnover of £37 billion and accounts, directly and indirectly, for a quarter of a million jobs.
Much praise has been directed towards the Deputy Prime Minister for his important role in introducing a new shipping policy. As several noble Lords have mentioned, that was set out in 1998 in the White Paper, British Shipping: Charting a new course. The noble Viscount, Lord Astor, asked me how we thought that we were progressing in reaching the targets set out in that document. Progress-monitoring is under way. I am happy to write to the noble Viscount to update him about the progress that has been made. The shipping task force meetings are working on that, and the 33 measures have gone a long way to ensuring that we secure the important policy objectives set out in that document. It focuses on an integrated strategy aimed at reversing the decline of the British merchant fleet and the number of British seafarers that had occurred during the previous 20 years.
Much reference was made to the introduction of the tonnage tax in 2000 and the registration reforms of the Maritime and Coastguard Agency. Those measures have helped to produce a favourable environment for shipping. That is clearly demonstrated by the 200 per cent growth in gross shipping tonnage registered under the UK flag since 1997. In June 2003, the UK-registered trading fleet stood at 8.9 million—in 15th place in the world league tables, as it were, and accounting for about 2 per cent of the world trading fleet.
Shipping provides our primary link to international markets and considerable opportunities for the development of sustainable traffic flows. Our ports play an important role as a key connector in multi-modal transport systems used for the vast bulk of our trade and by millions of domestic and international passengers. They represent the heart of many communities and their continuing success is central to local and regional regeneration and prosperity.
The Government recognise that the worldwide shipping and ports sector is growing strongly. The United Kingdom has an excellent opportunity to
1208
benefit from that growth and there is clear potential for significant inward investment and the delivery of wider economic and environmental benefits.
I shall try to respond to some of the points raised. An important question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, and others, was why it was that there is a national policy for aviation and airports but not one for ports. We take the view that, compared with ports, airports are much more likely to become major development hubs in their own right and require land-take close to urban areas, placing heavy burdens on road and rail access infrastructure. Through aircraft movements, they give rise to significant environmental impacts over a wide area.
Although they can have some of those features, ports generally have much less effect on surrounding populations. The Government believe that, as far as possible, proposals for port expansions should be treated in the same way as other commercial and industrial developments. Of course, that does not mean that the impact of port developments, including those over a wider area, should not be taken into account by the operation of the planning system in the normal way.
I know that criticisms have been made of how the planning process can impact on the development of ports—this point was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Greenway—but we are ensuring that there are changes and reforms. We are all aware of those concerns. A review of marine consents procedures is being undertaken, although I confess that it has taken somewhat longer than we hoped to announce its conclusions, but we shall do so sometime in the New Year. We have now published an appraisal framework for ports, derived from our guidance on multi-modal studies, which, 1 think it is fair to say, has been generally welcomed.
We believe that that will improve the development and consent process and assist promoters, objectors and all others involved in planning inquiries in determining whether all relevant factors and concerns have been properly considered. We have also announced measures to streamline the public policy process, while ensuring that all views of important stakeholders can be adequately considered.
Important questions were also raised about the forecast demand for port capacity. The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, certainly raised the issue. We acknowledge that increasing demand for port capacity is one of the principal challenges that we must face in order effectively to handle the growth in container traffic and in the size of ships themselves. The UK ports sector has risen to that challenge and, as a result, during the past few years, several major proposals for new facilities across the United Kingdom have been made. Reference was made to some of those developments—in particular, by the noble Earl, Lord Caithness. We have had to give those matters careful consideration. In the devolved administrations we will be taking consistent decisions after weighing up all the relevant factors and looking at the balance of advantage. The Government are working hard to

1209
understand better the pressures on port capacity. That is a complex task. It has been suggested that we should make our own forecasts of container demand. However, there are existing forecasts on container traffic which at least appear to be in broad agreement, so the extra benefit that Government forecasts would bring is not clear.
Noble Lords have also called for more Government intervention, an important issue regarding public funding for our ports. As befits a maritime nation, the United Kingdom has a large number of ports of all sizes that cater for all traffic. It is not perhaps widely known that there are 1,030 commercially active ports, wharves and terminals around our coastline. Unlike continental Europe our ports are in the private sector, as noble Lords have observed. Likewise, although shipping is vitally important to the United Kingdom, it is run on a strict commercial basis. Our general approach has been that commercial port developments and operations should not need public subsidy, whether that originates from domestic or community programmes. Port infrastructure can, and should be, commercially financed, as, in our view, public money is not well spent by distorting competition between the many ports in the United Kingdom. However, we recognise that there are circumstances where economic impact is outweighed by social and environmental gain. In each case we take a careful view on the merits before particular decisions are made.
The noble Earl, Lord Caithness, raised the issue of new port development. I have already referred to that and there is consideration of a number of applications for new container terminals. As was accurately predicted, they are not matters upon which I can comment at this stage by looking at the merits of the different proposals. It would be fairer if those decisions were made and announced in the usual way. It would be extremely unwise for me to comment.
I now turn to other questions raised by noble Lords. The noble Viscount, Lord Astor, raised the EC directive on market access to port services. The Government were disappointed by the rejection by the European Parliament of proposals that we saw as being fair and workable compromises. Our commitment is to continue to press for a workable strategy for the liberalisation of the community port sector. We take that seriously, but it is unlikely to happen in the near future. The noble Viscount also raised the access to ports directive, although I might be wrong. We intend to press the EU on that issue, the importance of which we recognise. It figures large in our discussions and negotiations.
The issue of light dues was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, and the noble Viscount, Lord Astor. We believe that light dues are an important aid to navigation and should be paid for primarily by those who use them. Taxpayers should not be expected to meet those costs. I hear the comments of the noble Lord about seeing them as another form of taxation; and also I note his comments about our view in opposition. Recently we have had a consultation
1210
exercise on reviewing light dues, the outcome of which was inconclusive. There was no clear consensus for change to the current light dues structure, or a solution to how costs could be more fairly distributed. I can confirm that an economic study is under way on the effect of light dues on commercial operating costs and trading patterns.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, before my noble friend reaches the end of his remarks, would he be kind enough to say something about crewing? Significantly, that issue has been omitted. When I was Minister of Shipping, crewing was all-important. Would the Minister comment on that vital issue, without which British shipping cannot make the progress that we want to see?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, certainly I recognise the importance of that issue. The Government see the importance of seafarer training to ensure that we provide for the future of the industry. We have been encouraged, and are doing all that we can to encourage, seafarer training. Our support for the maritime training scheme has been running since 1998. We have invested in that. There is support for the training of officers and ratings. I understand that there is currently a budget of some £9.5 million a year. In the year 2002–03 the scheme funded 557 cadets, which is an increase of 16 per cent over the previous year. In a sense, that gives testament to the commitment that we have as an Administration to providing for a workforce for the future that responds to labour pressures and the demands that the development and growth in shipping will undoubtedly place on our economy.
The Government's shipping policy has resulted in a substantial revival of the merchant fleet. I have already spoken of the important boost that we have given to training to cater for that. A number of noble Lords have referred to the fact that we have created a positive environment for shipping and the wider maritime sector. We are determined for that to continue. We have established a sound partnership with the industry and the shipping task force. We will continue to build on the valuable co-operation that we have generated. The Government clearly recognise the importance to the United Kingdom of the continued economic success of the ports sector. We believe that we have in place a comprehensive package of measures which is right for a modern, successful, sustainable and safe ports industry. The Government are actively helping to ensure that the maritime industry as a whole is in good shape to deal with future challenges and seize new opportunities.
We have had a valuable and important debate. I apologise to noble Lords for my inadequacy in dealing with all of the issues that have been raised, but they were many. I shall review them all and ensure that specific responses are made to those questions as a matter of courtesy and to ensure that they are put on public record. I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, for initiating this debate and I apologise for

1211
my inadequacies in responding, but I congratulate all those who have taken part on their valuable contributions to a matter of increasing importance.
6.38 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate; in particular to the Minister for his efforts in replying to many of the questions. There were more unanswered questions to which many of us looks forward to receiving either a mass of letters, or a very long letter, in the near future. I hope that the Minister will also draw the debate to the attention of the Secretary of State because it is of key importance.
It was nice again to hear my old friend, the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis. He always reminisces about the past, often selectively. But he was right to mention the revival of the fleet under the Red Ensign. We all welcome that. But I say to him that because scheduled transportation is a slave to the clock, it does not matter to shippers and our industry whether goods come in or out under the Red Ensign or the Liberian flag. They want regular and consistent deliveries.
The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Boyce, reminded us how full are the Dover Straits. I remember opening the latest radar there in the 1980s. Again, that is now outdated due to the amount of traffic. It serves only to strengthen my argument that we need ports other than Zeebrugge and Southampton as our major container ports to take traffic out of the Dover Straits and reduce the possibility of accidents.
I was grateful to my noble friend Lord Moynihan for mentioning sport and recreation. He is welcome to enjoy the good surfing at Thurso and I look forward to seeing him there. I was sad that he made no mention of petroleum carriers and power generation at sea, about which he knows a great deal. Perhaps we should have another debate to allow him to do so.
The noble Lord, Lord Greenway, with his fund of knowledge, was right to say that the MCA has been a success and to raise concerns about standards of seamanship.
The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, mentioned the "ro-ro" ferry between Rosyth and Zeebrugge. However, he did not tell your Lordships that in 1998 the then Minister of Shipping, Glenda Jackson, refused to support an application for European funding under the EU's PACT programme for a direct Scotland-Continent ferry service. She did so on the basis that the Government wanted to use the PACT fund only for rail projects, thereby discriminating against sea transport. One of the bonuses of devolution was that the matter was referred to Scotland. With cross-party support in the Scottish Parliament, funds were applied for and obtained. As the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, rightly said, we now have a successful service.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for allowing me to intervene. Does he agree that the Government have improved the situation—
1212
possibly turned it around—by the introduction of short-sea shipping grants, which I am sure he will welcome?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I welcome anything that will help, but I do not believe that they have turned the situation around. There is an opportunity to help, but more must be done to assist the trans-shipment of goods into ports. We must use the railways to take our goods much closer to our industries in the north and the midlands, rather than bringing them all through the large container ports of Felixstowe and Southampton.
I am extremely grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part. It is far too long since we last had a debate on shipping and maritime policies. I hope that we have another soon, but meanwhile I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Road Deaths and Casualties
6.42 p.m.
Baroness Scott of Needham Marketrose to call attention to the trends in the number of road deaths and casualties; and to move for Papers.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I am pleased to be able to bring forward a debate in your Lordships' House today on road deaths and casualties. I look forward to the contributions of various noble Lords with great interests because I know that they have a wealth of experience to bring to bear on the subject.
First, I want to declare some interests. I am a Suffolk county councillor, chair of the Local Government Association Transport Executive and a member of the Commission for Integrated Transport.
God willing, few of us will ever be involved in a rail or air crash. That is the statistical reality. However, with some 3,500 deaths each year on our roads and a staggering 35,000 injuries caused by road crashes, the chances are that each one of us will, during our lifetime, be involved in some way or other in such a tragedy.
As is so often the case, it is sad that regular repetition of those figures has the effect of blunting their meaning. But anyone who has ever been involved in a serious road crash, or who has observed at close quarters the after-effects of one, will know that the outcomes can be truly devastating. In that rather hard-hearted way that accountants have, the cost of a death on our roads has been estimated at £1 million, but the personal cost is beyond measure.
So why is it that we as a society are prepared to tolerate levels of death and injury on our roads which we would never accept on the rail network or within the aviation sector? It is easy to speculate, but my guess is that it has something to do with the development in our society of the culture which creates blame but does not accept responsibility. It is always very easy to blame other individuals or organisations for their

1213
failings when things go wrong, rather than to accept our own responsibility for fault and to adjust our behaviour where necessary. And so we have created a world in which some people believe that their right to arrive at their destination in the shortest possible time is a goal which overrides the personal safety of others on the road.
It is of course true to say that in this country we have among the lowest rates of death and injury on the road in the world. That is to be welcomed, but nevertheless there is no room for complacency. We know, for example, that we do not perform well in international league tables when it comes to child pedestrian casualties. That is particularly telling in disadvantaged areas, where a child is 15 times more likely to suffer from an accident on the road than in a more well-heeled area.
Between 1983 and 1993 there was a sharp reduction in the number of road deaths. Since then, the rate of reduction has, sadly, slowed up considerably. But perhaps that is not too surprising given that traffic growth is up; the number of police officers dedicated to traffic enforcement is down; worryingly, we see signs that seatbelt wearing is declining; and the mobile phone has become a new menace on the road. In this time also, drink-driving and driving under the influence of drugs has increased. And so between 2001 and 2002 road deaths fell by just 19 and serious injuries by 153.
Clearly, something has to be done. The Government have, in their 10-year plan, set some ambitious targets for accident rates, so I first want to ask the Minister whether, in the context of the factors I have just outlined, he is still confident that those targets will be met. In 1999, the Government's road safety document, Tomorrow's Roads—Safer for Everyone, was widely welcomed. It gave a clear list of actions which the Government were going to take. Four years later, where are we?
The Government have changed the law with regard to school crossing patrols; introduced mandatory logbooks for learner drivers; tightened seatbelt exemptions for local delivery drivers; and strengthened police powers for roadside testing. That is pretty much it. We are still awaiting proposals for improved driver training and testing, evidential roadside breath testing and the changes to road traffic penalties which were recommended by the Home Office some years ago.
The Government have considered and rejected a strategy to introduce a new hierarchy of roads, a national speed management strategy and additional police powers to undertake targeted breath testing. They have also ruled out lowering the legal blood alcohol limit. I do not believe that that is a satisfactory state of affairs for a Government who say they are committed to road safety. I am afraid it suggests to me that they have been well and truly nobbled by the motoring lobby and the sensationalist journalists who serve it.
1214
I want to concentrate today on the issue of speed. All respectable road safety literature and evidence from all around the world supports the relationship between speed and both the frequency and severity of crashes. Excessive or inappropriate speed is the single highest contributory factor in road accidents. In America, for example, those states where the limit was increased substantially in 1996 have seen a 35 per cent rise in death rates, far outstripping the rise in other states where the limits were left the same.
There is a growing body of support for a national speed limit strategy within which local authorities can develop a hierarchy of roads. It would be based on their type, the level of risk and the desired function and usage, rather than the current system of historic factors and average current speed. This is of particular importance on rural roads. Sixty per cent of all fatalities are on rural roads—they are far more dangerous than motorways. The concept of a rural road hierarchy is supported by, among others, the Council for the Protection of Rural England, Transport 2000, the road safety campaigners Brake, the Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety and the Royal National Institute for the Blind. In the light of that, I want to ask the Minister why the Government have decided not to proceed with it.
The other significant area of concern, as I have said, is that of child pedestrians in urban areas, where we fare far worse than other European countries. The home zones initiative is to be welcomed, as is the Government's funding for pilot areas, but only 24 in the whole country were funded last year. At that rate of progress, it would probably take 100 years before the country could be said to be calmed.
To make matters worse, the statutory guidance promised when the Transport Act 2000 was enacted has still not been issued. That is now a matter of urgency. The Health Development Agency has demonstrated that a national extension of the home zones initiative would reduce child pedestrian injuries by many thousands every year.
While on the subject of traffic calming, I noticed with interest the growing backlash against measures such as road humps and chicanes, which has led in parts of London to a proposal to use speed cameras to enforce the speed limit in 20 mph zones. Lo and behold, that, too, has led to moaning in certain parts of the motoring lobby. They want neither traffic calming nor speed cameras, so perhaps I could offer a radical suggestion: why do they not try sticking to the speed limit?
Some five years ago, a very close friend of mine received the call that every parent dreads: his teenage daughter had been knocked down by a speeding vehicle close to her home. For weeks her life hung in the balance, and, as she recovered, the extent of her injuries was revealed as massive. Due to the intensive care that she received in Addenbrooke's, the superb long-term treatment that she received at the specialist head injury unit at Tadworth, in Surrey, and, above all, her own indomitable spirit, she has made an amazing recovery and today is studying for a degree. I

1215
challenge those journalists who write stories about speed cameras and traffic-calming to go to Tadworth and talk to Adele or young people like her. When they listen to her story, they should remember that she is the lucky one because she is still here to tell the story.
The recent spate of speed-camera stories has given rise to an entire new mythology, so it is about time we put some facts straight. First, research consistently shows that speed cameras reduce casualties. A Department for Transport study has shown a reduction in the number of people killed and seriously injured at camera sites. Those findings have been backed up by work carried out by the West London Camera Partnership and evidence from other countries. A recent study in Cambridgeshire by Imperial College has concluded that cameras at certain sites can reduce collisions by 45 per cent, with beneficial effects recorded up to two kilometres away from the camera.
Until the Transport Act 2000, the police were constrained from using cameras by the fact that their administration was costly to the police authority. Under the netting-off provisions of the Act, the police have been able to retain enough of the proceeds of the fines to cover costs, and the remainder goes to the Treasury. Police authorities are not lining their own pockets by introducing speed cameras, and I find it very difficult to imagine that any police authority would introduce cameras simply so that it could send money to Gordon Brown.
I have always taken the view that the proceeds of speed camera fines, estimated currently at £20 million, should be retained by the police and local authorities for investment in road safety. Ironically, the Government rejected that proposal on the grounds that the public would regard it as a revenue-raising exercise—but, of course, they are doing that anyway. However, I still believe that that would be the best way forward. More than enforcement, engineering and education are key, but they cost money. It would be a nice fit if the money raised from enforcement could be used for engineering and education.
For the netting-off procedure to apply, there must be a local safety camera partnership, led by the Highways Agency and the police. A camera can be sited only where there have been at least four crashes involving deaths or serious injuries on a given 1.5-kilometre stretch of road in the past three years, and where at least 20 per cent of drivers exceed the speed limit. Cameras are not sited for the generation of income.
There has been a fall in the number of dedicated traffic police and, with it, the number of successful prosecutions for offences such as dangerous driving and speeding. Critics of speed cameras point to the fact that they only catch speeding drivers and do not deal with other dangerous manoeuvres such as tail-gating. That is true, but without cameras we would not have more police, and the situation would simply worsen. With police authorities hard-pressed and road traffic enforcement not a priority in national policing plans, cameras are essential, although no substitute for traffic police.
1216
Given the lateness of the hour and the business still to be transacted, I shall make three final, brief points. First, since we have debated the matter at length during the passage of the Railways and Transport Safety Act 2003, I will simply express my concern that the Government have still not chosen to reduce the legal blood alcohol limit, despite the fact that we have one of the highest permitted levels in Europe, and given that a reduction would be supported by PACTS, the RoSPA and the RNIB, among others.
Secondly, will the Minister comment on why the recent consultation carried out by the Health and Safety Executive, A Strategy for Workplace Health and Safety in Great Britain to 2010 and beyond, does not propose to cover work-related driving? Given that the Government's own Road Safety Strategy has identified business drivers as particularly at risk on the road, that is a glaring omission.
Thirdly, perhaps the Minister might comment on the road safety benefits of a move to Central European Time and the extra hour of evening daylight that it would bring. Perhaps I ought not to have mentioned that in the presence of my noble friend Lord Mar and Kellie and the noble Earl, Lord Caithness.
In concluding, I shall quote from a recent publication by the AA, which, I am sure, sees itself as the voice of the responsible motorist:
"preventing death on the road need be neither expensive nor complex. It does need financial investment but it also requires discipline from authorities in engaging people with the right skills to measure where people are being routinely killed and maimed, to apply systematically the known remedies, and to maintain roads properly".
None of us would disagree with that; but is it not telling that nowhere in that little homily does it mention the responsibility of motorists to obey the speed limit? Coming from the AA, that is a disgrace, and it is our problem. I beg to move for Papers.
6.56 p.m.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, 1 warmly congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Needham Market, on securing this important debate, and on her brilliant speech. The debate comes just one week after the national day of action on road traffic speed, organised by Transport 2000 last Wednesday.
I declare two relevant unpaid interests: I am an honorary vice-president of Transport 2000 and president of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, a position that I was honoured to take over from my noble friend Lord Davies of Oldham. I am delighted that my noble friend Lady Gibson of Market Rasen, who will also speak in this debate, is my deputy president in RoSPA. I am proud to be associated with both organisations, because in their own ways they have played a huge part in campaigning to reduce the annual slaughter on our roads.
It will come as no surprise to noble Lords that I agreed with every word of the noble Baronesss speech. The number of people killed and injured on our roads each year—to say nothing of the lives of friends and relatives wrecked as a consequence—is a national disgrace, particularly because virtually every accident

1217
is avoidable. Almost all road crashes are caused by, or involve, human error, whether mistakes or deliberate violations of the law. The vast majority, therefore, of the 3,431 deaths and 300,000 injuries that occurred in road crashes in 2002 were due to people using the road in a dangerous or careless manner. Ultimately, the only way to reduce that appalling toll is to change how drivers, riders and walkers behave on the road. That requires a co-ordinated strategy based on the three Es—education, engineering and enforcement.
On education, training and publicity must be provided to road users so that, with appropriate knowledge, skills and attitudes, they can use the roads safely. Engineering of roads and vehicles physically affects how road users behave; for example, through speed reduction measures. Enforcement supports and complements the other two, and aims to deter irresponsible, dangerous and unlawful behaviour, through investigation and, if necessary, punishment of offenders. Drivers must be made aware that there is a strong chance of getting caught if they behave dangerously, and that they will receive sufficiently severe sanctions to act as a deterrent to such behaviour.
There is no doubt that the introduction of new laws has helped to change public attitudes and behaviour in ways that have reduced the rate of road casualties. We see very few people in the front seats of cars not wearing seat belts these days, although we have a long way to go in persuading passengers in the back to put them on, and there are still terrifyingly large numbers of parents who allow their children to be unrestrained on the back seats. I cannot remember when I last saw a motorcyclist or pillion rider in this country not wearing a safety helmet, which is a big change from a few years ago, although that is not true in other countries in Europe and elsewhere in the world.
The public attitude to drinking and driving has also changed. It is no longer socially acceptable to take a chance and "have one for the road", and we do not often hear the boast in the club or the pub, "I drive better after a few drinks" in the way that we did a few years ago. The introduction of blood alcohol testing had a profound effect on the casualty figures in the 1980s and early 1990s. Drink-drive deaths hit a peak in 1982, when they reached 1,550, with over 8,000 people seriously injured. By 1999, they were down to 460 and 2,470 respectively. Worryingly, however, they have been creeping up each year since, with the provisional figures for 2002 being 560 deaths and 2,820 seriously injured.
As the noble Baroness said, Her Majesty's Government have so far resisted pressure from a wide range of road safety organisations—including RoSPA, the UK Commission for Integrated Transport and Sub-Committee B of your Lordships' European Union Committee—to reduce the blood alcohol limit from 80 milligrams to 50 milligrams, which would put us in line with every other country in the European Union except Ireland, Italy and Luxembourg. It has been proven that any amount of alcohol impairs a driver and increases his or her
1218
accident risk. At levels between 50 milligrams and 80 milligrams, drivers are two to four times more likely to be involved in a fatal accident than drivers with no alcohol in their blood.
In Britain, about 80 road users per year are killed in accidents in which at. least one driver or motorcyclist had blood alcohol between 50 and 80 milligrams. The Government's Road Safety Strategy estimates that reducing the limit to 50 milligrams would save 50 lives, and prevent 250 serious injuries and 1,200 slight injuries each year. Not only drivers with between 50 milligrams and 80 milligrams would be affected. Reviews of the effect of lowering the limit in other countries have shown that it can be accompanied by a reduction in drinking and driving at much higher levels of alcohol as well. A lower limit would send out a general education message and set the tone for no drinking and driving.
A lower limit should be introduced as part of a wider package of drink-driving measures, including new education and enforcement initiatives, one of which should be the introduction of random breath testing. To those who argue that this would erode civil liberties, I simply say that drink drivers erode the civil liberties of everyone else. Drink driving is such a serious offence that it justifies giving the police wider powers.
The police have a critical part to play in the enforcement of the newest and very welcome road safety initiative taken by the Government—banning the use of hand-held mobile phones by drivers. My noble friend Lord Davies of Oldham deserves considerable credit for helping to bring this about, because he successfully took a Private Member's Bill through your Lordships' House to do just that in 1999. There is no need tonight to rehearse the arguments that he and many other Members deployed during the passage of the Bill, especially at Second Reading on 9th July 1999.
However, two further aspects arise from the ban that need attention. First, all the available research shows that the use of a hands-free mobile by drivers is just as distracting as a hand-held. There is little point in having both hands connected to the steering wheel if the brain is not connected to the hands. I therefore hope that my noble friend will be able to assure me that this matter will be kept under review, and that if evidence is forthcoming to support a complete ban, the Government will not shrink from that, however great the shrieks of anguish from the mobile phone industry.
Secondly, does my noble friend agree that, should employers respond to this new law by supplying hands-free kits to their staff, they could fall foul of health and safety laws if an investigation determined that the use of a phone—whether hands-free or not— contributed to an accident? Does he further agree that, as part of the management of work-related road safety, employers should provide their staff with clear guidance on the use of mobile phones?
Finally, I turn to the more controversial road safety measure of speed cameras. On this issue, the general public show far greater common sense than certain

1219
hysterical pro-motorist writers in national newspapers and television commentators, or indeed, I am sorry to say, the former official transport spokesman for the Conservative Party in the other place. I commend to the House the poll of polls released by Transport 2000 on 29th November, which was based on six surveys. It shows that support for the use of speed cameras averages 74 per cent. The latest poll included in the calculation was carried out by ICM for the BBC in October and showed support for speed cameras running at 75 per cent with only 19 per cent against. According to the work done by the Transport Research Laboratory, around one third of fatal crashes are due to excessive speed. For every 1 mph reduction in a driver's speed, the chance of being involved in a crash drops by 5 per cent. Hitting a pedestrian at 35 mph is twice as likely to kill them as hitting them at 30 mph.
The noble Baroness referred to the experience in the United States, where there was an attempt to raise speed limits in 22 states. The consequence was that 1,880 more deaths took place on the road over a period of three years, compared with those states that did not raise limits. The US National Highway Traffic Safety Administration now advocates the adoption of speed-camera laws similar to ours in the United Kingdom, to help counteract the rising death toll on American roads. So we must not allow a vocal minority of motorists to distort this issue. Speed cameras are the motorist's friend because they make the roads safer for everyone. They, along with the other road safety measures which have been described by the noble Baroness and to which I have referred in my speech, are all essential players in achieving what the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, and, I am sure, all the other speakers who will follow so rightly want—a permanent and continuing reduction in road casualty figures.
7.7 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, it has been a good day for transport in your Lordships' House. I add my congratulations and thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Needham Market, on securing the second short debate today.
The obvious place for me to start is to suggest to the noble Baroness that she read what I said about short sea shipping—to move a lot of goods from the roads to coastal and short sea vessels. To remind your Lordships, it is not the old fuddy-duddy industry of the past. Nowadays, there are modern vessels able to take 150 lorries and containers and travel around our coast at up to 40 knots. If we could move a considerable number of those containers—that travel up our motorways full and return empty—to the sea to get closer to our industries and retail areas, it would hugely reduce the number of accidents on our roads, especially our motorways. We could also move more containers on to the railways. Doubtless, the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, will want to say something about that in due course.
1220
I now turn to two aspects which cause accidents that are rarely mentioned—sleep and eyesight. The noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester, both mentioned alcohol limits. However, it is considered that driver fatigue causes more accidents than alcohol, yet it is barely mentioned. If the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, contributed to the debate on driver fatigue and eyesight with the same energy and enthusiasm as he exhibited when speaking about speed cameras, mobile telephones and alcohol, we could raise the profile and get the message across.
What do the Government think of the research done by the Loughborough Sleep Research Centre? I was delighted to read that it had just won a Prince Michael of Kent international road safety award for excellence for its ground-breaking research. The centre has an extremely important message, which must be got across.
The research shows that one is considerably more vulnerable driving at times when one is normally asleep, especially from two to three o'clock in the morning. Sleep-related vehicle accidents are more common in the mid-afternoon than in the rest of the normal waking day. Male drivers under 30 years old are the main victims of such accidents. The risk of death or serious injury to the driver may well be greater than in the average accident. Sleep-related vehicle accidents comprise about 16 to 23 per cent of road accidents, the higher figures being relevant for motorways. Because of the profound influence of the circadian rhythm of sleepiness on sleep-related vehicle accidents, they can occur even after a short period of driving.
Given that evidence, what support are the Government giving to those good people who are trying to work out systems to alert lorry drivers in their cab? It is not that difficult. We can build in many factors—for instance, eye movement between mirrors or how the steering wheel operates. Systems are being invented and developed with all those factors built in. When the normal, safe driving pattern changes, alarms go off in the driver's cab. Surely, that is the sort of area that we should work in. We need prevention, rather than having to clear up the horrible mess afterwards.
All of us who have been involved in deaths on the roads know the misery and emotional trauma that such deaths cause. It is estimated that each death costs about £1 million. It is an area in which positive measures can be taken. I am sure that the Government will want to help.
I have raised before the subject of eyesight. The results of research done by Specsavers, who did eight "Drive Safe" roadshows last year in August and September, corroborated what they had discovered a year earlier. I raised the matter then in your Lordships' House. One in four motorists is driving with eyes that are not fit to pass an eyesight test. That must also contribute to accidents. If a motorist hits the kerb, the tyre bursts and there is an accident. The statistics will show that the tyre burst, not that the driver did not see where he was going or that he or she was sleepy and should not have been driving. None of us knows the full extent of the hazard.

1221
I know that research is being done into the eyesight problem and that the industry is working with the research units. Can the Minister tell me whether the peripheral visual field defects project is complete? Has a final report been presented? I also want to ask him about the central scotoma and driving contract that was recently tendered for. Has it been awarded? To whom? When will it be delivered?
Finally, I ask the Minister where we have got to in Europe. The noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of Tradeston, speaking for the Government, told me in March that the Commission's proposed working group on eyesight standards for driver licensing had not yet met. Has that group now met? If so, what has been achieved so far? When will we hear the results? What attitude is being taken by the UK Government and the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency?
All of us regret deaths and accidents on the roads, but it is not simply a matter of speed cameras, mobile phones and alcohol. There are deeper reasons, and it is those reasons that we ought to make a major effort to address. Prevention is far better than the result of a nasty accident.
7.15 p.m.
Lord St John of Bletso: My Lords, I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Needham Market, for introducing this important debate. All too often, such debates do not get the attention of your Lordships' House. I concur with the strong concerns expressed about drink-related deaths and accidents, as well as those expressed about fatigue. I agree with the comments about speed-reduction measures.
Road safety is something that effects 99 per cent of people in this country every day of their lives. Yet, inexplicably, the issue receives not nearly enough public attention and scrutiny. Although we are, rightly, shocked when anyone loses their life in a homicide or a terrorist attack, news of equally precious lives lost on the roads is generally relegated to local television news and a couple of paragraphs in the local newspaper. We seem to have become almost inoculated against the shock of hearing about road accidents.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Needham Market, has already said, 3,341 people died in road accidents in 2002. It is encouraging that that figure represents a significant reduction over the past decade, but no one should lose sight of the human suffering behind the sterile statistics. By my reckoning, on average, every day of the year, nine British families are devastated by the news that a father, mother, son or daughter has died on the road.
It goes without saying that the sustained fall in road-accident fatalities since 1992 is extremely good news. However, our general response should be tempered on two fronts. First, although the number of fatalities has been reduced, the overall number of road accidents remains essentially unchanged, hovering between 300,000 and 350,000 a year. Secondly, the fact that the number of fatalities has been reduced by 19 per cent in
1222
the past decade should be cause less for celebration than for a renewed determination to allocate more resources and introduce more measures to win this winnable war.
As the father of four young children—they are all under the age of eight—and as someone who travels by scooter, I shall confine my remarks today to the specific issues of child road safety and to measures affecting people perched on two, rather than four or more, wheels. I welcome the manner in which the Department for Transport has put a special focus on reducing the number of children who are killed or injured in road accidents each year. We pledge each newborn child education and healthcare, and I believe that our children are entitled to expect as a right the freedom to walk and cycle in safety and confidence. That is obviously not the situation today.
Road traffic accidents remain the leading cause of accidental injury among children and young people. In road accidents in 2002, 179 children died and 4,419 children were seriously injured. Of those casualties, roughly 60 per cent were pedestrians, 20 per cent were car passengers and 15 per cent were cyclists.
So what are our children entitled to expect? First, and probably foremost, they are entitled to effective road-traffic calming in the streets around their schools and recreational areas. Obviously, those schemes reduce the speed of traffic and make drivers aware of children nearby. Unquestionably, those measures save lives.
I am aware that the department has provided a small amount of funding—I note that it is a comparatively small amount of funding—to local authorities over the past couple of years for various child safety projects, including the introduction of 20-miles-per-hour zones. I am sure that the Minister will mention more in his winding-up speech. Other funds have been made available for the building of so-called home zones.
But how many of these potentially dangerous areas will be calmed unless a great deal more funding is provided? Surely it is not difficult for local authorities to identify those areas where children are most at risk. Perhaps they could use road accident statistics from recent years and then introduce the 20 miles-per-hour speed limit, speed humps and as much signage as possible. Purely and simply, traffic calming should become obligatory around every inner-city school and recreational area. I note the comment made earlier that, often, traffic-calming measures are taken in more well-off areas. There should not be any discrimination whatever.
Some people may ask, "Would this be cost effective"? In my research for today's debate, much mention was made of the words, "cost effective". In order to make that assessment, someone must put a price on a child's life. Who would dare do that? In your Lordships' House, we have a tendency to mention a great deal of statistics, but I would simply point out that the statistics indicate that road accidents cost the country more than £3.5 billion every year. That is scarcely cost effective.

1223
Secondly, children need to be properly educated in order to stay safe on the roads. Kerbcraft is one such practical child-pedestrian training scheme that is being implemented in 100 areas in England during the next five years, and there are other similar programmes. Perhaps the department could swiftly assess the merits of all the available options and then ensure that the most effective road-safety programme is taught in every school in Britain. It is important that road-traffic safety is taught in schools. Once again, there is no time for dithering and weakness. What can be more important than teaching our young children how to cross busy roads, use pavements, read signs, and so forth?
Thirdly, every child cyclist should undergo a training programme that is run either through their school or directly by their local authority. The department's own evaluation of several ongoing pilot schemes for children aged 10 reports that,
"those who have undertaken cycle training were significantly safer in on-road tests and road and safety quizzes than their untrained peers".
Once again, "several" is not enough. Pilot schemes help a few, when everyone is entitled to have access to such knowledge.
Fourthly, it is just as important to have adult training schemes, which are required for our children to be saved from the carelessness of their parents. We now come to the importance of wearing seat belts. Overall, standards have improved in recent years, with more children seen safely buckled in their back seats. But, every now and again, it is possible to notice a child sitting in the middle of the back, leaning forward between the front seats.
A friend of mine who works in a children's hospital named this the "rocket launch" position; impact will immediately send the child through the windscreen. He deals with the tragic consequences of such crass parental stupidity day after day. Some progress has been made in parental training, with the development of One Step Ahead packs for parents of children up to the age of five. Evaluation has shown significant gains. But, again, a lack of resources seems to prevent a national rollout.
It is hard not to conclude that while much outstanding and innovative work is being done to improve road safety among children, a lack of funding inhibits progress. As I said before, "cost effective" seems to be a phrase that appears all too often in the department's literature. In this particular area, if something needs to be done, the funds must be found. As a father himself, I feel confident that the Chancellor would agree.
I now briefly turn to the issue of motorcyclists and cyclists. I am aware that this particular group is not popular among many road users. Indeed, motorists remind me of that every day. However, personal experience leads me to suggest that the single most effective means of improving road safety for those of us who choose to travel on two wheels would be to give motorcyclists and cyclists the right to drive in bus lanes. I know that I am barking up a tree, which we
1224
have done for many years with little success. But it would be encouraging to have some news from the Government on that issue. Most accidents tend to occur when motorcyclists or cyclists weave between cars. While that practice cannot be defended, it would be significantly reduced by opening bus lanes.
In general, few would disagree that the use of motorcycles, scooters and cycles ought to be encouraged, not only because they obviously promote better health and a cleaner environment, but also because they significantly ease traffic congestion in urban areas.
In conclusion, some people may study today's business in your Lordships' House and decide that this debate is a minor issue. I am absolutely appalled by such complacency. How can it be a minor issue when last year it cost almost 3,500 lives? As I mentioned earlier, the successful implementation of various initiatives during the past decade has reduced the number of road deaths by 19 per cent. We have the means to save more lives on the roads. We must have-the courage and will to seize the opportunity.
7.27 p.m.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, I, too, congratulate the noble Baroness on securing the debate. I also congratulate previous speakers on making some unique and positive contributions about this important subject. The noble Lord, Lord St John of Bletso, spoke about road users. He probably meant car or lorry users. I am a cyclist and a pedestrian; I believe that the noble Lord uses a motor cycle or a scooter. We have as much right to use the roads as everyone else. On speaking about roads, does that include the pavement or footway? Pedestrians have rights too, which I should like to cover today.
We have heard a great deal of very difficult statistics today. One might compare the publicity that road accidents do not receive with that which rail accidents do receive, when one or two people may be killed in a year. On this issue, we are talking about 3,000, 3,500 or 4,000 people killed, and many more seriously injured. Pedestrians are the worst case because they are virtually always the victims. They are unprotected victims when compared with people in their padded cars. When people talk about roads and accidents, one must ask, "Are you talking about this as a car driver, nicely protected with your family in the back, all nicely belted up without their heads between the front seats? Or are you talking as a citizen who has the right to move around on a road or a pavement in a safe manner"?
Only last week during the debate on a Question one noble Lord described speed humps as "vicious". They may be vicious to someone driving a car over them too fast, but from the point of view of a pedestrian or cyclist, it is the car that is vicious. Roll on: for me, the more speed humps, the better, even if I do have to slow down on my bicycle.
Speed is very important and it matters. I shall cite another statistic from the Health Development Agency. If pedestrians are hit at 20 miles per hour,

1225
5 per cent are killed; if they are hit at 40 miles per hour, 85 per cent will die. As other noble Lords have pointed out, speed is a major factor in road deaths. A number of sources can be quoted to support that, but all noble Lords know the statistics and I think that we are all agreed that speed is a major factor in road accidents.
The question to be answered is how to stop drivers speeding. Given that police resources are as stretched as ever, it is clear that speed cameras must be a solution. The noble Baroness, Lady Scott, quite rightly mentioned other solutions, but it is true that speed cameras have a major role to play.
I was astonished to read in The Times yesterday of death threats made against Mary Williams, the chief executive of Brake, a respectable organisation which campaigns for slower road speeds for cars and lorries. In line with that, threats have been made against Richard Brunstrom, the Chief Constable of North Wales. He is an enthusiastic and professional advocate of speed cameras who is seeking to reduce road accidents from the police point of view. It is quite extraordinary that people who want to break the law by speeding feel that the way to improve their lot is to make death threats against someone who is trying to encourage people to obey the law. I hope that the police will take those threats seriously and do something about it; I am sure they will.
Brake states that casualties are reduced by 35 per cent at camera sites. I know that I have cited another statistic, but it has to be said. To make things even easier for motorists, I have read that a map is available on the Web showing the position of every speed camera in the country. Further, there is the ridiculous idea that speed cameras have to be painted yellow. Why should people know where they are? The argument is that it is a part of educating motorists, but all they have to do is to obey the law. That is perfectly clear. Would the same argument apply if potential burglars or muggers were given access to the location of every video camera and policeman so that they could assess the risk of being caught before they committed their crimes? Just because speeding is thought of as a middle-class crime because most people in that class drive cars does not mean that it is right.
We need to review the whole business of speed cameras. If you exceed the speed limit, you are breaking the law. Why should we wait for three people to be killed before a camera is put up on that site? Why should not the revenue from the fines paid by people stupid enough to break the law be used for things other than paying for the cameras, such as the engineering and other solutions suggested tonight? We need more cameras rather than fewer.
I also welcome the 20 miles per hour zones referred to by the noble Lord, Lord St John of Bletso. However, they too need speed cameras because children can play with a relative degree of safety in those zones. Parents and other carers can take some comfort from the fact that their charges will not be mown down by cars speeding down narrow streets
1226
between parked cars. That is a serious problem. Again, such zones are reported to reduce child deaths and injuries by 67 per cent.
I turn to the question of rural roads, on which I spend quite some time cycling or walking along. If there is no footpath and if there are bends and high hedges, then that is when you should not do it: you must take a taxi, bus, train or use your own car because it is dangerous. Drivers speeding around corners cannot stop or move out of the way even if no one is coming in the other direction. Again, I believe the answer is to impose speed limits appropriate to the road, as already mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott.
We move on to the difficult question of who is to enforce all those extremely useful speed cameras. I, too, have read the useful guidance to employers on managing work-related road safety issued by the Health and Safety Executive. It is a good document, but it does not address the question of why the Health and Safety Executive does not put its guidance into practice. I have spoken many times in the House about what the HSE does on the railways and the roads—on the latter, it does very little. It says that it has no budget; perhaps it should transfer some of the budget available for inspecting level crossings and so forth which, to be frank, does not need to be done, to enforcing the law on people driving their cars and lorries on the roads for work-related purposes. Why does the executive not do that and when will it start?
Other noble Lords may have read in The Times today what I suspect is an anti-speed camera piece. Interestingly, it states that if you are caught speeding, your insurance increases by 20 per cent if you are caught once, 32.5 per cent on being caught twice and on the third speeding offence, an increase of 61 per cent: If you and a partner are caught and so amass five convictions, it is unlikely that you will be able to keep your insurance. That is quite a strong disincentive to speeding and the insurance industry deserves a little congratulation.
As my noble friend Lord Faulkner observed, lower road speeds are popular with pedestrians and cyclists. They are a vote winner. However, I was interested in the comments made by Professor David Begg, chair of the UK Commission for Integrated Transport, who sounds a note of caution by stating that,
"all profits should be invested in improvements"
in order for the Government to avoid a "damaging public revolt". I think that he should have referred to a "damaging motorist revolt". As other noble Lords have said, it is not the public who object, it is the motorist. On the next occasion that I see him, I shall suggest that in future he use different wording. Speed cameras are a real vote winner with the public.
In conclusion, I urge the Government, in all sincerity, to ensure that vociferous car drivers who break the law should be dealt with by the law and not pandered to. The Government should also urge the representative groups of such motorists to provide more leadership in encouraging their members to obey the law.
7.38 p.m.
The Earl of Courtown: My Lords, first I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Needham Market, for instigating this important debate. I also thank the charity RoadPeace, which does much for families affected by road deaths and casualties.
As noble Lords have said, the number of road deaths and casualties in this country is quite unacceptable. I am afraid that I shall repeat some of the statistics cited by other noble Lords, but they bear repetition because they accentuate the problem.
Ten people are killed on the roads every day, with 300 a year in London alone. In Europe, 40,000 a year are killed, and worldwide the figure is 1 million a year. Ten million people worldwide are permanently disabled. Road traffic injuries are the second largest cause of ill health and premature death after HIV/ AIDS. In the international arena, more emphasis is coming from the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe, which has designated a fourth road safety week for 5th to 11th April next year. With Her Majesty's Government aiming for a 40 per cent reduction in deaths and serious injuries, I join other noble Lords in looking forward to hearing the Minister's response to the debate.
There is much concern over how the national figures are calculated. Actual deaths and casualties seem to be far higher than the official figures suggest. There appear to be a number of loopholes in the methods of compiling these statistics. The Minister will correct me if I am wrong, but it does not appear mandatory for the police to be informed of an incident where people are injured. In addition, with one in 20 drivers being uninsured, it is unlikely that they will come forward to report an accident.
The Traffic Engineering and Control report of 1991—I know it is some years ago but it bears looking at—suggests that the official figures for serious cases should be increased by one third and those for lesser injuries by two thirds. The Transport Research Laboratory in 1977 stated that the number of serious injuries should be increased by a factor of 2.7 and lesser injuries by 1.7.
This all paints a very sorry picture. As to the cost to the country, various figures have been bandied about. We all know that it is totally excessive and unacceptable, but we must establish how many actual road deaths and serious casualties there are in the first place. Perhaps the Minister will expand on this figure.
I have always in the past believed that it is best not to bring personal issues into your Lordships' House, but on this occasion I will. It will help to illustrate the effect of road deaths on families. My rnother-in-law was killed in a car accident just over a year ago. She looked after her husband, my father-in-law, who was not in the best of health. When she died my wife had to look after him. I had to take unpaid leave and look after two teenage children and Poppy, who is now three. We had to take on a nanny. My father-in-law died six weeks after my mother-in-law's killing. My wife still feels the need for a nanny because of the trauma she has suffered.
1228
This illustrates two points. First, that the cost is not solely concerned with the accident itself; there are widespread ongoing costs which affect both the individual and the Treasury. It also shows that deaths occur outside the accident, whether of those who are being cared for when their carer is killed or those who cannot take it any longer and take their own lives. This issue has to be looked at and we have to find a way of reducing the effects of these dreadful incidents.
So how do we reduce these figures? Car safety has improved with the fitting of airbags, ABS, seat belts, crumple zones and side impact bars. I gather further measures are being introduced to regulate the design of 4x4s. Speed limits have to be examined and reduced where necessary. Perhaps more police should be allocated to traffic duties. We also have to consider the effect of drink on driving. Perhaps we should be looking at zero tolerance. I look forward to hearing the Minister on this issue. Advances have been made in relation to the detection of drug use, which must be a good thing.
The most important problem has been mentioned by other noble Lords, and that is the mindset of drivers when they get behind a wheel. From when they are learning to drive until they are drivers like us, everyone has to remember that when they get behind the wheel of a car they are getting behind the wheel of a lethal weapon. I look forward to what the Government have to say on this issue.
7.44 p.m.
Baroness Gibson of Market Rasen: My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Needham Market, for instigating this debate on a topic that is only too easy to shy away from. I have had an interest in this subject for a number of years. This interest is reflected in my membership of the Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety—better known as PACTS—and my position as deputy chair of RoSPA, working there with my noble friend Lord Faulkner of Worcester.
I wish first to look at the subject of work-related road safety and to stress the importance of this being taken seriously by employers, employees and the Government. When I served on the Health and Safety Commission for six years prior to coming to your Lordships' House I was particularly interested in its work in this area. I am therefore pleased to note that the Health and Safety Executive, together with the Department of Transport, have recently published guidance for employers entitled Driving at Work. Additionally, health and safety commissioners are currently seeking views on the development of their overall safety strategy up until the year 2010.
However, as was pointed out by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, the development of their overall safety strategy does not include any reference to work-related road safety, an omission highlighted by RoSPA. The safety management message of the Health and Safety Commission will be credible only if investigation and enforcement arrangements are developed to cope adequately with any failures to manage road risk by employers.

1229
Work-related road accidents are the biggest cause of work-related accidental deaths. Between 800 and 1,000 people are killed each year in work-related road traffic accidents. Occupational risks to workers who drive as part of their work—those who cover significant distances by car or van—are at the same level of accidental death as those working in the acknowledged high-risk sectors such as construction or agriculture. These drivers are 50 per cent more likely to be injured in accidents than other drivers. This fact is too often forgotten, even by the Health and Safety Commission, and should be emphasised to greater effect in the future.
But this statistic is not surprising. The pressure to get jobs done as quickly as possible is often paramount in the field of work, and representatives of companies, who are often on some form of commission, tend to work long hours at a fast pace and are therefore especially vulnerable. Many hundreds of thousands of working days are lost annually as a result of injury in work-related crashes.
It is obvious that employers can do much to exacerbate this—developing an excessive working/ driving hours culture for example—but it is also obvious that employers can greatly reduce risk, and the better ones do. Training drivers to a higher standard, making sure vehicles are safe and planning journeys in a sensible manner can all help to cut road accidents.
Business can only gain if safety measures are followed and built upon. Such measures affect levels of risk both faced by and created by employees at work on the roads. This has been considerably underestimated so far. Raising awareness about safety measures and working with both employers and trade unions to encourage them must be a key element of the Government's road safety strategy.
Recently I was privileged to attend the fourteenth Westminster lecture on transport organised by PACTS. The speaker this year was Professor David Begg, to whom my noble friend referred, who holds, among other positions, the chair of the Commission for Integrated Transport and Director of the Centre for Transport Policy at the Robert Gordon University in Aberdeen.
Professor Begg pointed out that, despite a number of horrendous crashes over the past few years, rail is one of the safest forms of passenger transport. The majority of casualties on rail are caused by trips or falls in stations. Aviation is an even bigger success story— six times safer than travelling by car and twice as safe as rail.
So, as has been stated, the biggest challenge facing the UK in the transport field is safety on the roads. The professor offered a number of proposals to assist. Professor Begg believes that one key to achieving improved road safety targets is the need for an increased and highly visible traffic policing presence in order to detect and deal effectively with the wide-ranging causes of accidents and road casualties. Many
1230
have been mentioned in this Chamber tonight. He chose, in particular, drink-driving and driving while under the influence of drugs.
The professor maintains that there is clear evidence linking those who have committed motoring offences with more serious criminal offences, and believes that an increase in traffic police would improve detection rates overall.
A further issue he examined is drink-driver offences, which, again, we have mentioned. Evidence from a new USA study shows that lives could be saved each year if the allowed blood alcohol level was reduced to approximately 40 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood. This, together with more targeted enforcement of the existing blood-alcohol level and legislation to enable the results of roadside breath testing to be admissible as evidence in court, would assist greatly, Professor Begg believes.
He made other suggestions, including intelligent speed adaptation—that is, in-vehicle speed control; improved crash protection through front-end vehicle design, which is mandatory in a European directive to become effective from 2005; and early research to assess the benefits of extending driver rehabilitation from drink-driving to cover other motoring offences as well. For, as Professor Begg said:
"We rightly expect airline pilots and our train, tube and bus drivers to be sober on duty. It is time to review the levels of blood alcohol acceptable in the drivers on our roads".
Perhaps my noble friend will comment on some of these proposals when he replies.
Finally, like the noble Earl, Lord Courtown, my interest in road deaths and casualties is not academic. My father was killed by a learner driver in Market Rasen in 1967. I, too, know at first hand the devastation that such an accident can cause. Anything we can do to alleviate such deaths can only be welcome.
7.52 p.m.
The Earl of Erroll: My Lords, I suspect I will not be the most popular speaker tonight because I do not agree with everything that has been said so far. I want first to make it clear that every death is a tragedy for someone. I felt particularly for the noble Earl, Lord Courtown, and the noble Baroness, Lady Gibson, because of their personal experience. We have had deaths in the family, but not from this cause. When someone's loved one has moved on to another world and one has not yet joined them, it can be very harrowing. If the death is accidental, the sense of senseless loss may be overwhelming. The feeling that something must be done becomes imperative; it becomes the major driving force in the life of those left behind, and for very good reason.
I remember a judge saying, a long time ago, that hard cases make bad law. We, as legislators, must retain a sense of balance and proportion. Yet again, we are being asked to tell people what to do for their own good. That can arouse strong feelings among many

1231
people who believe that the Government are not there to nanny them along but to enable things to happen in their lives.
I started looking at the relevant statistics. The first thing I realised is that the expression "saving lives" is difficult; you do not really save lives, you change the cause of premature death. The Government recently defined this, in the excellent report Securing Good Health for the Whole Population, as death before the age of 75. The major cause of such deaths, as I said in a debate the other day, is "others"—miscellaneous causes which are not even worth classifying. They make up 33 per cent of the causes of premature death. The next highest cause is coronary heart disease, at 18 per cent, followed by cancer at 17 per cent. So we work down till we reach road traffic accidents, at 2 per cent. So compared with all the other causes, I am afraid it is not the primary or even the main cause of premature death.
Out of the 500,000 to 600,000 deaths in this country every year, 3,500 are caused by road traffic accidents. The big proportion is elsewhere. The question is: how should we be applying our limited financial resources—because the Government are always under pressure about where to find the money—in order to reduce the number of premature deaths caused by road traffic accidents? I was not convinced that speed cameras and speeding were necessarily that major a cause.
Various statistics have been produced in this argument. Those quoted tonight have tended to come from PACTS, which says that, in recent tests, 47 per cent fewer people were killed. I think that information was from a study in Cambridgeshire, so it focused on certain accident sites in one part of England. I do not know whether that can be extrapolated elsewhere. As a scientist, I am always cautious about these things, but let us say that it can.
Then I read that a one mile per hour reduction results in 5 per cent fewer crashes. I got worried about that figure because although it sounds good, other studies show that accident rates rise with traffic density. Reducing speed increases traffic density. Other studies show that the crash rate rises with a reduction in speed. So some of the statistics do not quite match, which worries me. It means that I do not trust those statistics as much as I should, which is dangerous.
I found a report giving official police figures, although I do not know when these were; produced. It said that the highest figure published by any police force is that 9 per cent of accidents are caused by speed, with many reporting a much lower figure. I worry about that; should not people be concentrating on what causes nine out of 10 accidents rather than what causes one out of 10? That is where I would put resources if they were limited.
Prosecutions for dangerous driving and driving without due care have apparently gone down. That makes me think that policemen in cars, who can exercise discretion and sense, may well be better than mechanical traffic cameras which flash people on parts of the road.
1232
Another study by PACTS showed that according to self-reporting, 85 per cent of respondents admitted to exceeding the speed limit on occasion. There was general agreement that everyone did it. If it is so dangerous, there should be many more accidents. I suppose a speeding incident must be about the distance between speed cameras. If you go through four speed cameras, you lose your licence. Of those millions of speeding incidents every day, speeding may be a factor that contributes to a death in three of them. That makes you realise why drivers speed. Intuitively, they know that most of the time speeding does not result in an accident, let alone a death. Hammering drivers with statistics they know intuitively are not quite correct will lead to a loss of respect.
I thought about this a bit more, and the trouble happens when trunk roads are involved. Speeding inappropriately in heavily built-up areas, with children playing on the pavement, is extremely dangerous. But I think the Traffic Research Laboratory would agree with the evidence that people travelling at the 85th and 90th percentile speeds have the lowest accident rates of any group of drivers.
So we should be setting the speed limit for the design speed of the road. That, in some cases, means raising the speed limit of the road, particularly on motorways and trunk roads. There could well be a case for raising speed limits on certain trunk roads and motorways while keeping them rigidly enforced in built-up and urban areas and where pedestrians are not separated from the traffic, which is the important thing. On the fringes of towns a barrier may separate pedestrians from the road. The speed limits should be raised in those circumstances because people feel those speed limits are stupid and the traffic never gets out of town.
Apparently, I have statistics that conflict completely with others, which say that when the speed limit was raised in certain US states by 10 mph, the 85th percentile was 70 mph and the accident rate dropped by 30 per cent. People all have figures that they can use for their own purposes.
From my own experience, one of the big challenges is that if one lives in the country, one has to drive distances. If one is going to do business with other companies out in the country, one has to drive from A to B, and sometimes for quite a long way. If one drives very slowly—if, for example, I go at 60 mph on a long road that is straight and clear, I stop concentrating; the tiredness factor comes in, which is much more dangerous. If one is travelling a little bit faster, one starts being much more careful about one's distance to the next vehicle in front, one's sense of anticipation is keener, and one knows that one can observe speed limits within important speed-limit areas, because one can catch up in between, where the road is safe.
Very few accidents happen on motorways as a result of speeding. Normally, something else happens, as with those poor people who were killed by the tank

1233
transporter that came across the central barrier. That was nothing to do with the speed at which they were travelling.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, the noble Earl says that he loses concentration at 60 mph so would rather go at 80 mph. I believe that he was not referring to motorways. What about pedestrians and cyclists? Does he not accept that the faster the vehicle is going, the more likely the pedestrians and cyclists are to be killed? He seems to ignore the fact that they have a right to be on those roads.
The Earl of Erroll: My Lords, I absolutely and entirely agree. I was coming on to discuss what I would do about that, and I referred earlier to separating pedestrians from the road. I was talking about trunk roads, where the pedestrian is separated from the main road. One does not get cyclists going up motorways— and one should not get cyclists going up the Al, even when it is not a motorway. The noble Lord has made an important point.
Separating slow-moving from fast-moving traffic would contribute much more to avoiding accidents. With the 85th and 90th percentile speeds, one's objective is to get traffic moving at approximately the same speed. The danger occurs when one has slow-moving traffic, such as someone mucking around at 40 mph in the slow lane of a motorway, and people are going at 70 mph or 80 mph down the over-taking lane of the motorway. If everyone goes about the same speed, we will get fewer accidents. There is a lot of evidence for that.
People do have to travel around the countryside, so we should apply the money to eliminating accident blackspots. I have read somewhere that most accidents happen at some 250 blackspots around the country; if we applied the money to eliminating dangerous junctions and things like that, and separating pedestrian and cycling traffic on trunk roads, we would hit the problem much more. We should do that instead of trying to get at the people who are creating wealth for the country, trying to bring up a family and are otherwise law-abiding citizens, because they are trying to get businesses going.
The trouble is that there is no discretion with a camera. It does not take into account prevailing conditions or whether the speed was really inappropriate. I was speaking to a cab driver yesterday. He said—and it was the only time in 30 years of driving—that the other day he went through a speed camera near Walthamstow. He was driving between some reservoirs, on a clear road, with no pedestrians or cyclists around and clear footpaths either side, and he was caught at 40 in a 30 mph limit. Where is the humanity and discretion in that? If a policeman had stopped him, he would probably have said, "Look, just don't do that again—you ought to slow down here". He has only to do that three times more and he has lost his livelihood; he could lose his house and his family. There can be quite serious consequences from losing licences, and it is possible to
1234
lose one's licence in one journey now, because there is no warning about the first time when one has been caught. That is totally unfair, and it is not the right way to do things.
On the drinks side, I believe that lowering the limit below a realistic level will cause disrespect. A lot of research has been done into reaction times and limits, and a lot of it has shown that 80 milligrams is a perfectly sensible limit. We should be careful before we change that. We need to work out where our priorities really lie, rather than taking the easy route out.
8.4 p.m.
Viscount Simon: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Needham Market, for introducing this interesting debate. There has been a little overlapping, but not all that much, and when there has been the particular subject has been approached from different angles, which makes it even more interesting.
It is appropriate that I should advise or remind noble Lords that I regularly go on traffic patrol with a number of police forces, that I passed my most recent police driving course last year and that my next course is to take place next year. It is also relevant that I advise your Lordships that I have attended road deaths and casualties, been to the mortuary for identification purposes and assisted in investigating crashes.
Your Lordships will remember Jill Dando and the circumstances of her death. She was killed by a gunman as she approached her front door. Following this, the road in which she lived was closed for three weeks, thereby enabling the murder squad to examine the scene of the murder. Had she been run down intentionally by a motorist—in other words, murdered—the road would have been closed for a short while. It might have been closed for three hours for the accident investigators to do their job of determining what had happened. If she had been killed by a motorist, there would have been heaven knows how many complaints about the road being closed for three days, let alone three weeks.
The Road Death Investigation Manual, under which all fatal collisions are investigated, recognises the right of an individual who has been killed on the road to have the circumstances thoroughly investigated in the same way as a murder. Therefore, scenes of crashes are to be treated as crime scenes, with the inevitable need for whole or partial road closures. In some instances, total road closure can lead to strangulation of the local, and in some cases wider, economy. I would be surprised if an economic assessment of the implications of the adoption of the Road Death Investigation Manual had taken place.
It must be remembered that the police are duty bound by the manual and by Article 2 of the Human Rights Act 1998 to undertake such investigations. It is with some consternation that I have been led to believe that some forces are taking short cuts in how they use the manual and are not training their officers effectively. Therefore, it is possible, but I hope unlikely, that the murder weapon of choice—a motor

1235
vehicle—might not be detected as having been used intentionally. I understand, also, that senior investigation officer training will be stopped shortly because the National Centre for Policing Excellence is stopping training them in the short term. Due to retirements and promotions, that will effectively mean that the already overworked investigators will have additional pressures thrust upon them.
It is well documented that the number of traffic officers has fallen by about 50 per cent in the 10 years from 1990. In that time, findings of guilt for dangerous, careless or drunken driving have decreased by about 38 per cent, and those for neglect to comply with traffic signs, direction and pedestrian rights have fallen by 70 per cent—to mention but two. Yet speed limit offences have increased by 90 per cent.
So, where does that leave us? Safety cameras are useful, but limited. They catch those exceeding the speed limit and have been shown to reduce crashes within their vicinity—nothing more. But is that correct? Look at a camera positioned on a single carriageway and set at the speed limit of 60 miles an hour. It will not film the HGV that is not travelling at its correct speed of 40 miles an hour, will it? That, of course, means that it is impossible to audit each camera site in line with government policy when the speed limit for certain types of vehicle is less than the posted speed. Therefore, I wonder whether research is being conducted to make safety cameras more intelligent so that they can distinguish between types of vehicles and react accordingly.
It should, of course, be noted that mobile cameras can be set to film specific types of vehicle, but are we tending to rely on technology at the expense of human interaction? After all, the safety camera does not know if the vehicle it has just photographed has been stolen and is being driven by someone who has never taken a driving test and who is uninsured. It has been reported in the press that government Ministers are being pressed by the anti-camera groups to remove cameras. If that happened, I hope that the Minister concerned would take into account that that would be interpreted by many as condoning those motorists who are committing a criminal offence: exceeding the speed limit.
The traffic officer can stop any vehicle and deal with the errant motorist for all manner of things. That officer can also act with discretion in appropriate circumstances, as has been mentioned tonight. ANPR sites and those mounted in police vehicles are proving very worthwhile. I should like to add to this matter that digital cameras are a step forward from the films in those designed by Maurice Gatsonides. One more advance is STEPs where the average speed over a distance is monitored. Some years ago I mentioned that the camera which does not catch anyone is the most efficient—it has reduced the average speed, has monitored speed and has, at the same time, reduced death and injury.
Many people seem to voice their concerns about the amount of money generated by safety cameras. I assume that comes not only from those who are
1236
caught. How about the novel suggestion that the excess money generated by safety camera fines which goes to the Treasury be directed at providing more traffic officers and nothing else? It must be recognised that traffic officers do not just deal with errant motorists but have an enviable arrest record for non-traffic offences. After all, the burglar does not go to and from the scene of his crime on top of a number 12 bus or by taxi or train. No, that burglar will probably go by car.
Returning to drivers driving without insurance, did noble Lords know that the Government are underwriting those drivers? Why should a youngster bother to insure his or her vehicle when it would cost some thousands of pounds to do so when that driver knows that a police officer, in certain circumstances, can give them a fixed penalty for £200 and that magistrates' courts will fine them only an average of between £75 and £250? I have forgotten which Middle Eastern country ensures that all vehicles are insured to at least a minimum level simply by adding a small monetary amount to each litre of fuel. What a simple way of dealing with this problem. If the car has fuel in it, it is insured, and the more miles that are covered, the more the motorist pays for insurance. It makes sense. However, I can hear the cries of dismay from the insurance industry should such a measure be introduced.
As I have said, there are insufficient traffic officers on the roads to stop the potential fatal crash. Let us remember that research states that enforcement has to be, first, certain—an offender knows that there is a good chance of being caught—secondly, immediate— an offence is dealt with immediately rather than by receiving a notice of intended prosecution in the post a couple of weeks after the offence was committed— and, thirdly, severe—the punishment must fit the crime. Thinking about the third item, it is all very well fining drivers for offences committed, but one of the first things a driver may ask when stopped is, "Will I get points on my licence?". So, why not make the offence of not wearing a seat belt endorsable when injuries are caused by not wearing them, even if passengers fail to wear them? This works very well in Australia; why could we not do the same here? To introduce an emotive point, there should be no exemptions. If everyone had to wear seat belts, there would be no possible excuse for not being aware of this requirement. It takes only a couple of seconds to put on a seat belt, but it might take only a fraction of a second to be killed or seriously injured by not wearing one.
I was talking to a traffic officer only last week who said that when he stops someone for not wearing a seat belt he suggests that the driver runs as fast as possible into a brick wall if there is one close by. Of course, the driver says that he or she will not do so. The traffic officer then points out that if that person crashed while driving at 30 miles an hour, his forward momentum would be equivalent to 60 times his body weight. It has been estimated that if the back seat wearing rate could equal the front seat rate, 30 more adults would be saved every year.

1237
Let me introduce another novel thought. The KSI figures are reeled out regularly, but should there not be sufficient traffic officers on patrol who can concentrate on crashes and not on casualties? It must make sense that stopping a single crash could save many casualties when more than one vehicle is involved. And at what cost? The true social and economic impact must be from minor injuries sustained in minor crashes. Those may well not be serious enough for the injured person to seek attention and therefore become part of the statistics, but that person may be off work for a couple of days. Just think of the loss to the economy. The number of motorcycle injuries and deaths is increasing. Why? Is that due to lack of policing? I do not know.
In addition, and returning to the subject of injuries on the roads, more officers would inevitably lead to a reduction in the number of injured people and a reduction in crime. Therefore, if fewer people were injured, the health service would benefit, as would government departments. Why do they not talk to each other in this respect? Joined-up government must be joined up. The potential financial savings resulting from fewer road deaths and casualties are well worth investigating by various departments.
This afternoon, the Select Committee heard evidence from many people, including senior police officers. I have listened to many officers with excellent ideas, but those ideas are either not getting to ACPO or ACPO is choosing to ignore them. I am sure that my noble friend will acknowledge that senior police officers, who may have no first-hand knowledge of traffic enforcement, do not have the monopoly on good ideas. Those junior officers are frustrated and tired of seeing their best efforts and ideas ignored by the very people who are paying them to do the job. So why has the Select Committee not invited officers other than those in ACPO or of superintendent rank to give evidence? Aristotle once said:
"We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act but a habit".
And that goes for the officers at the sharp end, day in, day out. I personally know a number of highly qualified, professional and knowledgeable officers who could give a true picture to government of what policing the roads is really about.
The police are very overworked. With the under-reporting by police of crashes, trends are difficult to see and the statistics, of course, are dated. Electronic systems which use hand-held devices to collect causation factors update the systems daily, thereby giving the police and others an early indication of collision trends. The Dutch VIA system has a proven track record, and I hope that that will be investigated by the Department for Transport as a matter of urgency.
My final thought today is that there are marine, aircraft and railway investigating bodies. Why could there not be a similar body for the roads to establish the patterns and see where they might lead?
1238
Suggestions could then be taken back to government on how improvements could be made to reduce the KSI figures even further.
8.16 p.m.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Needham Market, for introducing this important debate. It is important to remember that road traffic accidents are the principal cause of unnatural deaths, particularly among the young, as noted by the noble Baroness. It is extremely distressing. I suspect that few noble Lords have not been touched by a road traffic accident. Several of my personal friends have been taken in that way. Worse still, my own cousin and her boyfriend were killed instantly in a road traffic accident.
The noble Baroness asked why we accept higher risks on the roads than we do on the rails and in the air. I agree with her analysis, but I also believe that motorists are happier to take risks which they think they can control. The noble Baroness mentioned lower seat-belt wearing rates. It is a complete mystery to me why that should be the case.
I agree with practically everything that has been said today by noble Lords, and I believe that our differences are those of emphasis. As many noble Lords observed, we in the UK have a good record of improvement in casualty rates. However, the figure of 33,000 killed or seriously injured indicates that there is room for improvement.
I have one interest to declare. I am a qualified Army driving instructor. I am a little out of date but I could requalify if that became necessary for me under Mr Blair's plans.
There is good news and bad news. The bad news is that the statistics are now proving to be very stubborn, especially for the killed and seriously injured. We have seen little overall improvement in recent years. Perhaps the use of mobile phones has increased the accident rate. If so, we look forward to seeing a reduction with the new legislation.
Another possible reason for an increase in the accident rate is that a significant proportion of the remaining accidents are caused by rogue drivers who operate without any regard to the law. The noble Lord. Lord Faulkner, talked about the need for severe sanctions to deter driving offences. But, of course, the problem is that rogue drivers simply do not care. It may be very difficult to encourage them to address their responsibilities. However, we must do so if we are to make progress in reducing the accident rate. The Minister may draw comfort from the fall in the number of accidents per vehicle-kilometre covered, but that has always been the case.
There is some good news. There have been significant falls in the numbers of pedestrian and cycle casualties. That is all the more welcome because, often, innocent victims are involved, as pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley. However, I listened with care to the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord St John of Bletso. I found his comments very interesting and I shall study them carefully tomorrow.

1239
However, 1 wish I could understand why the child casualty rate is relatively poor compared with that of our continental friends.
The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, mentioned The Times report about threats to Mary Williams of the pressure group Brake. We on these Benches deplore and condemn any such attack, irrespective of the views of the organisation concerned. The noble Lord underestimates Brake's contribution to road safety. Brake seems to me to be different from other groups in that it recognises the need for road transport, but wants to see it undertaken safely and properly. That may account for Brake being so well supported by the transport industry. Unfortunately, since I joined the Conservative Party it has practically ignored me. Even when I was Opposition spokesman for transport and even when I introduced the Road Traffic (Enforcement Powers) Bill it ignored me. However, recently Brake has written to me, but it now seems to think that I am the son of a duke.
The previous Government trimmed their bypass and road building programme, but this Government have cut it further still. Many of those schemes were designed to save lives. Now fewer schemes are being completed and we are also seeing smaller reductions in accidents. I cannot say whether the two are connected as I have no firm evidence. We all know that motorways are very safe in absolute terms and that accidents per kilometre are fewer on motorways. Fewer than 1,500 people were killed or seriously injured in 2002. Most noble Lords recognise that.
Many noble Lords covered the evil of drink and driving. The problem is with those who are way over the limit, but of course any alcohol will have an effect. Bad driving may be just as significant. Alternatively, a significant improvement in driving skills will have an even more beneficial effect than a zero or lower alcohol rate. I believe that drink-driving is yet another symptom of rogue drivers. The noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, and others suggested lowering the blood alcohol level to the continental levels. It is important to remember that on the Continent there are graduated penalties. They start at a low blood-alcohol level with, initially, a slap on the wrist. The UK policy is to give a strong message, "Do not drink or drive". If one does, one faces severe penalties and adverse social consequences.
My noble friend Lord Caithness talked about drowsy or tired drivers. He suggested that the problem may be as great as alcohol. He also talked about some of the technologies being developed to detect drowsiness. That may be a matter for the EU. Nearly all noble Lords talked about speeding and the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, concentrated on that. I recall that last time we debated road safety I had a pop at the noble Earl, Lord Erroll. This time I shall resist the temptation.
Noble Lords: Why?
Earl Attlee: My Lords, because last time I was very cruel to him and he is not a bad old boy.
The Earl of Erroll: My Lords, I am quite used to it.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I am very lucky. I was very well trained by the Army at government expense. I know full well that speeding and hard driving will have little effect on my journey time, but both drastically increase the chance of an accident and a serious one at that. I agree with the conclusions of the TRL report about speeding and accidents. Speeding is symptomatic of poor driving skills that need to be improved. I shall say more on that later.
Closely linked to speeding is the sin of driving so fast that the driver cannot stop within the distance that he can see to be clear. However, this is not so easy to detect or to prosecute. The noble Baroness, Lady Gibson of Market Rasen, talked about adaptive speed control. What is the Minister's view on that? All modern cars have sophisticated engine management systems, so technically it would not be too difficult to achieve. It would enable high-risk areas, such as around schools, to be protected automatically from speeding drivers.
Many noble Lords have talked about cameras. I do not have a problem with them. As I have already explained, I do not speed. Many motorists hate cameras. They need convincing of their merits. The noble Baroness, Lady Scott, touched on that aspect. There is a weakness in the system, a matter about which the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, spoke. There is no opportunity to have a chat with a traffic policeman about motoring matters. That makes it impossible to detect other motoring offences more serious than speeding, especially drinking and driving. Many noble Lords touched on that.
The noble Viscount mentioned ANPR. 1 believe that it has a vital role to play. It allows the police to be alerted to the presence of an illegal driver while leaving lawful motorists alone. Currently it works on vehicles with no vehicle excise duty, as per DVLA data, not what is shown on the windscreen, which of course could be completely fraudulent. My understanding is that unfortunately the MoT system is not yet linked to the DVLA.
My noble friend Lord Courtown and the noble Viscount touched on insurance problems. Some noble Lords have recently suggested an insurance disc similar to the tax disc. The difficulty for the DVLA is that often the driver is insured or the whole fleet is covered. Does the Minister have any plans to change insurance requirements so that an insurance company notifies the DVLA that either a particular vehicle—a VRN—is insured, or any vehicle kept by a certain person, ie a fleet, is insured. That would of course make it much easier for the authorities to detect an uninsured vehicle.
I raised this next point with the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, several years ago. Can the Minister say when the ANPR system will flag up that there is no valid MoT for a vehicle? I understand that the police get so

1241
many hits by the ANPR system that they cannot actually stop all the vehicles detected, so they have to prioritise. Hopefully, when they are fully successful they will be able to move to zero tolerance.
My final ANPR point is this. The police issue tickets and fines which are not paid. Does the Minister have any plans to introduce impounding when a vehicle has either no MoT, no tax or no insurance? If he does, he could do much to curb rogue drivers.
There is no such thing as a perfect driver. There are novices, experienced drivers and experts. We should all aspire to become expert as there would be less chance of an accident, and if there is one it should be less serious. I believe that all the evils we have talked about this evening derive from poor driving skills. I am told that fleet driver training schemes can reduce the accident rate of a fleet by 20 per cent. It is important to remember that the driving standards of all drivers can be improved. None of us is perfect.
The noble Baroness, Lady Gibson, talked about work-related traffic accidents. She covered the need for training of drivers in a work environment. Not only will that reduce the accident rate, but it would also reduce the cost of operation of that fleet and therefore be self-financing.
We religiously test our vehicles every year. Few accidents are caused by vehicle faults. But it would be political suicide to suggest compulsory retraining for every driver, even every five years, let alone every year. I am pleased to hear that the noble Viscount's driving continues to be reassessed every year.
We already have a driver improvement scheme whereby an errant motorist can avoid points by agreeing to retraining. My personal belief is that we need to introduce compulsory retraining for drivers who commit moving traffic offences. I think that that should be in addition to any penalty points or fines. So: "This is your penalty and this is what we are going to do to stop you having further accidents".
If the errant motorist cannot show that he has been retrained, say within six months, his licence should be revoked. Of course the system would need more trainers, but their cost would be small compared to the benefits. There may be different tests for young and novice drivers compared to an experienced driver. In conclusion, I do not think that it would be wise to wait until a poor driver kills or seriously injures an innocent party in an avoidable accident. We should do something about the situation.
8.29 p.m.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I begin by thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, for introducing a debate that has proved fruitful, containing constructive ideas on road safety issues, which, I assure the House, the Government will take seriously. We will consider several extremely interesting perspectives. I also congratulate the noble Baroness on the force and passion with which she introduced the debate on issues about which she clearly cares a great deal. Her contribution set the tone
1242
for the whole debate, in which a range of contributions have reflected the fact that we need to take road safety seriously.
There are areas in which we can draw some solace from the figures, but we must not be complacent. We must recognise that our country has an outstanding road safety record. It is one of the best in the world and is widely envied, but there are areas in which we could do a great deal better. I was grateful to the noble Lord, Lord St John of Bletso, and the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, for emphasising children's issues—a point to which I shall return later. Our statistics for children's injuries and fatalities are disappointingly high. We must examine the reasons for that and recognise that we need proper measures to protect our children as best we can.
Noble Lords have used a wide variety of statistics, all of which I agree with from their different perspectives, for injuries and deaths. The noble Earl, Lord Courtown, referred to international figures. I am pleased to tell him that on 7th April next year, World Health Day will make road safety its subject, so we will be able to gain a more international perspective from that. I hope that we will learn from other countries that do better than us; but I have no doubt that they will pay tribute to the effectiveness of much of our work on road safety.
On the more general issue of statistics, I heard what the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, had to say. I did not recognise some of the figures that he mentioned. On speed, I would say only that of course some people can drive well at high speeds, but we all know that excessive or inappropriate speed is a contributory factor to about one-third of all accidents. That is why we recognise that careful adherence to speed limits is an important road safety provision, and why we place great store on methods to control speed.
The Earl of Erroll: My Lords, excess speed is exceeding the speed limit; inappropriate speed is driving dangerously fast for the road conditions or the type of road. I maintain that excess speed on a motorway may not be dangerous. In fact, because many people exceed the speed limit, it may be safer if everyone is travelling at the same or similar speed.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I hear what the noble Earl says. There are experiments in this country for regulated speeds on motorways below the existing maximum level, because we recognise that regulated speed can reduce traffic accidents. One thing that we may admire about the United States is that on its freeways it operates a road regulation system, which in many cases imposes a much lower maximum speed limit than ours, with considerable safety. I merely reflect that when accidents occur, people have been going too fast: that is an important contributory factor in one-third of accidents. That cannot be denied.
However, to put things in perspective, we should recognise that the number of vehicles on British roads has trebled since 1960 from 9.4 million to 30.6 million and that total mileage has nearly quadrupled. Despite those increases, fewer people are now injured on the

1243
roads than in 1960 and the number killed has been halved. Those are figures in which we can rightly take pride, while at the same time recognising that we need to do more, particularly in certain areas.
The noble Lord, Lord St John, referred to motorcycle accidents. Motorcycle casualties are disproportionately high, with riders being around 30 times more likely to be killed than car users. Motorcycling deaths rose by 4 per cent last year, continuing a trend that began in the mid-1990s. The volume of motorcycling is growing much faster than car usage. That means that the actual death rate of those using motorcycles is going down, but, again, that is not a matter for complacency.
Regarding bus lanes, I am not sure that I am pushing at an open door. We are looking at those questions and shall examine the issue closely. But I had the misfortune to introduce the first Greater London Bill to bring bus lanes to London way back in 1975. At that time we intended to keep black taxi cabs out of bus lanes. The reaction was ferocious and we conceded overnight. I am not too sure that we want to allow any other vehicles to drive in bus lanes apart from taxi cabs. However, I heard the comments of the noble Lord on their potential contribution to the safety of motorcycling. As has been raised in the debate, we are delighted that motorcyclists have accepted a culture of compulsory helmet wearing. That is an important factor in protecting motorcyclists when accidents occur.
We are concerned about drink-drive accidents, which have increased in the last few years. The breathalyser is a striking example of how to change attitudes. There is no doubt that 35 years ago, as several noble Lords have indicated, it was thought that motorists had the right to drink almost any amount of alcohol and then drive safely. Thankfully, those days are long gone. The majority of us recognise that alcohol and driving do not go together. The vast majority of us have also accepted the culture of wearing seat belts, although again I accept the point made by the noble Lord, Lord St John, that rear seat belts are not used as effectively as they ought to be. That leads to accidents for children, who are often back seat passengers. He was right to call attention to that.
Of course the Government are committed to continued efforts on road safety. A sign of that is that the road safety strategy launched in March 2000 was introduced by the Prime Minister himself. That document Tomorrow's Roads—Safer for Everyone set challenging but achievable targets for reducing casualties by 2010. The target for death and serious injuries is a 40 per cent reduction compared with the average for 1994 to 1998. The number in 2002 has already fallen by 17 per cent, perhaps more through the benefits of existing, rather than new, policies, although noble Lords have recognised the benefit of some new policies, not least over mobile phones—to which my noble friend Lord Faulkner of Worcester referred. He mentioned me in passing. I emphasise that it is far too early for us to begin to judge the effect of
1244
that legislation, but we recognise that there have been serious accidents associated with the use of mobile phones by drivers.
When the strategy was launched, three-yearly reviews over delivering and achieving the targets were promised. The first of those reviews is being carried out now and will report in spring 2004. Last week the Government also had the benefit of fresh advice on a number of key issues from the independent Commission for Integrated Transport, to which reference has been made, not least by one. of its members, the noble Baroness, Lady Scott. Its views will be carefully considered in the Government's review.
Road safety is a big subject with many factors and influences. Sometimes the issues have been divided into what is known in the trade as the four E's. My noble friend Lord Faulkner mentioned three. They are enforcement, engineering, education; we also add evaluation, which is important in looking at the effectiveness of policies. In picking up the main points raised in the debate, I shall try to group the issues under the main themes that have been explored: safer drivers; safer roads; and safer cars.
My noble friend Lady Gibson quoted the recent lecture by Professor Begg, from which we all derived insights and useful knowledge. He commented on the importance that should be attached to the drink-driving problem. In some respects, Britain is out of step with other countries. We are rightly concerned that 560 deaths—the department's original estimate of the number of road deaths in 2002 in accidents where at least one driver or rider was over the limit—was 6 per cent higher than the figure in the two previous years and 20 per cent higher than the figure for the two years before that. That is indeed a worrying trend and one that we do not want to continue.
At the same time, it is good to know that even at this higher level the number of drink-drive deaths is still half what it was in 1984 and only one-third of what it was in 1979. That should be two decades of effective action and publicity, and we need to examine the area again.
It is clear from the public opinion surveys which the Government carry out in association with their road safety publicity campaigns that most people accept that it is socially unacceptable to drink and drive. But when it comes to the level of the drink-drive limit, which in this country is 80 milligrams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood, we have also to consider other factors, including the severity of the associated powers. And here I am at one with the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, in his analysis of the position.
While it is true that other European countries have reduced their limit to 50 milligrams—in Sweden it is down to 20 milligrams—they have graduated penalties. The issue, in all fairness, is to argue that one could reduce the level but also the penalty. We have looked at that matter seriously because we take on board that our drink-driving position needs to be examined most carefully. The Government were minded to reduce the blood-alcohol limit to bring it to

1245
the European norm, but after a long and careful look at the issues, it was decided that the limit should remain unchanged. Taken together with our much more stringent penalties, we believe that the current level acts as an effective deterrent and that to lower the limit and the penalties would make little or no difference, or might make the situation even worse.
It is important that we get across to our people the seriousness of drinking and driving. That is why we feel justified in having our present stringent penalties. Cutting the limit would not necessarily reduce road deaths. It is important to recognise that the method of enforcement is vital because that impacts on the mind of the motorists. A recent paper from the European Commission suggested that enforcement and other factors were more important in reducing deaths than lowering the limit. It also pointed out that Britain's road death rate by population is six per 100,000, but in Portugal and Greece where the 50 milligram limit obtains the death rate is three times higher.
We have also seen the results of research carried out in Canada, which was thinking of reducing the limit. It looked at the issues and decided that there was no conclusive case for a 50 milligram limit because of the many other factors that come into play. I assure the House that in view of the figures, the Government are looking at this issue with a great deal of seriousness.
Furthermore, the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, was right in saying that tiredness is an important factor in road deaths. We are aware of the Loughborough report partly because the Government funded a great deal of it and the Government tend to know where their money has gone. He will have seen notices on motorways and so forth which emphasise to drivers at fairly regular intervals that tiredness can kill. It is an important point, and I assure him that we are considering seriously that research.
I have emphasised that it is now illegal to use hand-held mobile phones while driving. I appreciate the point made by my noble friend Lord Faulkner that it is a distraction and danger to take a telephone call, not just to take one's hands off the steering wheel. The reason why the use of hand-held mobile phones has been tackled first is that it is the activity most readily detectable by police. They are concerned that they should be able to enforce the law, and there is a problem with enforcing a ban on using hands-free mobile phones while driving.
My noble friend Lady Gibson asked why we did not get at employers. We have done so: the Health and Safety Executive and the Government have written to the top 100 employers to say that they should not encourage their drivers to take calls while driving. I shall give noble Lords a word of encouragement: the Law Society has removed from its cars all mobile phones, including hands-free sets, because it regards them as a potential hazard to drivers. That is one clear illustration that the message is getting home. I hope that it will encourage others.
One could have predicted that safety cameras would feature significantly in the debate. Several noble Lords paid due regard to the issue. Contrary to the
1246
impression given by much of the popular press, the partnerships are allowed to install cameras only where there is a history of speed-related accidents and casualties. Most importantly, the partnerships recover from the Treasury only the cost of operating cameras and installing new ones, from the income generated by fines. The idea that the measure is an insidious new form of stealth tax on the nation is false. Cameras are a clear warning to drivers that speed limits must be obeyed, a point that my noble friend Lord Simon emphasised. The noble Viscount is right that police officers often see speeding vehicles as potentially engaged in other criminal pursuits. That is why the police are concerned about excessive speed, which is often associated with other crime.
In due course, as the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, said, speed cameras will potentially lead to the detection of other traffic crimes, such as driving without insurance and driving without an MoT certificate. We are examining ways to enforce other traffic laws properly through sophisticated cameras. The DVLA is interested, for obvious reasons, in that possibility.
Earl Attlee: My Lords—
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I am a little pressed for time, so I hope that the noble, Earl will forgive me. If I give way, I may not be able to answer the whole debate.
The other aspect of using seatbelts is to seek to reduce speed where children are most vulnerable. That is why traffic-calming measures are needed in urban areas and home zones. We seek to emphasise that our child safety problem is not that British drivers are poorer than those on the Continent, but we have problems separating traffic from pedestrians. The vulnerable pedestrians are often children. That is why we must have very low speed limits wherever children are present—near schools and in residential areas.
The noble Baroness, Lady Scott, referred to speed in rural areas, which is another area of special concern being given much thought. A new speed hierarchy for rural areas is being considered that takes account of the nature and quality of particular roads as well as the nature of the traffic that uses them. Any new proposals that are developed would need to be piloted before wider introduction, as well as given wide publicity to ensure that all drivers fully understood the changes. However, I wanted to reassure the noble Baroness that we are looking at the matter.
The last point that I want to emphasise is safer cars, to which several noble Lords referred. Vehicle safety is important not just for car passengers. We all salute the achievements of the motor industry in making cars safer for passengers, but it is also important that car design takes account of the risks to other road users, especially pedestrians. I am therefore pleased that, following earlier negotiations with car manufacturers, an EU directive has now been ratified which sets the pedestrian protection requirements that have to be met for all new car models introduced from October 2005 onwards. Several noble Lords referred to that point and we are seeing improvements.

1247
This has been a long and wide-ranging debate. I could not hope to cover every single issue: that has been raised. I am only too pleased to write to noble Lords if it has been detected that I have been inadequate in my reply. I am grateful to every noble Lord who has contributed to the debate and for their interest and concern. This is a very important issue. We heard testimony about the price that is paid when road accidents occur to immediate family, carers and wider society. We all recognise that there is almost no greater risk than when one entrusts oneself to the road. That is why it is an obligation on any responsible government to make road safety a major priority.
8.52 p.m.
Baroness Scott of Needham Market: My Lords, it is late and the fisheries debate is waiting in the wings, so I shall do little more than thank noble Lords who have participated in a debate that has been wide-ranging. It has come from a variety of perspectives and will, I am sure, prove very useful to the Government and officials. I am particularly grateful to noble Lords who shared often painful and personal perspectives with the House.
I would also like to say how much 1 enjoyed the contribution by the noble Earl, Lord Erroll. I agreed with very few of his statistics and none of his conclusions. Nevertheless, he serves to remind us that we should treat statistics, their sources and the conclusions that we draw from them with some caution because, at the end of the day, we all want the same thing —safer roads. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

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
8.53 p.m.
Baroness Crawleyrose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 4th November be approved [31st Report, Session 2002–03, from the Joint Committee].
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the importance to the UK and the EU of stability in the Middle East has rarely been more apparent or acute. Today, we have an opportunity to take an important step in promoting that stability. The association agreements between the EU and Lebanon and the EU and Algeria aim to promote economic and social development in Lebanon and Algeria. They create a partnership underpinned by an ongoing, wide-ranging dialogue and cemented through increased trade liberalisation. They envisage co-operation on a spectrum of issues of mutual concern, ranging from tourism to terrorism, from immigration to investment.
1248
The agreements support UK interests in a variety of ways. They will continue to encourage economic and political reform in Algeria and Lebanon, providing a key plank in the UK's policy to promote reform across the Arab world. They create opportunities for increased UK exports through the progressive reduction of Lebanese and Algerian tariffs on EU industrial products and through increased agricultural liberalisation. That dovetails with our wider aim of promoting global trade liberalisation and economic integration. Equally importantly, the articles on political dialogue in the association agreements provide for regular exchanges on subjects of common interest, including democracy, regional development and human rights.
The two agreements form part of a broader relationship between the EU and the countries of the southern shore of the Mediterranean, known as the Euro-Med partnership. This chapter in EU-Mediterranean relations was opened at Barcelona in 1995 and continues to grow and develop. Its over-arching goal is to ensure peace, stability and security in the Mediterranean region. To that end, it aims to create a Euro-Med free trade area by 2010. Combining an enlarged EU of 25 with our Mediterranean partners will create one of the world's largest trading blocs.
Association agreements are the main instrument for achieving that target. Agreements similar to the one before the House today have already been signed with Tunisia, Israel, Morocco, Jordan and Egypt. All except Egypt are in force. An interim agreement with the Palestinian Authority has been agreed and is in force. An agreement with Syria is being negotiated.
Lebanon and Algeria share the UK and EU aims of promoting regional stability and prosperity through dialogue, co-operation and trade. The EU-Algeria association agreement was signed on 27th April 2002; and the EU-Lebanon association agreement was signed on 17th June 2002. An interim agreement with Lebanon covering trade is in force, but, until the agreements have been ratified by all parties, Algeria and Lebanon will not enjoy all the benefits.
These are important agreements, supporting key long-term UK and EU objectives. I recommend their ratification.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 4th November be approved [31st Report, Session 2002–03, from the Joint Committee].—(Baroness Crawley.)
Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Crawley, for introducing and explaining the orders. As she said, they are important agreements.
We broadly welcome the agreement with Algeria. We are strongly in favour of trade liberalisation. Regrettably, Algeria has suffered greatly in the past few years, and we believe that freer trade will help to provide it with the prosperity that its population urgently deserves and needs. Similarly, co-operation on matters of illegal immigration and counter-terrorism will undoubtedly be of great value to all signatories and we welcome that.

1249
Noble Lords who have read the Foreign and Commonwealth Office report on human rights this year will know that at least 100,000 civilians have died in the decade of insurgency by Islamic armed groups in Algeria. Despite an amnesty, two armed groups are still active. The conflict continues to claim around 100 lives a month. As well as terrorist violence, there are numerous allegations of human rights abuses by the security forces and state-armed militias, including enforced disappearances—involving an estimated 4,000 people—and torture. Amnesty International, in the FCO report, argues that, although the rate of human rights abuses has fallen in the past few years, it
remains high. Notably, UN monitors have not received the assistance that they might have expected.
We understand that the Algerian Government were faced with what was, in effect, a civil war. That presented them with difficult problems. Are Her Majesty's Government confident that the framework for political dialogue will address those pressing problems? How regular will the political dialogue be? How soon will it start after the order comes into force? What monitoring mechanisms are in place? We would like to be reassured that this order will be used to address those concerns on human rights. By improving human rights, the problems of illegal immigration and terrorism will also be improved.
The case of the Lebanon order is similar. We welcome the agreement, particularly supporting the provisions on trade liberalisation, co-operation on illegal immigration and the proposed political dialogue. However, I note with concern that there is no provision for co-operation on anti-terrorism. Could the noble Baroness comment on that? What effort has been made to create such a provision? If any effort was made, why was it without success? The Minister in the other place said that,
"if the situation becomes so bad",
the provision of the agreement to both countries will be suspended if necessary. Could the noble Baroness explain exactly what criteria the Government will use to decide if it is "too bad"?
We have serious concerns about human rights in Lebanon, including political arrests and violence against women. Does the noble Baroness consider that the framework addressing those issues is satisfactory? Similarly, we have concerns regarding terrorism, especially in the light of frequent exchanges of fire on the Israeli-Lebanese border. I would welcome any enlightenment that the noble Baroness can give the House on that.
The Lebanon is a society riven by war and suffering over the past few years, but it was once a hugely successful country. I hope that both agreements will help both countries to move forward and to rebuild what they have lost. We support the orders and hope that our concerns will be addressed.
9.1 p.m.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, we, too, support these orders. But, as on the previous occasion—12th May—
1250
when we discussed EU association agreements, I wish to speak only about the standard human rights clause, which is to be found in all these agreements following the Commission's 1995 communication, On the Inclusion of Respect for Democratic Principles and Human Rights and Agreements between the Community and Third Countries.
On that occasion in May, we spoke about Chile and Egypt. In both those countries, one could say that human rights is improving. It is rather doubtful whether the same could be said of Algeria. In July 2002, I had the honour of presenting a petition to the Algerian Government, at their embassy in London on the occasion of the 40th anniversary of Algerian independence, calling for an inquiry into the 4,000 plus "disappearances" since the state of emergency was introduced 11 years ago.
President Bouteflika announced what is described as an "ad hoc mechanism" for looking into the disappearances, but it appears to fall short of the demand that has been made for a general inquiry with the necessary resources to back it. As the noble Lord said, the UN Working Group on Disappearances originally asked to visit the country in August 2000, but is still waiting for a response to that request.
In a letter to me dated 28th June 2002, the Minister, Mike O'Brien, said that during a visit to Algiers, the EU Troika had pressed the Algerian authorities for a response to the list of the "disappeared", which had been sent by the presidency in April 2001 and raised again at the political dialogue between Algeria and the EU in December 2001. He continued:
"Now that the Association Agreement between the EU and Algeria has been signed, the EU Commission will be in a position to closely monitor adherence to the human rights principles laid out in the text of the Association Agreement".
With that in mind, could the Minister tell us whether a response has yet been received to that list which was presented two-and-a-half years ago?
The noble Lord has reminded us that since the emergency began 11 years ago an estimated 100,000 people have been killed. Although there has been some improvement, still some 60 people are dying every month as a result of violence by the armed groups, the security forces and the state-armed militias. Yet the requests which have been made repeatedly by the Special Rapporteurs on Torture and on Extrajudicial Executions—going back, I think, in one case, to 1994—have been ignored. This despite assurances given by Prime Minister Benflis to a delegation of Members of your Lordships' House who visited Algeria in September 2002 that UN rapporteurs would be welcome.
On 18th March 2002, the noble Baroness, Lady Amos, told me in a Written Answer that:
"We continue to urge the Algerian Government to comply fully with its obligations under international law on the investigation of human rights abuses, including requests to visit by UN Special Rapporteurs".—[Official Report, 18/3/03; cols. WA 115–16.]
I have suggested from time to time that it would be useful if, before every session of the UN Human Rights Commission, a list could be published of the outstanding requests by the UN Special Procedures

1251
giving the date on which each request was first made and on which it was renewed. I have also suggested that thematic rapporteurs should make a point of submitting written reports if the countries concerned fail to issue invitations, so that at least their omission would attract some penalty in terms of naming and shaming.
On the facts, the influence of Europe has not been very effective and it would be useful to know whether the Minister thinks that the association agreement will make any difference. I wonder why the Algerians should pay any more attention to their obligations under the standard human rights clause in the agreement when for years they have ignored the pleas of the United Kingdom, the European Union and the Human Rights Commission.
Perhaps the Minister will say, as Bill Rammell, the Minister in another place, said in response to a question on 11th December, that an association council established under this agreement would be able to examine any major issues that arise, including human rights. But since the council has no teeth, it is not clear why the Government think that it is likely to produce the improvements that we have been demanding in vain in all other forums. The Algerians might even refuse to attend meetings of the association council, as have the Tunisians, in spite of the fact that their agreement has been in force for two years; and that without attracting any penalty.
In the Commission's document of September 2000 entitled Reinvigorating the Barcelona Process, it recognised that there had not been a sufficiently frank and serious dialogue on human rights and that EU human rights policies in the Mediterranean region lacked consistency. It considered that co-operation on respect for human rights and democracy, good governance and the rule of law should be enhanced. Out of that I understand there have emerged proposals for what are call "Etats de Lieu" reports covering these issues and leading to action plans for each of the partner states. I am not sure whether these mechanisms are yet in force; in the communiqué on the Euro-Mediterranean Conference of Foreign Affairs Ministers held in Naples at the beginning of this month, there was a reference under the heading "Human Rights and Democracy" to,
"joint action plans … to implement the commitments which the partners have agreed to",
but nothing specific about the Etats de Lieu reports, which must be an essential preparation for those plans. If, for instance, Algeria disclaims any responsibility for the human rights abuses which continue to take place within its jurisdiction, it would follow that an action plan would not have to include any "national regulation and legislation" to deal with those abuses.
If, on the other hand, there is a serious commitment to a joint examination of alleged human rights abuses, then we very much welcome this as a significant advance. It means, presumably, that the Commission would send experts to Algeria to examine reports of human rights abuses with the Algerian authorities, and that for this purpose the joint teams would have to be given free access to places as well as the power to call
1252
for papers and summon witnesses. The very possibility of such inquiries might have an immediate and salutary effect on the perpetrators of human rights abuses.
Neither Algeria nor Lebanon is included in a list of countries to which a special chapter is devoted in the FCO's annual human rights report, although Lebanon is mentioned as the host country of the Campaign for Freedom of Information in Lebanon and the Arab World, to which the UK gave a small amount in the year under review. The bilateral assistance for human rights in Lebanon, and any EU funding through the European Initiative for Democracy and Human Rights or through MEDA are independent of the association agreements, as I hope the Minister will confirm.
Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International have both recently expressed concern about the harassment of human rights defenders in Lebanon, as the noble Lord has already mentioned, including Samira Trad and Muhammed Mugraby, both of whom suffered arbitrary detention. The government there, unlike Algeria, appointed a commission of inquiry into the thousands of disappearances that occurred during the civil war which ended in 1990, but the findings, which were submitted in February 2001, have never been published.
The noble Lord also mentioned that violence against women is a problem in Lebanon. Amnesty International states that the amendments which are proposed to the penal code would make that situation worse. It states that freedom of expression, which is already constrained, would suffer additional limitations if the amendments go through its Parliament. The arrest of commercial television station owner Tahsin Khayat on 5th December on the orders of a military prosecutor is an ominous sign, and there were arrests is September, also by the military prosecutor, of two journalists associated with a gay website.
The treatment of thousands of Palestinian refugees in refugee camps is also discriminatory and the European Parliament, in the resolution it passed accompanying its consent to this agreement in October, called on the Lebanese Government to ratify the refugee convention.
Does the Minister honestly believe that any of these problems will be solved by the association agreement or even, in the case of amendments to the penal code that are unfriendly to human rights, will be saved from getting any worse? I cannot imagine why the Lebanese authorities would be susceptible to persuasion by high-level political dialogue when up until now they have been impervious to representations that were not adorned with an association agreement label.
The noble Baroness, Lady Symons, pointed out on the previous occasion that if a state fails to meet its obligations the EU can take what are called "appropriate measures", including the suspension of the agreement itself. But of course that nuclear option would never be used and the agreement does not provide for a graduated range of lesser penalties which

1253
might be appropriate if, after a period to be decided, there has not been any improvement in the records of these countries.
Of course it is easier for the EU to have a standard clause which it inserts in every association agreement. That may give the bureaucrats a warm glow of satisfaction imagining that they have done something for human rights, but if experience shows that there is no added value in the clause and that any improvements which take place in the partner countries are the result of other procedures, we should review the whole process and see if Europe can design a mechanism for the future that would really work.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Crawley, on the enormous enthusiasm with which she introduced these orders. One got the impression that they were perhaps the best possible agreements that had been negotiated in the past 10 years.
However, one major serious criticism can be levelled at them. I shall try to explain it. Article 2 of these and all previous EU association agreements states:
"Relations … shall be based on respect for human rights and democratic principles".
These are said to be an essential element of the agreements. This is fine. But, alas, there is no mechanism to ensure compliance with Article 2 and so the words remain empty and rhetorical.
Detailed mechanisms are needed providing, for example, for regular monitoring of what happens and for close liaison, as has been mentioned, with the UN special rapporteurs on individual countries and on specific kinds of breaches of human rights. If it can be done, this should lead to specific recommendations for improvement. We also need monitoring of whether human rights defenders are in practice free to act, and compliance on human rights should be a distinct agenda item for the regular meetings of the associations councils. Will the Government take up these points with the European Union?
The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, raised very important points about reports and action plans. As I understand it, these are not provided for in the text of the agreements. In this process, will the Government study carefully the resolutions of the European Parliament concerning these two agreements? The first was Resolution P5 TA-Prov (2002), of 10th January 2003, I think, regarding Lebanon. The second resolution was B5-0489/2002 of 10th October 2002. Both resolutions call for mechanisms of implementation for human rights, and mention many of the points to which I have referred.
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their important and interesting comments in this debate. I thank them for their constructive overall comments about these agreements. I have been asked several times by noble Lords whether I think these agreements can be effective in challenging issues of human rights abuse in particular. It is vital that the relationship between the European Union and Algeria
1254
and Lebanon is strengthened so that we can move down the path of strengthening our resolve to ensure that human rights abuses are reduced and eliminated. This will require serious commitment from the European Union and the UK.
Several questions have been raised; I shall do my best to answer them all. If I miss any. I will happily ensure that they are answered in writing. I was asked by many noble Lords about human rights. The noble Lord, Lord Astor of Hever, asked me about Algeria in particular. I am sure he knows that the articles on political dialogue in the association agreements provide for regular exchanges on subjects of common interest, including democracy, regional development and other issues. I can assure the noble Lord that the human rights issue will be very much a part of that dialogue, just as it is under the other association agreements to which I referred in my opening remarks.
In addition, the European Union can take the appropriate measures to which the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, referred, if thought fit, including suspending the provisions in the agreement with Algeria and Lebanon. This was referred to as a nuclear option. However, it is a very serious provision—it is in the agreement, and that suspension could take place if it was considered that Algeria and Lebanon were failing to meet their obligations under the agreement, such as those regarding respect for fundamental human rights. That is clearly stated in Article 2 of the association agreements.
The noble Lord, Lord Astor of Hever, asked about the EU-Lebanon association agreement as far as covering counter-terrorism is concerned. Co-operation on counter-terrorism is covered by a separate exchange of letters between the EU and Lebanon which enters into force at the same time as the agreement. The focus is on sharing information and experiences about countering and preventing terrorism and undertaking joint research on methods of prevention.
In thanking the noble Lords, Lord Astor of Hever, Lord Avebury and Lord Hylton, for their contributions, may I say that we envisage serious monitoring of the human rights situation in both agreements? Under Articles 92 to 95 of the agreements, an association council will be established which shall meet at ministerial level once a year and examine any major issue arising within the framework of the agreement. An association committee of senior officials will also meet during the year. Article 2 states that human rights shall constitute an essential element of the agreement. As the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, said, that was given in a reply recently in another place. Association agreements will make a difference.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, will the Minister deal with the point that I made about the association agreement with Tunisia, whereby the association council did not meet because the Tunisians declined to come? Short of withdrawing from the agreement, what penalties are

1255
available to the Commission if some breach occurs that does not warrant a total withdrawal from the agreement? What lesser penalties are provided?
Lord Hylton: My Lords, surely we need some kind of halfway house between total suspension of the agreement and nothing being done. The Minister mentioned a committee, but will it have any teeth?
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, I shall endeavour to write to both noble Lords on the details, especially to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, on the details of the Tunisia association agreement, and what happens as a result of the action that took place in Tunisia. I should say to the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, that these are face-to-face ministerial meetings; they are serious meetings with serious players, and a forum for frank discussion.
The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, asked about disappeared persons. The Algerian ministry of foreign affairs has responded to some of the cases raised, but only limited information has been forthcoming. In October 1998, at a meeting with the EU troika, the Algerian Foreign Minister undertook to examine individual human rights cases submitted by the EU. Following that, Amnesty International approached the Foreign Office and asked us to submit four cases of disappearance via the presidency. In October 1999, the UK submitted three more cases. A new presidency list was submitted at the ministerial troika in 2001, and the UK continues to raise the cases bilaterally and through the EU, including the points raised by Mike O'Brien during his visit this year.
I shall write to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, with information, if we have more of it, on the situation of violence against women. I shall also write to the noble Lord, Lord Astorof Hever, as he asked first about that particular aspect of human rights.
The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, asked me about the Commission communication on democratisation, human rights and the national plan. The Commission released a communication on human rights and democratisation in May 2003, which sets out proposals to encourage the improvement and promotion of human rights in the Euro-Mediterranean countries Proposals include the provision of technical assistance to third countries, making community funding to third countries conditional on their respect of human rights, as well as drawing up national action plans with benchmarks on human rights. We very much welcome the Commission's communication as an important step to enhance dialogue between the EU and third countries on human rights. Full details of the European Commission's communication can be found at www.europa.eu.int. I shall speak to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, about that, if he wishes to again.
The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, discussed torture. We shall undertake to encourage the investigation of all allegations of torture and shall call for action against anyone found to have committed such a crime or violated other international human rights standards.
1256
In closing, these are important and serious agreements which can improve human rights in the relevant third countries, supporting key long-term UK, EU, Algerian and Lebanese objectives. The UK and the EU must continue to promote closer ties within and between the different regions of the world. I am sure noble Lords would agree that no region is more important than the Middle East. These agreements provide the sort of wide-ranging, concrete measures needed to underpin a relationship that will foster stability, prosperity and understanding. I commend the orders to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

European Communities (Definition of Treaties) (Euro-Mediterranean Agreement establishing an Association between the European Communities and their Member States and the People's Democratic Republic of Algeria) Order 2003
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, I have spoken to this order. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 4th November be approved [31st Report, Session 2002-03, from the Joint Committee].—(Baroness Crawley.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Fishery Limits (United Kingdom) Bill [H.L.]
9.26 p.m.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
A very similar Bill to this one was introduced into another place last June by Austin Mitchell MP, supported by a cross-party group of Members. Unfortunately, it did not get a Second Reading and, of course, fell at the end of the previous Session. Austin Mitchell was kind enough to pass it on to me with suggestions for its simplification and improvement. I am greatly indebted to the Public Bill Office for redrafting the Bill.
For 62 years of my life I lived within two miles of Fraserburgh, once one of the biggest and most prosperous fishing ports in the country—once, I believe, the biggest herring port in Europe—founded over 400 years ago by my ancestor. The prosperity of Fraserburgh is very dear to my heart and I have witnessed the decline of the fishing industry on which it depends with great sorrow.
The common fisheries policy, after years of failure to achieve sustainable management of European fisheries, was due for substantial overhaul by December 2002. A promising package of proposals adopted by the Commission in May 2002 was wrecked by decisions taken by the Council in December 2002, as a result of pressure from certain interested member states. For many years now the cod and hake stocks

1257
have been falling to dangerously low levels, and the measures agreed by the Council to protect them have been too little and too late. There is little reason to suppose that the story will be any different this December. TACs (total allowable catches) are set too high; they are in any case a very inefficient method of controlling the quantity of fish caught leading both to the landing of "black fish" and the wicked practice of discarding; that is, throwing overboard to die fish caught over and above the permitted quota.
The encouragement of effort limitation by grants for scrapping boats has been inadequate, and largely negated by "technology creep"; that is, the fitting of the remaining boats and the building of new boats with more efficient fish-catching equipment, particularly in France and Spain, and financed, believe it or not, by EU funding. Those are just two examples of common fisheries policy inefficiency.
Now, in panic, there is talk of forbidding all fishing for white fish in the North Sea. Not only would that spell final ruin to our fishermen, but it ignores the fact that cod and hake, preferring colder waters, do not inhabit in any quantity the same fishing grounds in the North Sea as haddock and whiting and other white fish, of which the stocks are sufficient for moderate catches to be permissible and for which our fishermen are accustomed to fish.
The plight of our fishing industry has long been serious and is likely to become more so. It is not helped by the regrettable fact that FIFG funding is available only for fishery purposes and not for financing alternative industries in our fishing ports and retraining fishermen who have been put out of work.
Ultimately, we in this country have a far greater interest in the sound management of our fish stocks than do the other member states which fish our fishing grounds and which are anxious to continue fishing our waters because 70 per cent of the European Union fish stocks are in our waters. It is the living of our fishermen and that of their children and grandchildren which is at stake. At present, there are many very unhappy fishermen out there—and not only fishermen, for the ancillary businesses are affected, too. If the decision on who fished our waters was ours alone, our fishermen would fare much better. That is the reason for the Bill.
I turn to the Bill itself. Clause 1 gives the Secretary of State power, by affirmative order, to withdraw from the common fisheries policy on such a date as he shall determine, regardless of the provisions of the European Communities Act 1972.
Clause 2 amends the Fishery Limits Act 1976 so that foreign fishing boats not registered in a country with a fisheries agreement with the United Kingdom would be forbidden to enter United Kingdom fishery limits. Fishermen from the European Union are specifically forbidden to fish within fishery limits unless their respective countries are designated access under the 1976 Act. No country would be so designated unless reciprocal rights to fish in its waters were granted to
1258
UK fishing boats and they observed the same conservation measures as those applied within British fishery limits, or more stringent ones.
Provision is also made in Clause 2 for the following: a licensing regime for fishing boats within British fishery limits; penalties for unlicensed fishing; the landing in the UK, Isle of Man or the Channel Islands of fish caught within British waters, or their being reported to Ministers and available for inspection if landed elsewhere; the conduct of relations with the Faroe Islands, Iceland, Ireland and Norway with regard to fisheries; the use of statutory instruments relating to the fisheries regime; and the taking into account of the devolution of powers.
Clause 3 makes financial provision for any expenditure of the Secretary of State consequent upon the Act. Clause 4 concerns the citation, extent and commencement date. The Bill extends to the whole United Kingdom.
This is an enabling Bill. It does not take the United Kingdom out of the common fisheries policy; it merely enables the Secretary of State to make an order to do so—an order which will require the approval of both Houses of Parliament. But I hope that it will send a very clear signal to the Council of Ministers that people in this country are becoming very fed up and, by so doing, will give the Minister responsible for negotiations with the Council a stronger hand to play. Our Ministers do their best. For many years, Ministers of all political complexions have worked their socks off trying to get our fisheries a better deal. Any help or ammunition that we can give them, we should give unstintingly. I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.— (Lady Saltoun of Abernethy.)
9.35 p.m.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I have listened to the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun of Abernethy, with considerable approval. I, too, have greatly benefited from knowing fishermen in Arbroath, Peterhead and up the coast, particularly in Wick, and from Ullapool northwards. They are good men and they are suffering. There is no question about that.
There are many reasons, but the plain fact is that one boat equipped with all the modern devices and manned by trained people can catch as much as probably 10 boats could 50 years ago. That really is the reason for the run down in stocks, along with a good deal of incompetence in the EU over the fisheries policy and some incompetence on our part too, including the failure to have any form of control over landings in Spain. At one time, in Spain there were two inspectors for the whole country, which was obviously bad. I doubt whether in France and Spain they are as particular as we and some others are.
We have also had decommissioning in this country, but the decommissioning figures were too low. Many of our fishermen sold their boats and their licences to foreign crews who manned them as British boats. In that way they continued the expansion of catching ability which we must now do something to control.

1259
We are in a different position compared with Norway and Iceland, who are always held up as great examples. Norway and Iceland have open seas all around them and for them 200 miles means something. However, in this country we have opposite us Denmark, Germany, Belgium and France, all with a share of the North Sea. There is no 200-mile limit. I do not see how the Bill will help. I am glad to hear the noble Lady say that it will merely help the Government to correct the common fisheries policy by having a threat to wield. If I thought that that was the purpose I would support it, but I am not sure whether it is. I shall be interested to hear what other noble Lords think.
The need to do something—that old phrase—is perfectly clear, especially when we look at Newfoundland cod, which was the source of a great industry. The fish have not returned; they have been fished out. There have to be changes. So the much despised CFP has done some good. I shudder to think what would have happened if we had no measures. There are bad aspects, such as the giving of grants to equip new boats and so on, which is obvious nonsense, and the paying of money to decommission a boat, but not taking away the licence. That is the kind of madness that has led to the difficulty in which we find ourselves now.
However, we must give some credit to the common fisheries policy. I do not know what would have happened without it. If one looks at the difficulties of negotiating new agreements with all the countries, there is no doubt that we should concentrate our efforts harder on improving the common fisheries policy and making it practical. In spite of all its failings, it is the only machinery left which can improve the situation to the benefit of the fishermen of this country.
Those fishermen are suffering in exactly the same way, only not quite so badly, as the farming population, where, because of mechanisation, there is a total absence of paid labour. On many farms of 300 to 400 acres all the work is done by the farmer. That situation results from competence and new methods. Largely, the trouble that the fishermen are in is partly their fault, partly the Government's fault and partly of course the fault of the CFP. Nevertheless, the policy is the best we have and we should stick by it.
9.41 p.m.
Lord Palmer: My Lords, at this late hour, I shall not detain your Lordships for long. The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, will be delighted that for once I will not mention biofuels. I too congratulate my noble friend Lady Saltoun on bringing forward this simple but
terribly important Bill.
Fishing is very much in my ancestry, as it is in my noble friend's. My great great grandfather founded his fishing dynasty from Wick and later moved to create a very prosperous fishing business out of the port of Leith, which he represented in another place for many years, having been honorary consul in St Petersburg for 16 years.
1260
On reading the Hansard of the debate last week in another place, I think that everyone involved in the UK fishing industry would agree that the so-called science on which Brussels bases its decisions is disastrous for the common fisheries policy and is hopelessly flawed. To give one small example, the white fishing boats in Scotland have been reduced from 351 to just 135, which means in reality that each vessel has a 1,000 square mile radius in which to fish.
I had the privilege of sitting on Sub-Committee D for the statutory three years and was involved in two reports on the CFP. It was very distressing when we came to revisit this subject that nothing had really changed in the three years since our first report. The chairman of the sub-committee, the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, when introducing our report in this House, said that,
"it is tempting to sum up the report quickly by saying, "Too slow; too little; too late'."—[Official Report, 10/10/03; col. 561.]
How I echo those words.
I could not agree more with my noble friend Lady Saltoun when she said that the TACs are set at an artificially high level. She referred to the wicked practice of discarding. I would go much further and say that it is criminal and of course environmentally insane. I feel certain that the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, with his other hat on would agree to that particular point.
Any outsider looking at the fact that there are EEC grants to decommission with one hand and grants to build new boats with the other would agree what a farce the CFP has become.
My biggest worry is the long-term future for our fishermen and indeed for their families. I live close to the small fishing port of Eyemouth on the Berwickshire coast, and I am particularly concerned about all the ancillary businesses which are naturally affected by the CFP. In sparsely populated areas, fishermen and their ancillary trades have little or no opportunity to diversify. It is for that reason that my noble friend will have my full support in this enabling Bill. I hope that it will receive a quick passage through Parliament and Royal Assent before it is too late.
9.45 p.m.
Lord Kimball: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, for introducing the Bill, which failed in another place although it was promoted by the honourable Member for Great Grimsby. There is no time to lose in re-establishing our 200-mile limit round the coast of this country, excluding all fishing boats except those with an exchange of access agreement—those represented by the Faroes, Iceland, Ireland and Norway.
The future of the sand eels is important in the food chain for both our fish and birds. At the last count, the Danes were taking no less than 8,140 tonnes of sand eels each year to put in their power stations to generate power. The UK industry is taking another 1,800 tonnes of sand eels to sell to the Danes; the Norwegians are taking slightly less. That is more than the sand eel population can stand. Even the European

1261
Commission recommends that we should cut by no less than 2,000 tonnes the number of sand eels taken next year.
My noble friend Lord Forsyth introduced a debate on the future of the Atlantic salmon round the Scottish coast. When a young salmon goes to sea in its second or third year as a smolt, it needs a good fill of sand eels to get it to the plankton off Iceland. If it does not get that, it will not get there. The supply of sand eels is now so short that most smolt salmon never reach their growing areas so that they can return to this country as grilse or salmon. If the salmon are to return to this country, to the river of their birth, we need the Bill to control the loss of salmon illegally swept up in the nets of the new types of fishing boat.
Having spent 40 years of my life in Sutherland, I know that, especially in the spring, when the fishing was bad, we went to Handa Island off the north-west coast. The population of puffins, terns, razorbills and guillemots was enormous, but during the past 20 years, since the Danes started fishing for sand eels, that population has vanished. The situation is now serious and I hope that the Bill will allow us to control our own fisheries policy, instead of being dictated to by Europe.
9.48 p.m.
The Earl of Erroll: My Lords, I welcome the Bill and thank my noble friend Lady Saltoun for introducing it. It contains important principles. The first has concerned me for a long time: we cannot apply processes that might work if the world were a simple place to a complex network of human relationships and expect to obtain the consequences we want. That sounds complicated, but process-driven thinking has completely failed in this area. We must start motivating people to do what is needed. There is a huge conservation issue. The Bill is important because it affects both communities and the environment.
If we want to protect something, we need to give the people who use it ownership of it. Then they will want to protect it for the future. Once we have destroyed the habitat or the stocks, we cannot recreate them. People's livelihoods are at risk. Much local industry is dependent on fishing—perhaps I should say that there is a little left. Local businesses and communities are dependent on it. When we have destroyed them, what regeneration schemes will we try to put in place when they know nothing else?
The Bill gives British fishermen a stake in their own future, because they will feel and know that their children will benefit from their restraint. With luck, they will stop over-fishing. If one feels that one is passing something on to one's own flesh and blood or one's community, one does something about it. That worked well with the cod recovery in either Iceland or Greenland. People who know more than myself will talk about that. People will even invest in the industry.
In the south-west there was an initiative to reintroduce lobsters where they had been over-fished. That went well. If people cannot protect that, there is no point in such initiatives. If, suddenly, strangers and
1262
foreigners can come and raid what people feel is their own property, there is no point in investing in the future. But if one gives them ownership, they will defend that. The Bill is important because it starts to move in the correct direction. Instead of having many rules that do not work, because people will always find another way of interpreting them, one should begin to motivate people properly to look after their future.
9.51 p.m.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, the question which must by now be occurring to any normal person listening to or reading this debate is: "How on earth did we get into this mess?". The answer is, as usual, in our disastrous relationship with the European Union—in that the British people, and even Parliament, were deceived by the Government of the day. Any of your Lordships who wish to understand the whole history of how that has happened over more than 30 years should read a brilliant new book, entitled The Great Deception, written by Mr Christopher Booker and Mr Richard North, published by Continuum Books. It is closely researched and reveals a number of Foreign Office memoranda under the 30-year rule, which show exactly how we were deceived in the late 1960s and early 1970s—and indeed, for many years before that. It is thus essential reading for any noble Lord who wants to understand the history and nature of our present predicament.
As far as the loss of our fisheries is concerned, Messrs Booker and North reveal that on 13th December 1971 Mr Geoffrey Rippon MP, who was negotiating the United Kingdom's access to what was then the Common Market, reported to the House of Commons on the outcome of the final meeting in Brussels which had sealed the fate of one of our most important assets. Mr Rippon claimed that any "outstanding problems" on fisheries had been resolved. He said the Community had been persuaded of the need to protect Britain's vital interests, both by conserving fish stocks and by protecting "the livelihoods of our fishermen". He then claimed:
"it is clear that we retain full jurisdiction of the whole of our coastal waters up to 12 miles".
That was simply not true. First, what he had signed meant that British boats would only have exclusive rights to fish out to six miles, and our control over access between six and 12 miles had been limited. Secondly, that was allowed only under a 10-year derogation which was to expire on 31st December 1982, after which it could only be extended by unanimity. The derogation could thus be ended by a single veto. Thirdly, the United Kingdom had conceded the most important principle of all; namely, the power of Brussels to control our fishing waters right up to our beaches. Even in the six-mile zone our fishermen would still have to comply with Community rules. And when the 200-mile limit was introduced in 1977 at the third UN Conference on the Law of the Sea, and was accepted by the EEC, our waters were given away entirely.

1263
No doubt desperate to hide how much the UK had conceded, Mr Rippon told the House of Commons:
"1 must emphasise that these are not just transitional arrangements which automatically lapse at the end of a fixed period".
Members of the other place were not able to see the actual wording of the accession treaty until after it was signed, a month later. Only then did it become clear how they had been misled by Mr Heath and his government. So that is a little of the story of how we were deceived into signing up to the common fisheries policy. As I have said, the whole saga is set out in devastating detail in The Great Deception.
It is perhaps just worth repeating what the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, said: that when we joined what is now the European Union we owned some 70 to 75 per cent of the fish which swam in all EC waters. Now we are allowed to land, I think, some 25 per cent of the catch allowed by Brussels; and it is this transition which has caused the devastation to which other noble Lords have referred.
When we use the expression "allowable catch", we see another lunacy of the common fisheries policy. This is that the Martians in Brussels presumably thought that they could practise conservation by limiting the amount of fish landed in port. They do not seem to have realised—probably because they had never been to sea—that when the nets come up, nearly all the fish in them are dead. So all fish beyond the "allowable catch" have to be thrown back dead, as the noble Lady said. The European Commission admitted not so long ago that some 4 million tonnes of dead fish are thus thrown back dead into the sea every year— good for the seabed, no doubt. That is conservation for you, à la Brussels.
I would end these few remarks by saying how much I look forward to hearing what my noble friend on the Front Bench will have to tell us about Conservative Party policy towards the problem we are discussing. During the previous Parliament, my honourable friend Mr Patrick Nicholls, speaking on behalf of the party, said in the other place that our policy was to repatriate our fish, which had been the blindingly obvious thing to do for many years. The very next day, the Prime Minister, Mr Blair, taunted my right honourable friend Mr William Hague, then Leader of the Opposition, that this meant the Conservative Party wanted to leave the European Union altogether. Mr Blair's reasoning appeared to be, and probably still is—perhaps the Minister will tell us when he replies tonight—that because the other EU countries would never agree to us taking back our fish, we would have to break the EU treaty to do so and that would somehow result in our leaving the European Union entirely.
At this suggestion, Mr Hague went into a somewhat undignified reverse and denied that we wanted to leave the European Union. Where that left our policy towards the common fisheries policy has never been made clear. As far as I can see, our policy is to,
"renegotiate the treaties to take back our fish".
1264
But that begs the question, as the Prime Minister indicated: what happens if the others do not agree? And of course they will not—certainly not the Spanish or the Dutch. Do we just accept that we have failed and continue to live with this financial, environmental and ignominious disaster, or do we break the treaty and take our fisheries back anyway? Can either my noble friend on the Front Bench or the Minister explain why that would result in our expulsion from the European Union? I can see that there would be a few uncomfortable cocktail parties for our bureaucrats, diplomats and so on in Brussels, but the British fishing industry could live with that. I can see that there might even be a fine to pay in the Luxembourg so-called "court", but, as your Lordships will be aware, there is no mechanism to make a country actually pay such a fine, as Italy and France have been demonstrating for years. So would the others really force us out when we are such a large contributor in other ways to the whole dismal enterprise? Alas, I fear not, even if that is what many of us want to do anyway.
So I would have thought that this excellent Bill, so ably and courageously promoted by the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun of Abernethy, can be supported by all sides of the House.
10 p.m.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I join the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, in congratulating Booker and North on their new book, The Great Deception. The good news is that noble Lords and Members of the House of Commons will receive a complimentary copy of the book, courtesy of Mr Sykes. I recommend that they read it.
I thank the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, for introducing the Bill. It is necessary and timely that the United Kingdom should now reconsider seriously reclaiming the power to manage our own fishing industry and fishing grounds, rather than their being managed by 24 other European countries, some of which have no fishing industry at all.
When Britain foolishly agreed to a common fisheries policy in 1972, as a price for entry to the Common Market, only nine countries were involved. That was bad enough, but now that 25 countries have a finger in the fishing pie, the common fisheries policy will surely be completely unmanageable. That can only end in complete disaster. This is an opportune time to reclaim our fishing industry before another 10 countries join the EU next May. Furthermore, the policy of withdrawal from the common fisheries policy is gaining support from all sides, as the debate last week in another place showed. That debate showed that it was not only the Official Opposition calling for the re-nationalisation of fishing, but also speakers from other political parties.
It is clear that there is sheer frustration, all round, at the failure of the common fisheries policies successfully to manage the fishing affairs of the European Union. There is no confidence that matters will improve in the future. Indeed, far from expecting any improvement, speakers in the Commons debate

1265
feared that things could only get worse under EU management. Mr Whittingdale quoted figures to show that, since 1995, there had been a 25 percent reduction in fishing boats and a 33 per cent drop in fish landed in the United Kingdom. In Scotland, the decline had been even more marked, with a 60 per cent reduction in boats, resulting in an annual loss of income of £300 million a year directly and £755 million if ancillary industries are taken into account. Those figures were quoted in the House of Commons and were not challenged.
How have we allowed such a disaster to happen, and why should it be allowed to continue? We shall, of course, be told, perhaps by the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, that the sacrifice of our fishing industry, fishermen and their families and all those who work in industries concerned with fishing is worth while because of the wider benefits of EU membership. They were sacrificed because they did not lobby loudly at that time. But those benefits are hard to identify.
Like fishing, the UK has been adversely affected by the disaster of the common agricultural policy (CAP), which has destroyed much of our agricultural production and caused many farmers and farm workers to leave the land altogether. We pay a net contribution of £3.5 million a year to the EU, which could be used for good purposes in this country, including to assist the fishing industry. Even on trade we run an annual adverse balance of some £4.5 billion a year. That is equivalent to the loss of 185,000 British jobs, particularly in the manufacturing industry. The constant stream of regulations reduces the competitiveness of British industry. It is quite clear that, in any cost benefit analysis, it is not worth while to sacrifice the fishing industry any further.
We shall of course also be told that to withdraw from the common fisheries policy would mean leaving the EU. I believe that to be untrue and absurd. Why would the other countries in the EU wish to expel Britain, which contributes so much to their economies and coffers and which they consider a milch cow? That would be cutting off their nose to spite their face. Are the Government really saying that, when a policy has gone disastrously wrong and is hurting and destroying a great industry and the livelihoods of those associated with it, we should take no action to withdraw from that policy? That is nonsensical and a betrayal of the British people and the British fishing industry. It is quite suicidal and completely unacceptable.
The common fisheries policy really has reached the end of the road. The Government childishly mock the Official Opposition for wanting to negotiate a withdrawal from the CFP as come-outers who want to withdraw completely from the EU—I wish the Opposition were come-outers; they would have a lot more support from me if they were. Instead of mocking the Opposition, the Government themselves should announce their intention to renationalise the fishing industry and start immediate negotiations to bring that to fruition.
1266
The Bill before us points the way to withdrawal and I sincerely trust that the House will not only give it a Second Reading tonight, but will agree to the Bill as a whole in all its future stages, as soon as possible.
10.7 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun of Abernethy, has enabled us to have a very interesting debate tonight. She said that she introduced the Bill in the spirit of giving the Government some ammunition to get a really constructive and forward-looking agreement at the Council of Ministers, which I support. However, that is as far as I. am able to go in supporting the Bill. In the powerful speech by my noble friend Lord Mackie of Benshie, we heard about the seas that we share, and although this debate may be useful ammunition, withdrawing from the common fisheries policy is not a practical way forward for us. Indeed, it is not constructive to offer unilateral withdrawal from the common fisheries policy as a hope for our fishing industries at this stage. In fact, it is a cruel hoax to suggest that they will embrace a rosy future by withdrawing from the CFP. That would not happen.
The future lies in constructing a common fisheries policy that does not have the appalling faults mentioned by noble Lords this evening—with a Commission that has always done far too little far too late and that has the most dreadful rules, as noble Lords have explained, on by-catch and discards. This House should be proud of the two reports—as the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, reminded us—produced by Sub-Committee D. We expressed strong disappointment at the continual failure of the Council of Ministers to find a way forward.
Technology creep, which was mentioned by several noble Lords, has undoubtedly been a problem. However, technology is now available, were the Commission to choose to use it. The Council of Ministers should encourage the Commission to consider things such as the satellite monitoring technology that is now available. It could produce a more accurate picture of who was fishing where. That might be a good use of technology.
I will be interested to hear the Minister's view on whether EU structural funding will be geared more towards helping fishing communities to diversify and not just to consider fishing-related options, such as effort control and closed area assistance. For some communities, the number of people involved in fishing will have to diminish. For that to happen, those communities will need structural funding help. That will make it easier for politicians from communities that are particularly affected to come to an agreement on the future of the common fisheries policy.
I was interested in the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, and I was disappointed that, for once, he did not mention the octopus. It would have been particularly relevant to a fishing speech. I think that it was the noble Lord, Lord Kimball, who referred to the project of the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, involving lobster breeding in

1267
Padstow. I had the privilege of going round it a couple of summers ago. It was a most interesting day, and I shall be interested to hear any reference to the progress that it has made. I shall also be interested in any reference to the Conservatives' policy on withdrawal from the common fisheries policy.
The noble Lord, Lord Kimball, also made an interesting speech about sand eels. It is a big disappointment that the Government have not proposed any form of marine Bill for this year. A lot of work has been done on the need for marine conservation areas. The Government have announced that they will develop offshore wind farms, but they have not produced any sort of marine spatial planning Bill. The wind farms will be constructed without any framework for offshore planning. In the light of this debate and other proposals, it is time that the Government came up with some form of marine stewardship and planning Bill. We face the sort of development at sea that would be unthinkable without a planning framework if it were to happen on land. We ought to think it outrageous that it should happen at sea with no real framework.
We believe that there is a future for the common fisheries policy. We hope that we can embrace that future with more vigour than in the past. I look forward to hearing the Minister's views on the progress that is likely to be made.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords;, before the noble Baroness sits down, I must press her on her view that those of us who hold out the prospect of leaving the common fisheries policy are practising a cruel hoax—I think that is what she said—on fishing communities. Surely, it is terribly simple. We take back our fish; we build up our fish stocks; we prevent foreign boats coming in while we do it; and, when we have satisfied our industry, we lease any surplus to foreign boats. It is as simple as that. That is not a hoax. It should be obvious.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, on the face of it, it is obvious, but many issues arise from it. What constitutes a British fishing boat? What constitutes a British company with a fishing fleet that must still face the technology creep that was mentioned? People will find ways round it, in order to continue to fish in waters that are full of fish.
I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, when he says that local people need to have local ownership and local management. There is a future in regional management committees, which I believe is a European Commission proposal. Perhaps the Minister would say where the regional management committees will have a way forward. People should be managing their own areas, but within the common fisheries policy.
10.15 p.m.
Baroness Wilcox: My Lords, we on these Benches congratulate the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun of Abernethy, on introducing this important and long-overdue Bill. It is a pleasure to support her in principle.
1268
I found it deeply moving to hear her express her sorrow at the decline of the port of Fraserburgh that her family founded, and which has been such a thriving port in my recent memory and used by my family.
Great Britain has more coastline than any other European Union country. Our waters have always teemed with fish that have been conserved by our own fishermen throughout the years. I must declare an interest. British waters have been fished by my family' and me for more than 400 years in the south-west fishery. I am vice-president of the Duchy Fish Quota Company of Cornwall and director of the National Lobster Hatchery at Padstow. Noble Lords have kindly referred to a Private Member's Bill that I took through this House five years ago to license lobster ranching. Perhaps I may say that we are still waiting for the enabling orders to come through.
I am sure that noble Lords need no reminder from me about how crucial it is to get the management of fisheries right, so that the resource is administered in a sustainable fashion, with support to communities that rely on this industry and the associated industries of fish processing, boat building and repair, and so many other connected businesses, which are often in areas of the lowest employment.
This debate is contemporaneous with talks in Brussels to establish permitted fish catches within the framework of the common fisheries policy. Yet again, it looks like there will have to be substantial cuts in cod quotas. That is no great surprise as year on year the estimates of stocks are reduced further and TACs have to be cut. Surely that is the best possible evidence of the continuing failure of the common fisheries policy to maintain what has always been recognised by fishermen as a very delicate balance.
The arrival of technology in the 1980s allowed fish to be "hoovered" up in an unprecedented way. It interfered disastrously with the breeding cycle of so many fish. I am the first to admit that I have seen my own boats do it in their time. But, as an industry, we quickly sobered up. I would not like anyone to continue to think that the technology so liberally used in the 1980s is not now regarded as a very dangerous, but useful, commodity. Science and technology should be harnessed better in future, and I am sure that they will.
The issue of discarded fish is further proof of the inability of the common fisheries policy to provide a proper solution to the problems with the European fishing industry. The fact that as many fish are dumped dead in the sea as are landed for human consumption is a travesty and must be halted. Unfortunately, it is an inevitable consequence of a policy of restricting fishermen through tight quotas and fining them for bringing back more fish than they are permitted. That matter must be re-examined.
A number of other specific problems can be identified with the arrangements as they exist today, not least the flaws in collecting reliable data on stock levels. That is fundamental because it is the bedrock on which the common fisheries policy stands or, more accurately, falls. Effective planning without accurate

1269
statistics is an impossibility, and the techniques currently used on commercial and research vessels leave a lot to be desired. "Guesstimation" is dangerous and shameful when the welfare and livelihoods of whole communities are on the line.
There is no question but that the common fisheries policy has failed the British fishing industry. It has failed to conserve fish stocks when they need protection and seems more apt at accommodating the vast Spanish fleet in our waters. During the eight years since 1995, as the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, noted in his remarks, there has been a reduction of 25 per cent in the amount of fish landed on our shores. Moreover, and equally grave, it has failed to provide help and protection to struggling fishing communities.
Fortunately, it does not have to be this way. Alternative systems are now operating successfully in other fishing nations. Norway, the Faroe Islands and the Falklands all have well-respected systems in place, involving to a high degree the fishermen themselves, which is key to the success of any policy. It is interesting to consider that British fishermen have no objection to the common fisheries policy as such, and would support it if they felt it was effective at doing its job, but they have been consistently disappointed by the ongoing failure to find a good deal both for British fishermen and for the resource from which they earn their living. We have much to learn from these other fishing nations. Further, as the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, expressed so well, we must involve our fishermen. They understand best how to create and maintain a sustainable system. Without their support, any system will struggle to succeed.
Consecutive governments have sold our country's fishing birthright; from Edward Heath's government, miserably outlined by my noble friend Lord Pearson, to the Government of the present day. Not enough votes and not enough jobs in it, fishing has been bargained away for other deals at other times. As one Labour fisheries Minister in this House said to me within the past few years, "Judith, don't keep banging on about fishing and the fishermen. Do you realise that we make more money in this country selling mushrooms, and that that is a lot less troublesome?". But it is communities in distant places which suffer, such as over 80 ports in Cornwall alone, along with all the other livelihoods that depend on those ports.
Now, in this Conservative Party, our policy is to attempt to renegotiate the common fisheries policy to take back control of our coastal waters, and if that fails, then we would have no choice but to withdraw from this damaging agreement and restore national control. As my honourable friend John Whittingdale, shadow Secretary of State for agriculture, fisheries and food, explained in another place:
"In the next few months, we will develop a new way of managing fish stocks based on controlling inputs by limiting fishing effort and banning industrial fishing in place of the discredited and damaging quota system of output controls".—[Official Report, Commons, 9/12/03; col. 1000.]
1270
The Government should act now. They have a rare opportunity, with the stalled discussions on the draft constitution, to make this another "red line" in Europe. When the talks reopen, Britain could take advantage of Article 12 of the draft constitution which provides for,
"the conservation of marine biological resources under the Common Fisheries Policy".
Britain has considerable bargaining power on fishing matters. We heard the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, confirm that 70 per cent of all fish caught in the European Union are taken out of our British waters. If that is true, we should be able to exert phenomenal influence over the shape of the European Union policy on fishing. I urge the Government not to waste this chance to negotiate greater national control over our waters and, if necessary, they should not shirk from withdrawing from this failing policy altogether.
Once again, I wish to thank the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, for providing us with a forum for such an important debate, and I look forward to the Minister's reply.
10.25 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Whitty): My Lords, I join with the thanks to the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, for initiating the debate. I apologise that I was not in the Chamber for the first few minutes of her speech but I believe that the gist of it is quite clear.
Today, my colleague Ben Bradshaw is in Brussels in the Agriculture and Fisheries Council, along with his colleagues with responsibility for these matters from Scotland and Northern Ireland, negotiating in the crucial EU discussions which will determine the shape and extent of fishing opportunities for 2004. It is a negotiating challenge of the kind that has faced UK fishing Ministers over the past few decades, as many noble Lords have said.
I do not dispute that the common fisheries policy has been one of the most problematic areas in our relationship with Europe. I doubt that I will agree with much of the blurb in the Booker and North book of the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, but clearly the deal on the common fisheries policy was not one of the better aspects of the negotiations in 1972 and it has proved to get worse as we have gone on.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, did the noble Lord refer to the "blurb" in the Booker and North book? If he did, may I ask him whether he has read it and, if not, whether he will do so?
Lord Whitty: No, my Lords, I have not read it. I shall no doubt dip into it at some point, particularly if the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, is correct and we shall be getting a free copy. I am always happy to read books which are sent to me, but I suspect that I will not be deeply sympathetic to the overall theme. All I am saying is that the common fisheries policy is not the best dimension for those of us who defend our

1271
relationship with Europe. It has ended up in a serious problem in fish stocks and the conservation of fish for fishing communities not only in this country but also in other countries of Europe.
However, the Bill proposes that we should effectively provide ourselves with a mechanism for leaving the common fisheries policy. That lacks legal, political and scientific credibility. I can see that it is a seductive thought that all we have to do is announce that we are leaving the system and take back unilateral control over the management of our fisheries. Certainly in terms of the time and frustrations of fisheries Ministers I am sure that in their dreams they also would wish that that were the case.
I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, that this seductive vision is a deception. It does not do any good for those who depend on fisheries or for those concerned with the environmental and conservation dimensions of fish in our waters and in European waters.
As to the legal points and the political points associated with them, the Bill seeks to take back UK control of fisheries within the 200-mile exclusive economic zone. It would do so by giving the Fishery Limits Act 1976 priority over Community law—a unique arrangement—notwithstanding the European Communities Act 1972. Leaving aside whether that would withstand a legal challenge, the Bill would then attempt to restrict the licensing of fishing to UK vessels, however defined, and those of other countries where authorised. It would require fish caught in UK waters to be landed in UK ports.
It is no use deluding ourselves into believing that, in legal terms, this is a practicable or obtainable plan. It is not. It would require, in effect, unilateral withdrawal from the CFP. That is impossible under EU law as it stands and therefore only achievable, if at all, through a complex series of negotiations with other member states and others. Such re-negotiation is. not on the agenda. Even if it were, the chances of achieving the necessary unanimous agreement would clearly be remote.
It does not get round the issue to say, as some people do, that, technically speaking, it would be possible for Parliament to repeal the European Communities Act 1972—at least, the part which could be said to relate to fisheries. Section 2(1) of the 1972 Act allows Community law, under the EU treaties, to apply in the UK. That includes the whole of the common fisheries policy under the treaty establishing the European Community. Repealing Section 2(1) would disapply the treaty in the UK. The noble Lord, Lord Pearson, says that that is where he wants to be, but the UK would still be acting unlawfully because it would be in breach of the terms of the treaty and therefore of Community law. So while we might remove the obligation from our statute book, we could not remove the obligation from international law. It is a complete illusion, therefore, to suggest that with one bound we are free. We are not—the legal requirements remain.
We can all argue about the legal structure. The legal argument is not in fact the most important. The fact is that Europe, as a whole, needs a common fisheries
1272
policy. We have common waters. We have common interests in conserving the fish and other wildlife in those waters. We need a common fisheries policy. The fact that the one we have has proved hugely unsatisfactory in many respects does not remove that basic requirement that the countries of Europe, the countries of the North Sęa and the countries that face the Atlantic need a common approach.
If I can put this point rather more crudely than the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, did, hardly a single commercial fish stock obligingly remains static within one country's legal waters—certainly not ours. As he indicated, the concept of a 200-mile limit is a bit cerebral, given that, at one point, we are only 21 miles away from the coast of another EU member and, at many points, a lot less than 200 miles away from Norway. The fish swim about—they are not our fish. They are not, of necessity, likely to be more in UK waters than elsewhere. They do not read notices telling them to stay put in one country's waters. They spawn in certain places, they move to feed in other places and sometimes they migrate over tremendous distances in the course of their lives.
There are patterns of fishing industries and exploitation which go back many years, often to before the common fisheries policy, under which numerous countries exploit the different stocks. Applying a unilateral approach to that would not resolve the issue of conservation, nor would it be practical to enforce it.
The truth is that if, by some leap away from our legal obligations, we found ourselves outside the CFP, we would have to renegotiate with the remaining EU members who remain within the CFP. We would also need to renegotiate with the EU and Norway, the EU and Greenland, the EU and the Faroes, the EU and Iceland, and so on, to conclude arrangements which would, in effect, cover exactly the same ground. Instead of having a CFP, we would end up with a series of bilateral and trilateral agreements which covered much the same level of controls and were hugely more complicated and less coherent than the CFP. That does not seem to us a sensible way of proceeding.
Given the information that is now at our disposal on the level of stocks and the lack of effectiveness of some earlier control mechanisms, we must therefore turn our minds to how we can develop a common fisheries policy which begins to conserve the stocks and returns them to a viable state in those species which are not currently in a viable state and preserves an industry for our fishing communities. That will not be easy; making progress within the framework of the CFP is a frustrating and time-consuming business, as I have said, but we have made some recent progress. The CFP was reviewed by the Council of Ministers during 2002, and the framework regulation is much revised and improved. The Government achieved many of their objectives in the negotiations, which were formulated after wide public consultation.
The new CFP regulations include a much more robust commitment from the Council of Ministers to conserve, and where necessary recover, fish stocks in accordance with scientific advice. It puts

1273
environmental considerations at the heart of the CFP and reiterates with relative stability the mechanism for dividing EU fishing opportunities among member states, in accordance with their historical track record. It renews the rights of coastal states after 12 nautical miles—to address the point that the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, made. Next year, it prevents member states paying subsidies for building new vessels, which I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Kimball, and other speakers, would be an absurd process. Subsidies of the sort that the UK has not paid for many years will now be banned in all EU states. The new policy also provides for the setting up of regional advisory committees, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, referred. Those committees will give fishermen and all parties with an interest in commercial fish stocks a much more direct input into their management in localities where they fish.
Those are substantial improvements in the nature of the CFP. However, the last thing that I want to convey is that the Government believe that we have now solved all the problems. That is not the case. To make the difference, the Council of Ministers must now take decisions within the framework that make sense in terms of the level offish stocks and the strategy that we are adopting in relation to the different species. That is a substantial challenge. Nevertheless, the framework gives other like-minded member states and ourselves a far better basis for pressing the case than we previously had.
The new approach also shows positive signs of a new determination on the part of the Commission and other member states that have hitherto not been at the forefront of effective enforcement to take these matters forward. The regional advisory councils will provide a control mechanism involving the fishing industry. The adoption by the Commission at the UK's request of emergency measures to protect against damage from fishing the unique cold-water coral formations known as Darwin mounds, and the adoption of an EU measure to restrict shark-finning, are also important aspects of the new approach.
This week my colleagues are negotiating in Brussels to set within the new framework the limits and measures that will apply next year. The provisions next year are very important, but we must also take a strategic approach. The Prime Minister has asked his strategy unit to produce a strategy on fisheries to map out a long-term strategy for the industry. In the new year, we shall have the basis for that strategy.
Noble Lords made a number of points during the debate that can be better dealt with within the new framework than has been the case in the past 25 years. Certainly, we need to improve enforcement and do something about discards. The new process for discards will help the situation. An action plan is before the Council and we are confident that there will be measures to reduce levels of discards in the measures to be adopted next year.
I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, that we should improve monitoring. Satellite monitoring will greatly assist our control. All vessels longer than
1274
50 metres fishing in our waters will henceforth have to carry satellite positions reporting their position from 1st January 2005. The Government will meet the cost for vessels licensed in this country. Similar measures are being adopted by our Scottish and Northern Irish colleagues and throughout the rest of Europe.
On a matter beyond the issues relating to stocks for human consumption, there are problems relating to sand eels, to which the noble Lord, Lord Kimball, referred. We have had that discussion on previous occasions. The Commission is proposing a 20 per cent cut in the sand eel take next year.
Therefore, I think that there has been a sea change, if I can put it that way, in the way that the balance of opinion within Europe—the Commission itself and the Council of Ministers—approaches fishing policy. I should have preferred that the fishing industry itself and the scientists who advise it had a greater detailed consensus on the level of stocks which need to be conserved and the measures that we have to take. Unfortunately, it is not a complete consensus at the moment.
However, it is clear to the Government that drastic measures restricting catch will be needed for some considerable time in relation to many species. It is no good the United Kingdom taking those measures by ourselves; it requires co-operation across all the fishing nations of Europe. That, to my mind, means a common fisheries policy—not the common fisheries policy we have had in the past but a common fisheries policy of the kind we began to put together with the new framework agreed last year. I believe that sets an agenda and an ability for us to achieve what I think all noble Lords wish to see—that is, a revival of fish stocks on the one hand and a sustainable European fishing industry on the other.
The Government will not oppose the Second Reading—we never do—but we cannot accept the Bill as it stands. However, we recognise many of the concerns expressed in the debate by the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun of Abernethy, and by other noble Lords. We have a common objective in getting the matter right.
Lord Palmer: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, would he be kind enough to confirm to the House what the protocol is—many of us who have taken part in the debate tonight are from north of the Border—about negotiating the CFP in Brussels with regard to the devolved administrations? At a recent meeting of the Council of Ministers there was no representative from Wales, which, admittedly, has a very small fishing industry, and certainly no one from Scotland. What is the protocol? Is it England that represents the United Kingdom? Perhaps the Minister would be kind enough to enlighten us.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, as with all other issues, the UK Government represent the United Kingdom. On fisheries issues, the UK fisheries Minister, Ben Bradshaw, is normally accompanied by fisheries Ministers for Scotland and Northern Ireland. Ross Finnie normally attends those negotiations with,

1275
previously, Elliot Morley, and now Ben Bradshaw. So Scotland is very much represented there. However, at the end of the day, it is the responsibility of the UK Government to conduct those negotiations.
10.42 p.m.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, the hour is late, very much later than I was originally told it was likely to be, so I shall not detain your Lordships by responding to individual speeches. However, I shall read what has been said very carefully, particularly what has been said by the Minister, to whom I should
1276
like to reiterate that this is but an enabling Bill, and that it might make a nice stick for the Secretary of State in his negotiations with the European Union.
All I wish to do now is to thank all those who have stayed so very late to speak in this debate for taking the trouble to do so and for speaking so eloquently. I am most grateful to all of them.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
House adjourned at a quarter before eleven o'clock.

  Land Registry: Revised Framework Document
  Land Registry: Revised Framework Document
  Postal Voting: Pilots for June 2004
  Postal Voting: Pilots for June 2004
  Drug Couriers
  Drug Couriers
  Armed Forces Pay Review Body
  Armed Forces Pay Review Body
  C Vehicle Capability: Preferred Bidder
  C Vehicle Capability: Preferred Bidder
  Project Aquatrine: Preferred Bidder
  Project Aquatrine: Preferred Bidder
  Universities: Media Studies Enrolments
  Universities: Media Studies Enrolments
  Higher Education: Student Numbers
  Higher Education: Student Numbers
  Schools: ICT
  Schools: ICT
  Olympic Games 2012: London Bid and Transport System
  Olympic Games 2012: London Bid and Transport System
  Capital Modernisation Programme
  Capital Modernisation Programme
  Crystal Palace Stadium and Sports Centre
  Crystal Palace Stadium and Sports Centre
  Sports Boards: Appointments
  Sports Boards: Appointments
  Domesday Book: MoD and NHS Sports Facilities
  Domesday Book: MoD and NHS Sports Facilities
  Playing Pitch Strategies
  Playing Pitch Strategies
  Export of Works of Art: Reviewing Committee's 2002–03 Annual Report
  Export of Works of Art: Reviewing Committee's 2002–03 Annual Report
  Fishing Licences: Spanish Interests
  Fishing Licences: Spanish Interests
  Carbon Emissions: EU Trading Arrangements
  Carbon Emissions: EU Trading Arrangements
  Cattle Passports
  Cattle Passports
  Audit Scotland
  Audit Scotland
  Al Roundabouts
  Al Roundabouts
  Motorway Widening Programme: Cost Per Mile
  Motorway Widening Programme: Cost Per Mile