Sitting of 25 February 2003

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

    Zimbabwe
    Mr. Harold Best: If he will make a statement about the situation in Zimbabwe.[98782]
    Mr. Bob Blizzard: What action he is taking regarding human rights abuses by the Government of Zimbabwe.[98786]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Mike O'Brien): The situation in Zimbabwe continues to deteriorate. The leader of the opposition is on trial for treason. Arrests and torture of those opposed to President Mugabe's regime continue unabated. The economy is in crisis: unemployment is at over 70 per cent., inflation is above 200 per cent., the currency is in free fall, there is a critical shortage of foreign exchange, and more than 7 million Zimbabweans now need emergency food aid. We are doing what we can to feed the population: Britain is the largest governmental donor to the humanitarian programme. Our aim remains a democratic, prosperous and stable Zimbabwe, under a Government of its people's choosing.
    Mr. Best: I share my hon. Friend's concern about the catalogue of disasters that have befallen the Zimbabwe people; but does he share the pleasure that I felt on observing the bravery of two cricketers from Zimbabwe who wore black armbands to demonstrate their solidarity with the people?
    Mr. O'Brien: I do share my hon. Friend's admiration—and, I think, that of all Members—for the two Zimbabwean cricketers who stood up to the Mugabe regime and in their own way, quietly expressed their abhorrence of the behaviour that the Government are causing in the countries to which they belong. They were an example to everyone.
    Mr. Blizzard: Although our own cricketers were understandably concerned about their own safety in the
    106
    event of their playing in Harare, I think it was clear from the comments of many of them, particularly the captain, that they also took a moral position. Will my hon. Friend join me in congratulating those cricketers on showing that they were not willing to compromise their own position or to compromise with Mugabe?
    Is not one of the big problems in dealing with Zimbabwe the fact that South Africa sees the position rather differently? What discussions is my hon. Friend having with South Africa to enable it to see what we can see, and what President Mbeki does not seem willing or able to see?
    Mr. O'Brien: I agree that the England cricketers were very uncomfortable about the prospect of playing a game of cricket in Zimbabwe in the circumstances in which the Zimbabwe people find themselves under the Mugabe regime. We have been trying to work with a number of countries, including South Africa, to bring about an international understanding that that regime is unacceptable, and is making its people's lives a misery. Only if South Africa, the Commonwealth countries and indeed the European Union recognise the abhorrent nature of the regime and try to change it can we give the opposition in Zimbabwe the support—both political and other support—that it requires.
    Mr. Andrew Mackay: Many of us strongly support the comment by the Secretary of State for International Development that a tacky deal was done with the French on Zimbabwe. Will the Minister assure us that we have told our French allies, in the strongest possible terms, that their action in allowing Mugabe to come to Paris last week has totally undermined the west's condemnation of the human rights abuses in Zimbabwe?
    Mr. O'Brien: President Mugabe's visit to Paris certainly constituted a sad day for France. It was deeply regrettable. On the positive side, however, it produced a robust condemnation of President Mugabe in Le Monde and other French newspapers. I think that that brought home to many French people the detestable nature of the Mugabe regime.
    Sir Patrick Cormack: What precisely have the Government done in the last two months to put pressure on the evil tyrant Mugabe? Following last week's disgraceful scenes in Paris, will the Foreign Secretary be summoning the French ambassador to tell him that the actions of the President of France are held in utter contempt by Members in all parts of the House of Commons?
    Mr. O'Brien: On 18 February we agreed, through the European Union, to extend the ban on travel. Unfortunately the ban was interrupted for four days, between 14 and 18 February. We regret that, and we regret that President Mugabe was able to visit Paris; but we managed to ensure a continuation of the ban from 18 February, which was a result of the efforts of the

    107
    British Government—working with others—to convey the message that as far as we are concerned, Robert Mugabe's Government are unacceptable.
    Mr. Win Griffiths: My hon. Friend referred to the courageous action of Henry Olonga and Andy Flower in standing up to bemoan the death of democracy in Zimbabwe, and the Government have already shown support for their stand. However, as both are Commonwealth citizens, will the Government consider honouring them in a specific way, to show that we really do want to see change in Zimbabwe?
    Mr. O'Brien: My hon. Friend makes a very good suggestion, and I shall take that idea away with me. We are certainly prepared to consider any similar suggestions from other Members, and as I have said, those two cricketers are an example to us all.
    Mr. Michael Ancram: Given President Chirac's contemptible demolition of the EU travel sanctions as he danced attendance on Mugabe in Paris last week, and given the almost certain failure of the Commonwealth to renew Zimbabwe's suspension, is not the Government's policy on Mugabe now in tatters? Why will they not show the same moral outrage and determination in relation to human rights abuses in Zimbabwe that has been shown in relation to those in other parts of the world, and mobilise the international community—if necessary, through the United Nations—to bring about fresh elections in Zimbabwe, and to end this brutal human tragedy? When will they understand that they can no longer pass by on the other side?
    Mr. O'Brien: In the real world, Zimbabwe is a sovereign country, and the sad reality is that if a regime is determined to destroy its own country and its own people, there is a limit to what the international community can do. However, the international community is making clear to the Zimbabwean Government the effects of their policies, and we have made it very clear that the Zimbabwean Government are behaving in way that is totally abhorrent to us. Through the Commonwealth, through the European Union and through our contacts with other countries, we have made plain our detestation of that Government, and we are continuing to apply as much pressure as we can to ensure that that message goes out throughout the whole of the international community.

    Gibraltar
    Mr. Andrew Rosindell: What assessment he has made of the outcome of the referendum held by the Government of Gibraltar on 7 November 2002.[98783]
    The Minister for Europe (Mr. Denis MacShane): We have taken note of the outcome. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister told the House on 18 November last year, we have always been clear that no deal will be imposed on the people of Gibraltar against their will.
    Mr. Rosindell: The Minister will know by now just how proud the people of Gibraltar are of being British,
    108
    and who can blame them? Bearing in mind what I have just said, has the Minister had time to study the recent United Nations press release, in which it recommends that the decolonisation of such territories should include the option of integration? Does he agree with the United Nations, or not?
    Mr. MacShane: The hon. Gentleman, who is an expert on this matter, poses an important technical question. Gibraltar is an overseas territory with considerable devolved powers of self-government. We do of course support the principle and the right of self-determination, but it must be exercised in accordance with the UN charter, and with other treaty obligations. In Gibraltar's case, as the hon. Gentleman knows, that includes the treaty of Utrecht.
    Mr. Lindsay Hoyle: It is clear that everybody recognises the voice of Gibraltar through the referendum, and their overwhelming support for remaining British citizens. Will my hon. Friend now look forward to helping to celebrate 300 years of British sovereignty of Gibraltar next year?
    Mr. MacShane: As an historian, I find that the idea of celebrating the 300th anniversary of the treaty of Utrecht has considerable appeal. However, we should perhaps note that, at the moment, Spain is standing shoulder to shoulder with the people of Britain over the great question of Iraq. I hope that the patriotic people of Gibraltar will welcome the fact that currently, we have a very strong ally on the big issue that confronts us all.
    Mr. Richard Spring: I remind the hon. Gentleman that the referendum, far from being eccentric, was judged to be fair and open. Will he take this opportunity to reflect on the bullying, arrogance and inaccuracies that have been characteristic of Ministers on this issue? I invite him to apologise now to the people of Gibraltar, whose only cardinal sin in the eyes of this Government is simply to want to remain British.
    Mr. MacShane: I have been accused of many things since I became Minister for Europe, but being a bully is not yet one of them. The hon. Gentleman is an expert on being arrogant. I am happy to repeat what has been said again and again at this Dispatch Box—as long as I am Minister for Europe, it will be the people of Gibraltar who will decide their future. That is the position of the Government. It was the position in the past, it is the position now and it will be the position in the future.
    David Taylor: Do not the people of Gibraltar, especially the 98.97 per cent. who voted as they did, have an inalienable right to self-determination? Has not the treaty of Utrecht been overtaken by concepts of international law and are not the secret Anglo-Spanish talks in breach of international law?
    Mr. MacShane: There are no secret talks in which I have taken part. The treaty of Utrecht remains valid under international law—pacta sunt servanda, to use the Latin phrase. That means that we obey international

    109
    law. I would not want to be a member of a Government who tore up international law just because it suited some people.

    Iraq
    Tom Brake: What recent discussions he has had with EU partners about Iraq. [98784]
    Annabelle Ewing: What the Government's policy is on Iraq; and if he will make a statement. [98785]
    The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Jack Straw): I have had frequent discussions with my EU counterparts on Iraq, including yesterday at the General Affairs and External Relations Council. Our policy is to ensure that Iraq complies with its obligations under relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions. Resolution 1441, which served notice on Iraq that it must now give up its weapons of mass destruction or face serious consequences, is strongly supported by the EU and the international community as a whole. The United Kingdom, Spain and the United States yesterday jointly tabled a draft second resolution in New York and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will make a statement about that at 12.30 pm today. The House will also wish to know that I have presented to the House today, for the convenience of right hon. and hon. Members, a Command Paper containing relevant diplomatic documents relating to Iraq, including the main inspectors' reports, statements to the Security Council and 13 of the—
    Mr. George Osborne: Who wrote it?
    Mr. Boris Johnson: Was it a PhD?
    Mr. Straw: It was written principally by the Security Council—and I think most of them have PhDs. It contains 13 of the main Security Council resolutions.
    Tom Brake: I thank the Foreign Secretary for his response. In his discussions, did he confirm that the UK and the US would uphold international humanitarian law, which precludes the use of cluster bombs and attacks on water and electrical infrastructure? Did he also confirm the role that the UK and the US would play in rebuilding Iraq after a conflict and establishing democratic government there?
    Mr. Straw: We have always made it clear that we will act strictly in accordance with all aspects of international law. The reason we are so focused on Iraq at the moment is to require it to meet its clear obligations under international law. If right hon. and hon. Members are unconvinced about the need for us to take firm action on Iraq, I urge them to read the 13 separate Security Council resolutions, which chart the obligations on Iraq, the threat posed by it and the fact that, year by year, its defiance of the UN has become greater. At the European Council yesterday we did not
    110
    discuss humanitarian relief if military action takes place, but that is the subject of intensive discussions, not least with the Secretary-General of the United Nations
    Annabelle Ewing: What is the Foreign Secretary's knowledge of the reported attempts by the US Government to bully, bribe and blackmail members of the Security Council into supporting the new US-UK draft resolution? Do those activities form part of the Government's moral case for war against Iraq?
    Mr. Straw: My knowledge of such activities is zero. All members of the Security Council seek support for their positions, but I hope very much that they will all recognise that, after the decisions of 8 November, Iraq has been, and remains, in material breach of a string of very clear obligations that have been imposed on it. It has had a final opportunity to deal with those violations of international law but continues to pose the clearest possible threat to international peace and security through its possession of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles, and its defiance of international law. I hope that the whole of the international community will recognise the responsibilities borne by it and by individual members of the Security Council to ensure that international law means what it says. I still hope that we can gain enforcement by peaceful means but, if we cannot, the serious consequences that we spelled out in operative paragraph 13 of resolution 1441 will have to follow through.
    Mr. George Foulkes: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, when I ask the spokesmen for the Scottish National and Liberal Democrat parties what credible alternative they have for dealing with Saddam Hussein and his weapons of mass destruction, they do not have an answer?[Interruption.] That is why they are shouting. Is not it clear that their approach is irresponsible opportunism—not for the first time—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not think that the Foreign Secretary will have an answer.
    Mr. Eric Illsley: Does my right hon. Friend share my concern at reports in last weekend's press that, because Germany did not support this country's stance with regard to military action in Iraq, the US was threatening to withdraw troops from that country, with all the economic consequences that would ensue? Does my right hon. Friend support America in that?
    Mr. Straw: There have been some sharp exchanges between individuals in Germany and in the US. I regret the nature of those exchanges on both sides, and believe that we all have to acknowledge our overwhelming responsibilities to act in a diplomatic way and to continue to search very hard, even at this stage, for a peaceful and diplomatic solution to the crisis.
    Mr. Michael Moore: Liberal Democrat Members believe that the draft resolution tabled by the UK and US Governments is premature. At a time when the

    111
    international community should be coming together to maximise the opportunity for peaceful disarmament of Iraq, the measure is completely divisive. Will the Foreign Secretary explain why the weapons inspectors are not to be allowed to continue their work for as long as they believe that it is worthwhile and productive? Will he set out why he is opposed to the alternative approach tabled by France, Russia and Germany?
    Mr. Straw: Well, Mr. Speaker. I hope that that question gives me a legitimate opportunity to respond, through you, to the points made earlier about the position of the Liberal Democrats. I thought that my right hon. Friend the Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) was unfair to say that they had no answer to the issue. They have a number of answers, and they vary day by day, as the record shows—not least on the question of whether a second resolution is needed.
    There is no suggestion—and I do not know where the hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Moore) got the idea—that we are saying to the inspectors that they must stop. We have put forward the draft resolution, and said that a vote should not be held on it until we have received the next set of reports from Doctors Blix and el-Baradei. We must be clear about that, but it must also be understood, not least by the Liberal Democrats, that there is only one reason why the inspectors have been readmitted to Iraq. That reason is not, sadly, all the words in the 13 or more resolutions passed by the Security Council. It is because we in the UK, the US and some other countries have been willing to follow through chapter VII of the UN charter and to back our diplomacy with a credible threat of force.
    As for the proposals from France, Germany and Russia, I shall put them before the House and ask hon. Members to consider them. We always take proposals of that kind seriously. However, I have to say to those of our colleague countries on the United Nations Security Council who are now praying in aid the importance of Security Council resolution 1284 that it should be remembered that it was we in the United Kingdom who pushed 1284 and finally got a vote. As a matter of record, it so happens that France did not support 1284. In any event, the inspection regime that was established by 1284 in December 1999 was inoperable until we got 1441 through and backed the process with a credible threat of force. I submit to the House that the only way in which to disarm Saddam Hussein peacefully is the strategy that this House has endorsed and the position of the Government.
    Mr. Tom Clarke: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many people hope that when he has discussions with our partners in the European Union, he will bear in mind the grave reservations of the Kurds in northern Iraq about the new-found role of Turkey, given Turkey's human rights record and its treatment of the Kurds in the past, both of which leave a great deal to be desired?
    Mr. Straw: Yes. One of the paragraphs of 1441 and one of the paragraphs of the draft resolution that we submitted for consideration to the Security Council yesterday says explicitly that the territorial integrity of Iraq, including the Kurdish area, has to be preserved,
    112
    and we will make sure that that happens. As. my right hon. Friend will know from his contact with Kurdish representatives, they are the first fully and actively to support the strategy of the Security Council as endorsed by this House.
    Mr. Michael Ancram: In relation to Question 3, will the Foreign Secretary join me in condemning the increasingly arrogant and bullying behaviour of the French President? Will he make it clear to President Chirac that threatening to veto applicant countries if they do not toe the French line is intolerable in a union of sovereign nations? Does he agree that fundamental divisions in Europe on the meaning of resolution 1441 can only give comfort and encouragement to Saddam Hussein? Surely the words "une dernière possibilité" and the words "a final opportunity" mean one and the same thing, and did not France sign up to those words last November? Is not the only silver lining in France's otherwise murky behaviour that it demonstrates once and for all that a unified European foreign policy is an unachievable fantasy?
    Mr. Straw: As far as the right hon. Gentleman's first remarks are concerned, I repeat what I said earlier. If we are to resolve the issue by diplomatic means, we all have a responsibility to moderate our language. There will be no way in which serious negotiations can take place unless we do that.
    On divisions in Europe, it is sad that divisions have been exposed, and all the sadder given that every single member of NATO and every single member of the European Union signed up fully to the terms of 1441. It is not the case, as people sometimes suggest, that this is the US versus Europe—that is a parody. Of the total number of countries that are due to enter or already in the European Union, just over half are fully in support of the strategy followed by the United Kingdom, Spain, Italy, Denmark, the Netherlands and a number of others, and just under half are not.
    The last point that the right hon. Gentleman raised concerned the terms of operational paragraph 13 of 1441. That says, in French, in English, and in all the other official languages of the United Nations, that this is a final opportunity. Paragraph 13 then says that if Iraq fails to take that final opportunity, serious consequences will follow. That underlines the full terms of 1441 and underlines the fact that while we would prefer to achieve a second resolution, and we want to see further consensus inside the Security Council for action that is necessary to resolve the matter peacefully, the full terms on Iraq, including the consequences that will follow, were laid out on 8 November when the Security Council unanimously passed 1441.
    Joan Ruddock: Will my right hon. Friend clarify a point that I believe he just made? Last night, the news reported that a vote on the new resolution would be sought on 10 March and that a further inspectors' report would be presented on 15 March. Will a vote be sought before all the inspectors' scheduled reports have been made?
    Mr. Straw: We have not been specific about the dates for putting the resolution to a vote. I continue to hope that a vote can be avoided because the purpose of the

    113
    resolution is to serve very clear notice on Saddam. Its intention is to give him two weeks' notice that the final opportunity has nearly passed. I have not heard speculation about 15 March, but I assure my hon. Friend that the inspectors' reports will be presented before a vote is taken. Reports are due by the end of the month.

    Convention on the Future of Europe
    Mr David Heathcoat-Amory: If he will make a statement on his policy aims in the Convention on the Future of Europe. [98787]
    The Minister for Europe (Mr. Denis MacShane): The Government's aim in the Convention on the Future of Europe is to build a Europe that is better understood, more democratically accountable and works better.
    The convention's recommendations will be discussed in an intergovernmental conference, when Heads of State or Government will make decisions, acting by unanimity. The outcome will be put to Parliament before ratification.
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: As the Minister knows, the convention has published a draft constitution, which is organised on a federal basis, as it puts it, with massive new powers, especially over economic policy, and with full legal incorporation of the EU charter of rights. Since all that is contrary to the Government's previously expressed policy positions, will he either explain why they are making all those concessions in the convention or instruct the Government representative, who is not in his Department, to start saying no, clearly and unambiguously, to the new constitution? It will be impossible to retrieve all the new concessions at the intergovernmental conference that the Minister mentioned.
    Mr. MacShane: The key noun in that question was "draft". Member states have already tabled more than 1,000 amendments to the proposal. It will be changed and emended by all the interested parties, including the British Government, the right hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members of the House of Commons and the other place who represent British interests on the convention. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will make a doughty job of presenting his point of view.
    Mr. Wayne David: Will the Minister join me in welcoming the convention's great emphasis on developing parliamentary democracy, with regard not only to the European Parliament but to national Parliaments?
    Mr. MacShane: Indeed. I hope that that avenue will be explored further in the remaining months of the convention's work. The Government and, I believe the House, want to see national Parliaments brought fully into play in terms of subsidiarity and in terms of oversight of what the EU does.
    Mr. Boris Johnson: Given the far-reaching changes envisaged in the constitution, to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) alluded, will the Minister explain whether the
    114
    Government intend to put the matter not only to Parliament, but to the people in a referendum—and if not, why not?
    Mr. MacShane: This country does not have a tradition of plebiscites that allow populists to range over plebiscitary politics, using their weekly magazines to pump out endless anti-European propaganda. Every previous treaty from the treaty of accession in 1973 to Maastricht, Nice and Amsterdam has been debated properly in the House, and I think that ratification by Parliament is the right way forward.
    Mr. Kevin McNamara: Reference has already been made to the charter of rights. Can my hon. Friend say whether it is still the position of Her Majesty's Government that they want the EU to sign up to the European convention on human rights and want that convention to be the primary human rights document for Europe as a whole? Are the Government prepared to introduce the necessary changes into the European convention, along with our allies and other members of the European Union, to ensure the possibility of accession by the EU?
    Mr. MacShane: As my hon. Friend knows, that issue has been discussed; indeed, I discussed it recently with parliamentary delegates at the Council of Europe. The Government of France, for example, have grave reservations about the proposal. We have incorporated the European convention on human rights into our domestic legislation. The issue of whether the European Union as a whole should adhere to it is very technical, and it will be properly examined and discussed by the convention. Finally, of course, it will be decided by the intergovernmental conference.
    Mr. Michael Ancram: Will the Minister confirm that a European constitution containing a legally enforceable charter of fundamental rights, the creation of a separate legal personality for Europe and the subjection of our foreign and defence policy to European jurisdiction would constitute a crossing of the rubicon between a Europe of sovereign nations and a federal Europe? Does he accept that no democratic Government have the right to surrender such fundamental areas of sovereignty without the specific consent of the people? Given that the Government support referendums on mayors, the euro and regional assemblies, will he now accede to the demand of my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Johnson) for a referendum before any new European treaty containing such a surrender is agreed or ratified, so that the British people can reject it out of hand?
    Mr. MacShane: Let me say this:
    "I do not think that one can have a federal Europe. The Creation of a United States of Europe is not realistic, because not a single nation is prepared to give up its identity."
    I was quoting the President of the French Republic, Monsieur Jacques Chirac, and I agree with his words. However, I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he agrees with this quote:
    "I'm very worried about enlargement … the European Union is … going to get much worse when we try and absorb a lot of other countries with different cultures."

    115
    That is an extract from remarks made on the BBC by the Conservative party's representative on the European Convention, the right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory). I should like him now to say that the Conservative party supports enlargement and that we should not insult and patronise our friends in Poland and the Czech Republic with such extremist, anti-east European nonsense.
    Mr. David Trimble: In view of the wide-ranging significance of the draft constitution for Europe, does the Minister think that it is appropriate for the United Kingdom to adopt it simply through the exercise of a treaty-making power? Is it really appropriate for the proposal to be made binding upon us simply through exercise of the royal prerogative in this matter, bearing it in mind that, by doing so, one limits significantly the ability of this House to consider the proposal? Is it still appropriate in this day and age to regard the European Union as a foreign country?
    Mr. MacShane: I was not in the House at the time, but I recall the folklore memories of nights and days spent debating the Maastricht treaty. It will be the House of Commons and Parliament that will decide whether to ratify any treaty that is the outcome of the intergovernmental conference and the convention. I have complete confidence that the right hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members will deal with the matter in the traditional British parliamentary way.

    Middle East
    Mr. James Gray: If he will make a statement on the implications for global security of securing a peace settlement between Israel and the Palestinian Authority.[98788]
    The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Jack Straw): A settlement of the dispute between the Israelis and Palestinians would plainly enhance global security, including the security of the immediate region and of Europe and the United Kingdom. We are in active support of the Quartet of the European Union, the Russian Federation, the United States and the United Nations in working for renewed negotiations, including the publication of the road map to give effect to President Bush's vision of a two-state solution by 2005.
    This morning, I spoke with Chairman Arafat of the Palestinian Authority to welcome the constitutional changes that he has announced and press for the early appointment of a credible Prime Minister with effective powers.
    Mr. Gray: The whole House will be grateful to the Foreign Secretary for reconfirming that he views the peace process as central to future global security. Do his close allies in the United States take the same view? Does he think that there is any possibility of the central importance of the peace process being compromised in any way by action against Iraq?
    Mr. Straw: The answer to the hon. Gentleman's first question is that the United States takes broadly the same view. However, it certainly does not take precisely the
    116
    same view. We have been encouraging it to be more forward in recognising the need to implement fully the very welcome statements that President Bush made last June and the very welcome United Nations Security Council resolution that was passed at the behest of the United States and that laid down for the first time that there should be a clear two-state solution. We continue in very intense dialogue with our American and other friends.
    As far as conflict with Iraq is concerned, all Palestinians—including Ministers—to whom I have spoken have made it crystal clear that they are the last people in the world to have anything good to say on behalf of Saddam Hussein. The case for advancing the peace process and trying to continue to get both sides together stands on its own merits. However, I accept—given the allegation of double standards—that the case for pursuing it is all the greater when set against the possibility of military action in Iraq.
    Mr. Malcolm Savidge: Given the current readiness of the United States and the United Kingdom to discount UN Security Council vetoes, can my right hon. Friend estimate how many UN resolutions there would have been on Israel and Palestine over three and a half decades, and of what seriousness, had it not been for the use or threatened use of the US veto?
    Mr. Straw: We are not discounting the use of the veto. As has every member state of the United Nations, we have had to acknowledge that there could be circumstances in which we would take action without a second resolution. However, let us be clear. As the Command Paper that has been published this morning makes clear, the authority for any military action in respect of Iraq is based very firmly on UN Security Council resolutions that have already been passed. It is of profound importance that that point is understood. I invite my hon. Friend to read, in particular, resolution 687, which agreed a conditional ceasefire, and resolution 1441, including its final operative paragraph.
    As far as Security Council resolutions in respect of Israel and Palestine are concerned, we want to see those implemented fully. What I know is that, if we stand by and fail to implement the resolutions in respect of Iraq—where the violation of the United Nations authority is the greatest—there is no prospect of getting resolutions implemented in respect of other conflict areas, including Israel and Palestine. The reverse is also the case.
    Mr. Alan Duncan: Our intentions, inevitably, are principally to do with Iraq. However, I agree with the Foreign Secretary and with my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) that the peace process in the nearer middle east is crucial to the prospects for peace in the wider region. Those who think that the two cases can be treated separately are fooling themselves and risk making the world a more dangerous place.
    Will the Foreign Secretary give the House his assessment of the security situation in Gaza and the west bank over the past few weeks—areas that have seen the deaths of quite a lot of Palestinians? Given that Ariel Sharon has been talking to Abu Ala, that he has at last formed a majority Government with Shinui and the

    117
    National Religious party, and that—as the Foreign Secretary has said—Mr. Arafat is prepared to accept a more ceremonial role, can the Foreign Secretary confirm that constructive talks are at last resuming and that they stand some chance of staying on track?
    Mr. Straw: The security assessment in Gaza and the west bank is serious. In recent weeks, according to a count made yesterday, there have been 41 deaths of Palestinians, principally at the hands of the Israeli defence force, and one death within the state of Israel itself. I greatly regret those deaths; I regret the deaths whatever side they are on. We have called on, and continue to call on, the Palestinians to condemn terrorism and take effective action to control terrorists within the occupied territories and Israel. At the same time, we call on the state of Israel to act proportionately and in accordance with international law in the actions that it takes.
    On the second matter that the hon. Gentleman raised, I have been in active discussions with a number of representatives of the Palestinian Authority—they were over here last week, led by Yasser Abed Rabbo of the Palestinian Authority—and although the situation is dire, there are some improving signs because of the position now taken by the Palestinian Authority. But now that a Government have been formed in Israel, we look to Israel and the United States to agree to the early publication of the road map that was endorsed by President Bush on 20 December.
    Mr. Ernie Ross: Can my right hon. Friend tell the House how he expects to be taken seriously in his determination to deal with the very real problems that Iraq poses to the rest of the world when we have assembled an army and, for the second time, flown it past the most blatant example of daily repression and breaking of international humanitarian law by a Government who are signatories to the convention? Can he tell me why he expects that country to act proportionately, when it has never done so in the past, when there is another right-wing Government in Israel?
    Mr. Straw: I understand, as I said earlier, the argument about double standards and the fact that it has some resonance based on fact, not only in the Arab and Islamic world, but in the wider world. But what I would say to my hon. Friend is that Security Council resolutions such as 242, 338, 1397 and 1402 impose obligations not only on the Israelis, yes, to recognise a viable state, to withdraw from the settlements, to negotiate the future of East Jerusalem and to deal with the issue of refugees, but on the Palestinian Authority properly and effectively to control terrorism and on all the surrounding Arab states to recognise the state of Israel and not to support terrorism themselves. The answer to the terrible issue of the middle east is for us to continue to apply pressure to all sides to achieve an effective negotiated settlement.
    Mr. Crispin Blunt: The Foreign Secretary has just said that the Government urge Israel to be consistent with international law. How many Palestinians have been killed since September 2000 by
    118
    Israel's policy of extra-judicial assassination? Do the Government believe that that policy is consistent with international law?
    Mr. Straw: I am afraid that I cannot give the hon. Gentleman an exact number, but I am certainly happy to write to him about that. As to whether that is consistent with international law—no, and we have made our view very clear to the Government of Israel.

    International Criminal Court
    Mr. John Robertson: What recent discussions he has had with his counterparts in the USA about the International Criminal Court.[98789]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Mike O'Brien): There have been no discussions on the International Criminal Court with US counterparts since 17 October. On that date, officials met at US request for preliminary discussions on the US request for a bilateral agreement under article 98.2 of the Rome statute. We await a further approach from the US side.
    John Robertson: I thank my hon. Friend for his reply, but he will be aware that the US Government have sought bilateral agreements with other countries that revoke article 98 of the Rome statute to exempt US officials from prosecution by the international courts and, as has been already alluded to earlier, to strengthen economic sanctions such as the termination of military aid to countries if they do not comply with US demands. Does he agree that such action undermines the process to establish an effective International Criminal Court and that, without ratification by the US, the International Criminal Court will essentially be a toothless tiger?
    Mr. O'Brien: We are strong supporters of the International Criminal Court and, of course, we will do nothing that conflicts with the statute. We understand US objections to the court, but we simply do not share them. Of course article 98.2 provides a procedure, and therefore acting within that article would comply with the statute. However, we will act on the basis of the guiding principles agreed by European Union Ministers on 30 September: no immunity for US citizens, no exemption for UK citizens and exemptions only for US citizens sent by their Government. Unfortunately, there is no common EU position on that. It appears that the French have opted for their soldiers to be excluded for seven years. The French seem to be taking a more American position on this issue.
    Dr. Julian Lewis: It has been suggested that one solution to the Iraq crisis would be for Saddam and his clique to go into exile. How would that be affected by the existence of the International Criminal Court in the unlikely event that he decided to go into exile, but did so in a country that had signed up to the ICC? Would not there be a clash between the

    119
    terms of his exile and the possibility that someone could rightly bring him before the ICC for the many crimes that he has committed?
    Mr. O'Brien: The hon. Gentleman raises an interesting point, which I shall consider in detail. Of course, Iraq is not currently a party to the ICC statute, so the court can exercise its jurisdiction only following the referral of an allegation by the UN Security Council under chapter VII of the UN charter. Therefore, if somebody was in a country that was adhering to the statute, I assume that the procedure would still be to use the UN charter chapter VII. I would have to consider in detail the legalities of that, and I will write to the hon. Gentleman.

    EU Enlargement (Czech Republic)
    Mr. Mike Hall: If he will make a statement on enlargement of the EU; and what progress is being made in respect of the Czech Republic's application to join the EU.[98790]
    The Minister for Europe (Mr. Denis MacShane): Following the conclusion of negotiations at the European Council in December, the existing EU members, the Czech Republic and nine other candidates will sign an accession treaty on 16 April. Subject to treaty ratification, the Czech Republic will accede on 1 May 2004. That is good news for the UK, the EU and the Czech Republic.
    Mr. Hall: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Does he share my concern that the nations seeking to join the EU were invited to the summit in Brussels last week to discuss Iraq, but were not allowed to participate? It seems to emerge that, after that meeting, President Chirac was threatening those nations wishing to join with a veto if they did not agree with his views on Iraq. Would not a better way of taking forward EU membership be whether they meet the criteria, rather than whether they agree with the President of France?
    Mr. MacShane: Yes.
    Angus Robertson: The Minister will be aware that coalition discussions in Austria have centred in large part around the issue of nuclear power stations in the Czech Republic. Threats have been made by the far right, extremist Freedom party to block Czech membership of the European Union. Does he agree that it would be much more welcome for the Austrian Government to discuss issues of substance rather than accede to the extremist designs of Jörg Haider?
    Mr. MacShane: Ja—yes.
    Mr. Michael Connarty: When negotiating with partners for the accession of the Czech Republic and other applicant countries, will my hon. Friend ensure that the rights of Roma people in those countries, which are not upheld at the moment, will be fundamental to conditions for accession to the EU?
    120
    That will prevent us from ending up in a situation in which the problems of the Roma people are settled by them resettling in our country and other parts of the EU.
    Mr. MacShane: My hon. Friend raises a sensitive point. Since the end of communism, steady progress has been made on dealing with all the different minority questions in central and eastern Europe. The issue of the treatment of the Roma people figured largely in the assessment about new member states joining the European Union. My hon. Friend is right that we must keep a careful eye on the matter.

    Serbia and Montenegro
    Mr. John Randall: If he will make a statement on the political situation in Serbia and Montenegro. [98791]
    The Minister for Europe (Mr. Denis MacShane): The Serbia and Montenegro state union was proclaimed on 4 February. Elections to the new Parliament are taking place there. We urge the new Government, when in place, to press ahead with reforms, including co-operation with the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia.
    Mr. Randall: Does the Minister agree that one of the biggest problems facing Serbia and Montenegro is the huge number of refugees and internally displaced people within its borders? That exerts a great deal of pressure, and will possibly lead to political instability. What will the Government do to try to return those people to their rightful homes?
    Mr. MacShane: The hon. Gentleman, who takes a great interest in the region and contributes positively to the House's discussions and debates on it, raises an important point. We still have a large number of British troops in the region to try to ensure that people can go back to their homes and villages. The hon. Gentleman will know that one of the best contributions that might be made is for the new Serbian and Montenegrin Government to surrender to The Hague all the alleged and indicted criminals, given the actions that took place. That is the most important step that could be taken to bring peace and stability and to restore confidence to the region as a whole.
    Mr. Tom Cox: Is my hon. Friend aware that 1 have represented the Council of Europe as an election observer in the last two presidential elections in Serbia? Because of a ruling introduced under Milosevic that means that there has to be a turnout of 50 per cent, the clear wishes of the people of Serbia were not met. Such a turnout was not achieved on either occasion. Therefore, when my hon. Friend next meets the Serbian authorities, will he say that that ruling does not meet the wishes of the people of Serbia and that it needs to be changed?
    Mr. MacShane: I am not quite sure that it is for the British Government to dictate the electoral system for the election, under the old arrangements, of the President of Serbia. We now have a new entity, Serbia and Montenegro, and elections to its Parliament are taking place today. Perhaps if there were a candidate

    121
    who could command sufficient support because he or she was saying the right things for a new Serbia and Montenegro, that person might receive the support to overcome the technical barrier to which my hon. Friend referred.

    Afghanistan
    Tony Cunningham: If he will make a statement on the political situation in Afghanistan. [98793]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Mike O'Brien): Afghanistan has made progress towards implementing the Bonn agreement, but the situation remains fragile. Over the coming year the transitional Government will focus on improving security, including through the development of the new Afghan national army, the development of a new constitution and, of course, preparations for elections in 2004.
    Tony Cunningham: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Very obvious security issues affect Afghanistan, but to what extent does political instability hinder the reconstruction of this tragic country? What more can be done to deal with that?
    Mr. O'Brien: There is a large amount of work being done to ensure that we give political support to the Afghan Government, and they are responding enormously well. I was in Kabul some months ago and saw the very high calibre of many Afghan Ministers. They are doing a very good job. One of the key advantages that we have seen in recent months is that there are now 4.5 million children in school in Afghanistan, and half of them are girls. Few schools operated under the Taliban, and girls could not go to them. Steps are being taken forward not only on security, but on education, health and other issues. The position is precarious but the steps forward show the benefit of the steps that the British, American and others Governments were prepared to take in intervening in Afghanistan.[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. There is far too much noise in the House.
    Mr. John Wilkinson: Does the Minister agree that a satisfactory security situation is crucial to a positive political development in Afghanistan? Can he assure the House that there is no question whatever of the Federal German Government withdrawing their peacekeeping contingent as has been mooted in many quarters of the press?
    Mr. O'Brien: We are in discussions with the Germans, as are other countries. We very much hope that they will remain there until the change to other forces is undertaken. We believe that there will not be the gap or lacuna that the hon. Gentleman suggests.

    Iran
    Ms Julia Drown: What steps he is taking to assist in tackling human rights abuses in Iran. [98794]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Mike O'Brien): We regularly raise human rights issues with the Iranian authorities at all levels. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary did so most recently with the Iranian Foreign Minister this month. We support the EU dialogue on human rights with Iran and also provide practical bilateral assistance for a range of projects.
    Ms Drown: A hundred thousand people have been executed in Iran since 1981 and many of them were stoned to death for adultery and homosexuality. The United Kingdom Government have not specifically condemned stoning. Will they do so and will they continue to work with those pursuing serious human rights concerns with Iran?
    Mr. O'Brien: We and our European Union partners have repeatedly expressed concerns about stoning, and are working to deal with some of the changes that need to take place in Iran. Reform has been called for, especially by women's groups in Iran that have campaigned on the subject for years. We therefore welcomed the announcement at the end of last year by the head of the supreme administrative court that the practice of stoning had been suspended.

Iraq
12.30 pm
The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair): With permission, Mr Speaker, I will make a further statement on Iraq.
Let me again, for the benefit of the House, briefly recap the history of this crisis. In 1991, at the conclusion of the Gulf war, the true extent of Saddam's weapons of mass destruction programme became clear. We knew that he had used these weapons against his own people, and against a foreign country, Iran, but we had not known that in addition to chemical weapons, he had biological weapons, which he had denied completely, and was trying to construct a nuclear weapons programme.
So on 3 April 1991, the UN passed the first UN resolution on Saddam and weapons of mass destruction, giving him 15 days to give an open account of all his weapons and to co-operate fully with the UN inspectors in destroying them. Fifteen days later, he submitted a flawed and incomplete declaration denying that he had biological weapons and giving little information on chemical weapons. It was only four years later, after the defection of Saddam's son-in-law to Jordan, that the offensive biological weapons and the full extent of the nuclear programme were discovered. In all, 17 UN resolutions have been passed. None has been obeyed. At no stage did he co-operate as he should have done. At no stage did he tell the full truth.
Finally, in December 1998, when he had begun to obstruct and harass the UN inspectors, they withdrew. When they left, they said that there were still large amounts of weapons of mass destruction material unaccounted for. Since then, the international community has relied on sanctions and the no-fly zones policed by US and UK pilots to contain Saddam. But the first is not proof against Saddam's deception and the second is limited in its impact.
In 2001, the sanctions were made more targeted, but around $3 billion a year is illicitly taken by Saddam, much of it for his and his family's personal use. The intelligence is clear: he continues to believe that his weapons of mass destruction programme is essential both for internal repression and for external aggression. It is essential to his regional power. Prior to the inspectors coming back in, he was engaged in a systematic exercise in concealment of those weapons.
That is the history. Finally, last November, UN resolution 1441 declared Saddam in material breach and gave him a "final opportunity" to comply fully, immediately and unconditionally with the UN's instruction to disarm voluntarily. The first step was to give an open, honest declaration of what weapons of mass destruction he had, where they were and how they would be destroyed. On 8 December, he submitted the declaration denying that he had any weapons of mass destruction, a statement, frankly, that not a single member of the international community seriously believes. There have been two UN inspectors' reports. Both have reported some co-operation on process; both have denied progress on substance.
124
So how to proceed? There are now two paths before the United Nations. Yesterday the UK, along with the US and Spain, introduced a new resolution declaring that
"Iraq has failed to take the final opportunity afforded to it in Resolution 1441".
But we will not put this resolution to a vote immediately. Instead, we will delay it to give Saddam one further final chance to disarm voluntarily. The UN inspectors are continuing their work. They have a further report to make in March, but this time Saddam must understand: now is the time for him to decide. Passive rather than active co-operation will not do. Co-operation on process but not substance will not do. Refusal to declare properly and fully what has happened to the unaccounted for WMD will not do. Resolution 1441 called for full, unconditional and immediate compliance: not 10 per cent., not 20 per cent., not even 50 per cent., but 100 per cent. compliance. Anything less will not do. That is all we ask: that what we said in resolution 1441, we mean; and that what it demands, Saddam does.
There is no complexity about resolution 1441. I ask all reasonable people to judge for themselves. After 12 years, is it not reasonable that the UN inspectors have unrestricted access to Iraqi scientists? That means no tape recorders, no minders, no intimidation, and interviews outside Iraq, as provided for by resolution 1441. So far not one of those interviews has taken place.
Is it not reasonable that Saddam provides evidence of destruction of the biological and chemical agents and weapons that the UN proved he had in 1999? So far he has provided none. Is it not reasonable that he provides evidence that he has destroyed 8,500 litres of anthrax that he admitted possessing, and the 2,000 kilos of biological growth material, enough to produce over 26,000 litres of anthrax? Is it not reasonable that Saddam accounts for up to 360 tonnes of bulk chemical warfare agent, including 1.5 tonnes of VX nerve agents, 3,000 tonnes of precursor chemicals, and over 30,000 special munitions?
To those who say we are rushing to war, I say this: we are now 12 years after Saddam was first told by the UN to disarm; nearly six months after President Bush made his speech to the UN accepting the UN route to disarmament; nearly four months on from resolution 1441; and even now, today, we are offering Saddam the prospect of voluntary disarmament through the UN. I detest his regime—I hope most people do—but even now, he could save it by complying with the UN's demand. Even now, we are prepared to go the extra step to achieve disarmament peacefully.
I do not want war. I do not believe anyone in the House wants war. But disarmament peacefully can happen only with Saddam's active co-operation. Twelve years of bitter experience teaches us that. If he refuses to co-operate, as he is refusing now, and we fail to act, what then? Saddam in charge of Iraq, his weapons of mass destruction intact, the will of the international community set at nothing, the UN tricked again, Saddam hugely strengthened and emboldened—does anyone truly believe that that will mean peace? And when we turn to deal with other threats that we know confront our world, where will our authority be then? When we make a demand next time, where will our

125
credibility be then? This is not a road to peace, but folly and weakness that will only mean that when the conflict comes, it is more bloody, less certain and greater in its devastation.
Our path laid out before the UN expresses our preference to resolve this peacefully, but it ensures that we remain firm in our determination to resolve it. I have read the memorandum put forward by France, Germany and Russia in response to our UN resolution. It is to be welcomed at least in these respects: it accepts that Saddam must disarm fully, and it accepts that he is not yet co-operating fully. Indeed, not a single member of the European Union who spoke at the summit in Brussels on 17 February—not a single one—disputed the fact of his non-co-operation.
But the call is for more time—up to the end of July, at least. They say that the time is necessary to "search out" the weapons. At the core of this proposition is the notion that the task of the inspectors is to enter Iraq to find the weapons, to "sniff them out," as one member of the European Council put it. That is emphatically not the inspectors' job. They are not a detective agency, but even if they were, Iraq is a country with a land mass roughly the size of France or Spain. The idea that the inspectors could conceivably sniff out the weapons and documentation relating to them without the help of the Iraqi authorities is absurd. That is why resolution 1441 calls for Iraq's active co-operation.
The issue is not time. The issue is will. If Saddam is willing genuinely to co-operate, the inspectors should have up to July, and beyond July—as much time as they want. if he is not willing to co-operate, equally time will not help. We will just be right back where we were in the 1990s. Of course, Saddam will offer concessions. This is a game with which he is immensely familiar. As the threat level rises, so the concessions are eked out. At present, he is saying he will not destroy the al-Samoud missiles that the inspectors have found were in breach of 1441. But he will, under pressure, claiming that this proves his co-operation. But does anyone think that he would be making any such concessions, or indeed that the inspectors would be within 1,000 miles of Baghdad, were it not for the US and UK troops massed on his doorstep? And what is his hope? To play for time, and to drag the process out until the attention of the international community wanes, the troops go, and the way is again clear for him. Give it more time, some urge on us. I say that we are giving it more time. But I say this too: it takes no time at all for Saddam to co-operate. It just takes a fundamental change of heart and mind.
Today the path to peace is clear. Saddam can cooperate fully with the inspectors. He can voluntarily disarm. He can even leave the country peacefully. But he cannot avoid disarmament. One further point: the purpose in our acting is disarmament, but the nature of Saddam's regime is relevant in two ways. First, weapons of mass destruction in the hands of a regime of this brutality are especially dangerous, in particular because Saddam has shown his willingness to use them. Secondly, I know that the innocent as well as the guilty die in any war. But let us at least not forget the 4 million Iraqi exiles, and the thousands of children who die needlessly every year due to Saddam's impoverishment of his country—a country which in 1978 was wealthier than Portugal or Malaysia but is now in ruins, with 60 per cent. of its people on food aid. Let us not forget
126
the tens of thousands imprisoned, tortured or executed by his barbarity every year. The innocent die every day in Iraq—victims of Saddam—and their plight, too, should be heard.
I also know the vital importance in all of this of the middle east peace process. The European Council last week called for the early implementation of the road map. Terror and violence must end. So must settlement activity. We welcomed President Arafat's statement that he will appoint a Prime Minister—an initiative flowing from last month's London conference on Palestinian reform. I will continue to strive in every way for an even-handed and just approach to the middle east peace process.
At stake in Iraq is not just peace or war. It is the authority of the United Nations and the international community. Resolution 1441 is clear. All we are asking is that it now be upheld. If it is not, the consequences will stretch far beyond Iraq. If the UN cannot be the way of resolving this issue, that is a dangerous moment for our world. That is why, over the coming weeks, we will work every last minute that we can to reunite the international community and disarm Iraq through the United Nations. It is our desire, and it is still our hope, that this can be done.
Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: I thank the Prime Minister for updating the House on the latest situation. The decisions that are taken over the next few weeks and months will, perhaps, determine the course of world events for years to come. Twelve years and 17 resolutions on, it is crucial that we understand exactly why we are pursuing the course that we are. Saddam Hussein is a tyrant who tortures and murders his own people and poses a threat to the safety and stability of the middle east. There are few people in Iraq or in the surrounding area who would at any stage mourn his passing. When Iraq's prisons are opened and the stories of persecution and repression can truly be told, many people inside and outside the House will wonder why we waited so long to take such action.
However, Saddam Hussein is not the only example of evil in our world. The difference is that he has the means, mentality and motive to reach beyond his own borders and pose a threat to the safety and security of many—crucially, to British people at home and abroad.
As we head towards the process outlined by the Prime Minister and tabled at the United Nations last night, several questions arise. The Prime Minister told the House on 15 January that the only way he would support military action without a second resolution would be if any country used an unreasonable veto. I assume that that is still the Prime Minister's position. For example, would a French veto at the Security Council constitute an unreasonable veto? What if there is no majority in the Security Council? Would that also be considered an unreasonable position?
France and Germany have today outlined a plan for dealing with Iraq, to which the Prime Minister referred, with a specific timetable for the inspectorate that would take us deep into July. The Prime Minister clearly said that he does not agree with them on the timetable or the plan. Could he specify exactly what timetable should exist as part of the draft resolution announced last night and tabled by Spain, the United States and the Government?

127
If Dr. Blix tells the Security Council on 7 March that Iraq is not complying with resolution 1441, will Britain and America push for an immediate vote on a second resolution—and will that constitute the timetable? This morning, the Foreign Secretary seemed not too clear about that matter. I hope that the Prime Minister will be able to clear it up.
Saddam Hussein is reported today as saying that he will not comply with his obligation to destroy his alSamoud missiles. The Prime Minister made it clear in his statement that a failure by Iraq to do that would constitute a material breach of resolution 1441. However, if at the last moment Saddam Hussein destroys his missiles but still does not produce the evidence to show that the biological and chemical stockpiles that we know he had in 1998 have been destroyed, will the Prime Minister confirm that the destruction of the missiles is not enough to avoid a vote on the second resolution?
At this time, the thoughts of the whole House will be with our servicemen and women but they need to be assured of certain things. Will the Prime Minister assure the House that equipment failures alluded to by the National Audit Office and the shortage of personnel equipment reported have all been rectified and that our troops will have the very best equipment by the time they get into place? If military action takes place, it is vital that we are clear what may happen after that action concludes. My hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) has consistently been critical of United Nations contingency planning for humanitarian relief in Iraq and the Government's part in that. Will the Prime Minister assure the House that all those shortcomings have been addressed and that mechanisms are now in place? Of perhaps most critical importance now is the need to understand what contingencies the Government have planned for a representative Government in Iraq. Have the Prime Minister and his US counterparts discussed that at any stage, and will he now give an indication of what those discussions have entailed? He rightly spoke about his plans for the middle east and the peace process. Can he now go further and give any specific details of his plans to bring those two sides together beyond what he said in his statement?
This issue is not about time, as the Prime Minister said, but about Saddam Hussein's attitude. There are many in the House who legitimately fear the consequences of military action in Iraq and therefore urge us not to take it. However, I put it to them that there is a greater fear—the failure to deal with Saddam Hussein now will lead to greater suffering, not just for the people of Iraq but for the whole world. We still believe that Saddam Hussein holds in his hands the power to pull his country and his people back from the brink of war, which any soldier will tell you, must always be the last resort. This is a crucial test, not just for the UK or the USA, but for the United Nations. For the sake of the United Nations and the peace of the world, such a tyrant must be left in no doubt that if he does not disarm after years of terror and evasion, he must finally face the consequences of his actions.
The Prime Minister: First, I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his support for the Government's
128
general approach. He talked about the circumstances in which countries might use their veto—I am still hopeful that that will not be the case. I reject the timetable set out by France and Germany for the reasons that I gave. I do not think that it deals with the central point—whether Saddam is willing to co-operate fully. As for our own timetable, it is obviously open, but we have already said that this has to be resolved within weeks, not months. The coming report of Dr. Blix will evidently be extremely important in that, but the precise moment at which we put the second resolution in the UN to a vote is something that we are discussing with key allies.
To deal simply with the issue of Army equipment, about which there are many stories, I should say that those stories are categorically denied both by people in the military and ourselves. I urge people not to take everything that they read at face value. I very much hope that people understand that not only are our armed forces among the finest in the word but they are also among the best equipped. The best testament to that comes from members of the armed forces themselves.
In relation to humanitarian considerations and what type of Government might succeed the Government of Saddam, again that is something that we are discussing closely with allies and the UN. I should like to emphasise that in my view if it comes to conflict, the UN's role in the resulting humanitarian situation and in finding the right way through for Iraq will be immensely important, so we will continue to work with allies, even if there are differences on the military side of things, to find the right answers to those questions.
Finally, on the middle east peace process, I very much hope that we will be in a position to announce further steps on that in the not too distant future. It is tremendously important in its own terms, but it is also obviously important in the broader context of giving a very clear statement to the Arab and Muslim world that we approach these issues in an even-handed and just way. There is nothing more important but that they understand that, and our commitment to taking that process forward remains absolute.
Mr. Charles Kennedy: Given that there is unanimous agreement in the House about supporting the United Nations in its efforts to rid Saddam Hussein of weapons of mass destruction, and that the best route for doing so is the UN-authorised weapons inspectorate, will the Prime Minister amplify his opening remarks, as there will be considerable anxiety in this country and others that in tabling what could be construed as a pre-emptive draft resolution, Britain is in fact undermining the very work of the weapons inspectors? Given Dr. Blix's explicit statement that he feels that the inspectors are meeting with a degree of success but that more time is required, should not we as a country subscribe to that view rather than conducting ourselves as we are?
Why is the Prime Minister so fundamentally hostile to the memorandum that the French and others have now tabled? Should we not respond more positively? Would that not offer a better way forward? On several occasions, senior military opinion in this country has been publicly expressed to the effect that the best route for disarmament is the location, detection and dismantling of any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq by the weapons inspectors themselves. Is that not preferable to a precipitate war?

129
Is the essence of what the Prime Minister has told us today that there are now no circumstances in which, if the Americans decide to take action against Iraq, Britain will not be there in support? Is that not the fact of the matter, whether it is UN-authorised or not?
As for the conflict itself, which seems increasingly inevitable, will the Prime Minister clarify an issue that he has not chosen to clarify thus far? What will be the operational military chain of command? Will British forces that this House of Commons will ask to go into battle in our name be under an American chain of command? I think that those forces and the House have a right to know the answer.
Finally, what post-war scenario do the Government envisage? Would they prefer a United States-administered post-conflict Iraq or some form of UN protectorate? What will our contribution be in such circumstances?
The fundamental anxiety felt by many in this country is that the argument has shifted from regime change last summer, through the UN route—which we strongly support—to the Prime Minister's most recent utterances about the overwhelming moral case for this action. When the argument keeps shifting like that, there can be little doubt, and every reason for people in this country to remain highly sceptical about the wisdom of the current approach.
The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman asked about post-conflict Iraq, if it comes to conflict. I have made it clear that the UN must have a key role; exactly what that role will be is another thing that we are discussing with the UN and with allies now. As for the military chain of command, it will be as it has been in previous military conflicts. We will set out all the answers to those questions very plainly if it comes to military conflict. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that there is any problem in the military chain of command itself, because I think that that would be irresponsible and unfair to our armed forces.
There is one issue on which I agree with the right hon. Gentleman. He said that it would be preferable for the disarmament of Iraq to take place by means of the UN route. I agree: that is exactly why we have tried to use the UN route. With respect, however, the question is this: if disarmament cannot happen by means of the UN route because Saddam Hussein is not co-operating properly, then what? We shall be left with a choice between leaving him there, with his weapons of mass destruction, in charge of Iraq—the will of the UN having therefore been set at nothing—and using force.
The right hon. Gentleman described the resolution as pre-emptive. I must take issue with him. Resolution 1441 has this logic—to which I see no answer in what the right hon. Gentleman said. It called on Saddam Hussein to disarm voluntarily, and to comply fully, unconditionally and immediately with the inspectors. It said that he was in material breach, and that this was a final opportunity. Now, is Saddam Hussein co-operating fully? No. Not a single person disputes that. He is therefore in breach of resolution 1441. This was supposed to be his final opportunity. With the greatest respect, it is not us who have to justify why we are putting down a resolution stating what is a fact—that he is not co-operating fully and is in breach of resolution
130
1441—it is for others to say why, having given him the final opportunity that he has not taken, we still should not act. My worry in that situation—no doubt it is Saddam's hope—is that what people really mean when they put forward these alternatives is that we are not prepared seriously to force him to disarm.
On the chances of conflict, I should tell the right hon. Gentleman that the bitter irony of some of what has happened in the past few weeks is that unless Saddam gets a clear and united message—unless he knows that there is no alternative to voluntary disarmament—he will not disarm. That is the history of 12 years in which we played this game of to and fro, back and forth with him.
Let me deal with one other point. The argument about regime change has not changed. I have always said that the purpose of any action has got to he the disarmament of Iraq of weapons of mass destruction. That is the purpose, but the nature of the regime is relevant in two ways. This is not a regime that has weapons of mass destruction but is otherwise benign; it is—as I hope the right hon. Gentleman agrees—a deeply murderous, barbaric regime that subjects its people to terrible humiliation, and which, every time it has been able to do so, has conducted external aggression.[Interruption.] Well, some of the right hon. Gentleman's colleagues may disagree, but I think that objective people will agree with that proposition. Those people who say that the regime is not relevant ignore the fact that weapons of mass destruction in the hands of Saddam are a greater threat precisely because of the nature of the regime, and because of the fact that he has used them.
The second point is that there is a reason why I responded to a moral case, namely, that a moral case was being put against action. It was being said that, of course, innocent people will die in conflict, and that is true. Innocent people do die, which is why we have striven so hard over 12 years to avoid going back into conflict with Saddam. However, it is also right, in responding to that moral case, to point out the utter misery and deprivation of the people in Iraq, and to state what is a fact: that those who have most to gain from the end of the regime of Saddam Hussein are the Iraqi people themselves.
Donald Anderson: As we enter a crucial three weeks that will decide whether there is peace or war, my right hon. Friend has made a very powerful case. It is clear that Saddam Hussein responds only to pressure, and that his aim is to divide the Security Council and to buy time. My right hon. Friend and the Cabinet have tabled a motion for tomorrow, so he clearly agrees with its observation that Iraq has a
"final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations."
Does he equally accept that, as the likely amendment to it states, the case for military action is as yet unproven, until Dr. Blix reports to the Security Council this Friday and during the following week on whether Saddam Hussein has complied with his disarmament obligations?
The Prime Minister: The truth is, of course, that it is clear that Saddam is in breach of resolution 1441, because he was supposed to co-operate fully and is not

131
doing so. However, because we want—consistent with the attitude that we have taken throughout—to give every single possible chance for him to co-operate fully, we are prepared, even at this stage, to delay in order to give him that chance. What my right hon. Friend implies is absolutely right: Saddam is not co-operating fully, and there is no great mystery in what is being asked of him. Anyone would think that the problem with Saddam is a failure to communicate with him adequately—that, somehow, he is not quite sure what this disarmament process means. He is probably more familiar with the ins and outs of UN inspectors and with the demands of UN resolutions than any one of us. However, the fact is that at the moment he believes that he can trick us back into the game that he played in the 1990s. That is why I honestly say that if there is any chance of getting him to change his mind and his heart, it will happen only if we send the strongest possible signal at this stage.
Mr. William Hague: Will the Prime Minister accept—[Interruption.] This may not help him, but will he accept from a long-standing critic and opponent that his policy is absolutely in the interests of this country and the wider world? Will he explain to the leader of the Liberal Democrats that British and American forces have been familiar with a shared chain of command since D-day in 1944 and before? Will the Prime Minister stress that any lifting of the threat of invasion of Iraq would set Saddam Hussein off once again on the search for nuclear weaponry, with probable success? On the implications for European policy making, does the Prime Minister consider that if an EU diplomatic service—as will be proposed by the Convention on the Future of Europe—were now in existence, it would be lobbying for his resolution or against it?
The Prime Minister: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his support and for showing us what we are all missing—[Interruption.] Including me. I agree with the points that he makes, but I wish to make one thing clear about the European convention. There is no way that the foreign or defence policy of this country will be conducted by an EU diplomatic service. It will carry on being conducted by the Government of the United Kingdom.
Mr. Jon Owen Jones: My right hon. Friend's statement did not refer to what must be the main argument for a potential war—the nature of the threat that Saddam Hussein's regime poses to this country and others, especially through weapons of mass destruction and whether they might fall into the hands of terrorists. I would also like some analysis of the level of that threat and what happens to those threats in the event of a war that is not supported by the international community, especially given the backdrop of the current bloody conflict in Palestine. Would we end up, post-war, in a world more threatened by terrorism, not less?
The Prime Minister: On the nature of the threat, it is the UN resolution that described Saddam Hussein's programme of weapons of mass destruction as a threat,
132
so that was established by the international community. I have not gone into the arguments about the link with international terrorism again, but I believe that link to be real. It is important that we understand that if we allow rogue or unstable states to develop or proliferate weapons of mass destruction, the links with international terrorists who are trying to acquire those weapons will be all too clear. I agree with my hon. Friend that if this is done with a unified UN and against the background of progress in the middle east, it will become easier to unite the international community. That is why I am trying to ensure that both things are done.
We should know enough about terrorists to realise—although I understand why people worry when we take a strong profile on the issue that we may make our country a target in some way—that they will strike at us wherever and whenever they can. A trial took place in the last few days in Germany of international terrorist groups. A big cache of arms was found near Charles de Gaulle airport in France a short time ago. All over the world such groups are being arrested. Who would have said that Indonesia was a great supporter of America, or the war against terrorism? Who would have said that Bali had made itself into a threat? The terrorists will not leave us alone if we are pleasant to them, but will come after us whenever they can. That is why the best signal to send them is a signal of strength.
Tony Baldry: What does the Prime Minister say to the statement by Hans Blix the day before yesterday that after eight years of inspections and four years of no inspections, to call it a day after 11 weeks of inspections seems a bit short?
The Prime Minister: I would say to him what I have said to him and others throughout—the time is relevant only if the will is there to co-operate. If it is not, nobody seriously suggests—and in my conversations with Dr. Blix, he has not suggested—that if Saddam is not co-operating, the inspectors can go in and search out the weapons. The best proof of that is what happened in the 1990s when there was a complete denial of the existence of an offensive biological weapons programme. For four years the inspectors were in there searching for it and they did not find it, because it is very difficult to find it if there is no co-operation from the authorities. Then Saddam's son-in-law defected to Jordan and said that there was an offensive biological weapons programme. The Iraqis then admitted as much, and at that point the programme was at least partially shut down. The son-in-law was then lured back to Iraq and murdered.
I think that all the evidence of the past 12 years shows that disarmament cannot be accomplished without the full co-operation of the Iraqis. That is why I say that time is not the issue. The issue is that Saddam must decide to change the nature of his regime from one that relies on weapons of mass destruction to one that does not. All the evidence that we have, and all the intelligence evidence, shows that he has no intention of doing so.
Mr. Gerald Kaufman: May I thank my right hon. Friend for the strong emphasis that he continues to place on the utterly essential nature of a peace process in the middle east between the Israelis and

133
the Palestinians? In light of the daily almost casual slaughter of Palestinians by Israelis, and of the threat to the Israelis from terrorism, will my right hon. Friend give an undertaking that, regardless of the outcome of this crucial confrontation with Iraq, he will continue to ensure that this Government will yield to no one in their assurance that there will be a middle east peace process that will give dignity and safety to the Palestinians, and security to the people of Israel?
The Prime Minister: I agree with that entirely. That is precisely what we will do.
Sir John Stanley: Does the Prime Minister agree that, where major issues of security are concerned, the clear responsibility of the elected Government is to lead, and not to follow, and that this is the moment for clear-sighted and brave leadership?
The Prime MinisterI do.
Joyce Quin: I recognise the huge efforts that the Government have made to work through the UN, and to encourage and persuade the Americans to do the same. I also recognise that without the threat of action the inspectors would not be back in Iraq. However, will my right hon. Friend reassure me that the timing of the renewed push against Saddam Hussein arises from evidence and knowledge of his activities, and not from a political agenda on the part of President Bush?
The Prime Minister: I can assure my right hon. Friend on those points, which are precisely the ones that concern people. That is why we decided to take the issue back through the UN last year. In his speech to the UN—which was, I think, very well received—President Bush corrected a lot of the problems that had existed between the US and the UN. At the time, I had conversations with President Bush in which I said—and he accepted entirely—that, if the UN ended up being able to disarm Saddam voluntarily, that would be an end to the matter, detestable though the regime is. That is why we took such care to ensure that the resolution made it clear that it offered Saddam the truly final opportunity to disarm. The difficulty is that he has not taken that final opportunity. I think that that is because he believes that it is still possible, somehow, to divide the international community and play us all off against each other, and thereby to manage to retain his capability. However, I assure my right hon. Friend that when we went back through the UN, we did so in the full knowledge that if Saddam Hussein complied, that had to be an end to the matter. That is precisely why I still hope and believe that the UN can be the instrument for resolving it.
Mr. James Paice: The Prime Minister has made a very convincing argument, with which I wholly agree. I agree especially about the need to threaten war in order to try prevent it and to make Saddam comply. However, although we all hope that there will not be a war, it is becoming ever more likely. Is it not perhaps time for the Prime Minister to share with the House the overall aims of the war? He
134
says that the objective is disarmament, but does he expect that to be achieved by allied forces occupying Iraq and seeking out weapons of mass destruction, or simply by defeating the present regime and installing one that will comply with 1441?
The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman makes an entirely fair point. The objective is the ridding of Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, and while Saddam's regime stands in the way of that it is an obstacle that has to be removed if it is not prepared to disarm voluntarily. Whatever successor regime comes in must of course comply with the UN instruction, because it is an instruction to Iraq, and whoever the Government of Iraq are, the WMD programme has to be dismantled. I am sure that that can be achieved—if Saddam maintains his present position—by a different regime. What is more, in those circumstances the sanctions can be lifted and the country can revive, grow and prosper. It is potentially a very wealthy country.
Mr. Tony Lloyd: My right hon. Friend has the whole House with him on the fact that Saddam's regime is an odious one. However, what he has not demonstrated, not only to many hon. Members but to the country as a whole, is the fact that the threat posed by Saddam to us and to his neighbours is sufficiently serious to warrant the act of war—a war that will have many human casualties. Does my right hon. Friend believe that between now and any potential military conflict that evidence base will be put into the public domain in this country?
The Prime Minister: The threat from Saddam is serious, and the fact that the UN has tried so hard over such a long period shows that the international community accepts that it is serious. When the UN came together last November, the whole basis of resolution 1441 was that he did indeed constitute a threat, as he still does. Moreover, there is a whole set of related dangers to do with unstable states developing or proliferating such material and with potential links with terrorism. That is why, in the end, the world has to take a very strong view of the matter and deal with it.
I agree, of course, that the dangers of military conflict are clear. That is why it should only ever be a last resort. That is why, as I stand here today, we are not at war—there is not a military conflict in place at the moment. What is important is to ensure that the will of the United Nations is upheld. Otherwise, what we will have said as an international community is that yes, the threat is serious, but we lack the will to do something about it. I assure my hon. Friend that if there is any military conflict we will do everything that we possibly can, as we have in previous conflicts in which this Government have been engaged, to minimise any potential civilian casualties.
Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: I note the Prime Minister's reference to his part welcome, at least, for the German, French and Russian memorandum, and I welcome his reference to continued efforts to disarm Iraq via the UN. I nevertheless contrast that with the publicly known behaviour of America towards Germany and the current bribing and cajoling of other Security Council members in order to secure a

135
UN mandate. How can that be part of the right hon. Gentleman's moral case for war? Does he realise that such behaviour will not only undermine the UN, but may well be the beginning of the end for the UN?
The Prime Minister: Despite what is put across in various conspiracy theories, I have had many conversations with UN Security Council members—those who are in the permanent five and those who are not—and each of those conversations has related simply to the justice or otherwise of the case against Saddam. The idea that this is about bargaining, commercial contracts or any of the rest of it is nonsense. It is a genuine desire to make sure that Saddam ceases to be a threat to the world.
As for the UN, I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is important that the UN's authority is upheld, but I still cannot understand the answer to this point: we gave Saddam a final opportunity with which he was supposed to co-operate fully; nobody accepts that he is cooperating fully, so why has he not taken his final opportunity?
Someone asked earlier, "Is not war now inevitable?" Of course it is not. However, part of the reason for such a question is that nobody, even those who oppose military action, seriously believes that Saddam wants to co-operate fully. People sense that matters may come to conflict because they know that he has no intention of changing his heart or mind. However, that is his choice, not ours. Our choice, preference and desire are to resolve matters peacefully through the United Nations.
Jeff Ennis: Can my right hon. Friend see any special circumstances in which the Americans might attack Iraq without this country's support?
The Prime Minister: We have worked closely throughout with the United States and we shall continue to do that. There is no point in my speculating about various matters that may not happen. However, the international community made a request to President Bush last year to go through the United Nations. He agreed and did that. If Saddam fails to comply with the UN demand, it is important to take action, not only for the sake of all our other objectives but to show that the UN means what it says.
Mr. Douglas Hogg: During the past few weeks, the Prime Minister has held many meetings and conversations with President Bush. Has he raised with him the status and future of the eight UK citizens who are now held in Guantanamo Bay in Cuba? What steps is the right hon. Gentleman personally taking to ensure that those people are either charged or released, and that they otherwise have their status defined and receive the full protection of the law?
Mr. Speaker: Order. That does not relate to the statement.
Mr. Ernie Ross: May I support all my right hon. Friend's comments today? I especially
136
welcome his response to the question by my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) about the middle east. Will he assure the House and the country that dealing with Saddam Hussein will not be the end of UN and international community action on weapons of mass destruction? Will we move on to deal with North Korea and the Indian subcontinent and to create a nuclear-free zone in the middle east?
The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is right. Indeed, disarming Iraq must not be the end of the international community's effort and activity to rid the world of weapons of mass destruction that are held by unstable states. Many such issues will be tackled differently, but they need to be dealt with. It is also true, as I believe my hon. Friend implied, that if we fail to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, it will be much harder for us to make our will plain and implement it in respect of any other nation.
Mr. Nicholas Soames: I welcome the careful and cautious way in which the Prime Minister is leading his Government in order to avoid war at all costs, and his consequent determination to use every avenue of diplomacy that is open to him. Will he do what he can to shake the Arab League and the Gulf Cooperation Council from their seeming lethargy and helplessness and ask them to play a greater role in jointly and severally persuading Saddam Hussein of the necessity for him and his wicked cronies to go, thereby avoiding visiting terrible suffering on the rest of the middle east?
The Prime Minister: There is a real role for the Arab world and I agree with the hon. Gentleman's comments. It remains possible to envisage circumstances in which matters can be resolved peacefully in the way he describes. However, the best chance of doing that is through the international community demonstrating a strong and unified will and the Arab world demonstrating an equally strong resolve. We are in close contact with many Arab nations to achieve that.
Mrs. Anne Campbell: In the unlikely event that Saddam decides fully to co-operate with the UN weapons inspectors, has my right hon. Friend had time to consider what UN processes would be involved following that co-operation and whether it would simply involve weapons inspectors or whether there would be any attempt to impact on human rights abuses in Iraq?
The Prime Minister: That is a very good point. Yes, of course, we would try to ensure that there was also an impact on the human rights situation. Of course, there are UN resolutions in respect of that situation as well, all of which are being breached. There is a sense, certainly on the part of Saddam, which indicates that he sees the maintenance of the weapons, which he has used against his own people, as essential to the machinery of repression. The truth is that the regime would be a different type of regime without those weapons of mass destruction. That is why it is certainly important that we highlight the human rights aspect of the situation as well.
Mr. Paul Marsden: The briefings—[Interruption.] Those Members could not

137
silence me when I was on the Labour Benches, and they certainly will not silence me on the other side of the House. The briefings given to the United Nations on 14 February said that there was no evidence of a nuclear weapons programme, that access was freely being given for the 400 inspections without any problems and that the 300 chemical and biological samples taken were completely consistent with the Iraqis' declarations. Therefore, surely the answer is to give the United Nations inspectors many more months to let them do their job and bring about a peaceful change, rather than enter into a war that will kill thousands of men, women and children.
The Prime Minister: The point that the hon. Gentleman makes is, of course, a point that people frequently make, but if he looks at the UN inspectors' reports, he will find that both Dr. el-Baradei and Dr. Blix make it clear that full co-operation is not happening yet. The point about testing whatever they manage to find simply comes back to what I think is the central fallacy of those people who simply say "Give the inspectors more time." Unless there is full co-operation, the time will not work because the inspectors could stay in the country for months and years. Simply trying to search out the weapons is a hopeless task to expect them to carry out. That is why, when the UN passed resolution 1441, it said that there had to be not merely passive co-operation, but active co-operation with the inspectors in every way—and there is simply no such co-operation at the moment.
Tony Worthington: Every day, particularly in the American press, it seems that a report emerges about how the Americans will administer Iraq, and which particular general will do so, after the war is over. Will the Prime Minister assure me that he has not been party to any such agreements and that he agrees that the consequence of taking the UN route is that Iraq, after the war, will be administered by the United Nations until a democratic state can be set up there?
The Prime Minister: Again, the point that my hon. Friend makes is entirely right and justified. All I can say to him is that no decisions have yet been taken on the nature of how Iraq should be administered in the event of Saddam's regime being displaced by force. I said earlier that I thought that the role of the UN had to be well protected in such a situation. The discussions that we are having on that matter are proceeding well. When we have reached conclusions and decisions, we can announce them so that people can discuss them.
David Burnside: The Prime Minister rightly raises the credibility of this Government as being at issue if we do not act after 12 years of bitter experience. If he took Saddam Hussein with him to Belfast next Monday, what reaction does he think Saddam Hussein would have if he did not outline sanctions against republican and loyalist terrorists who have not disarmed over the past five years?
The Prime Minister: I do not really think that it is fair, whatever the difficulties in Northern Ireland, to compare Northern Ireland with Iraq. The hon.
138
Gentleman will know that, as a result of the peace process in Northern Ireland over the past few years, unemployment there is 6 per cent. today—it is no longer the region that has the highest unemployment in the UK; inward investment and money are coming in; and many people's lives have been transformed. There is still a long way to go, but I do not think that we can read across between the two situations.
Mr. Chris Smith: I can absolutely understand my right hon. Friend's wish to stand firm alongside our friends and allies in the United States—who have, after all, sacrificed much in the cause of wider humanity over many years. However, is not the role of a true friend, in present circumstances, to be candid with the President of the United States and tell him that the evidence is not yet compelling, that the work of the inspectors is not yet done, and that the moral case for war—with all its consequences—has not yet been made?
The Prime Minister: I agree—it is indeed our function to be candid with the President of the United States and. indeed, with all our allies. I have to say to my right hon. Friend, however, that I think that the evidence is indeed compelling. That is the reason the United Nations passed resolution 1441 last year. The evidence of the resolution is there for all to see. The evidence that Saddam is not co-operating fully is accepted by everyone. Indeed, the statement yesterday by France and Germany accepted that he was not yet fully co-operating. There was not a single person in the Council of the European Union who said anything other than that the co-operation was less than full. Dr. Blix has said the same.
Surely the position is really this: if we meant what we said in resolution 1441, that it was Saddam's final opportunity to disarm and that he had to comply fully, unconditionally and immediately—and everybody accepts that he is not fully complying, not unconditionally complying and certainly not immediately complying—then surely our statement that Iraq is in material breach is clear. We have delayed action to go through the UN—even again now—in order to give Saddam a final chance. However, that is not going to happen unless he has a real change of heart and mind.
The other point that I would make to my right hon. Friend—I know that he has thought about these issues very deeply—is this: if we were dealing with a regime where this was the first time that this issue had arisen, and if there were no history of dealing with Saddam or weapons of mass destruction, one might think that there was some problem in the way that the inspectors were communicating their wishes to him, or that there was some difficulty in what he understood he had to do. However, this regime has had 12 years of this. It knows perfectly well what the UN is asking it to do. When Saddam's son-in-law defected to Jordan and disclosed the regime's offensive biological weapons programme—a programme that it had utterly denied the existence of, saying that it was all a CIA and British intelligence conspiracy—Iraq suddenly discovered the means to co-operate fully, and did co-operate fully for a time. There is no mystery for Iraq about what it needs to do.

139
I know that there is a very delicate balance about the time, but the danger is that, if we give a signal of division at the moment, it will allow Saddam to go straight back into the game that he has played before, and will allow him to pull the international community into months of delay. Once the international community's attention has gone, he is back, free to do what he has done again. That is my worry.[Interruption.] Yes, of course, I should be candid with the President of the United States, but my strong view is that we have given Saddam, time and time again, the opportunity to comply. Now is the time when we have to force the issue to a decision, making sure that he does comply or face the consequences.
Sir Patrick Cormack: In providing the national leadership for which my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Mailing (Sir John Stanley) called—and which the Prime Minister is providing with exemplary calmness and courage—will he consider making a broadcast to the nation, explaining to all the doubters that, if we do not stand firm on this issue, the United Nations will go the way of the League of Nations?
The Prime Minister: Whatever way we may communicate will be a decision for a later time. I will bear in mind what the right hon. Gentleman says. The point that he makes is obviously right.
Mr. Tony McWalter: My right hon. Friend has constantly used the expression "full co-operation". However, does he understand that many people in this House want to see a sufficient degree of co-operation by Saddam Hussein to achieve a peaceable decommissioning of the weapons of mass destruction of that barbaric regime? Does he accept that the people who are in the best position to say whether that degree of co-operation is being achieved are the weapons inspectors themselves?
The Prime Minister: It is precisely for that reason that the weapons inspectors have made it clear that, at present, there is not that full co-operation. My hon. Friend says "sufficient co-operation", and it is important to go back to the words of resolution 1441. Presumably, when we passed it, as an international community, we were aware of what we were saying, and we said that the co-operation had to be full, unconditional and immediate. The reason for that is that we had 12 years of trying to have a sufficient degree of co-operation, but it has never actually been sufficient to disarm Saddam, so that is the problem that we face.
I agree that the very reason why we went through the UN route is precisely so that the inspectors could go into Iraq and witness the facts of what is happening, but the reason why Dr. Blix has sent a whole series of further
140
questions and demands to the Iraqis is that they know that they are not co-operating. The best test of that is twofold. First, the leftovers were unaccounted for in 1998—all that is properly documented—and we need to know what has happened to them; we have not the faintest idea because Saddam has denied the existence of the stuff.
The second issue relates to the witnesses and the way to deal with such programmes. For example, when South Africa was disarmed, nine inspectors went in and they interviewed the scientists—the people concerned in the programme—and they were told all about it. There have been, as I understand it, only about half a dozen interviews so far. Not one of those interviews has been without either a minder or an insistence that it is tape-recorded. The fact is that I cannot seriously believe in those circumstances that they are free and fair interviews. So those are the tests. If Saddam is prepared to come forward and say that they will deal with all those issues, it would put the thing in a different framework.
Mr. Duncan Smith: I asked earlier—as a number of hon. Members have done—about contingency plans for government if military action takes place in the event of Saddam Hussein being deposed. Will the Prime Minister now clear up some of that confusion? First, will he say whether contingency plans for future government are being discussed and formulated right now between members of the UN and the US and UK Governments? I understand that Kofi Annan has described those arrangements to members not just of the Security Council, but of the General Assembly, so will the Prime Minister share with the House and for the benefit of the British people what such contingency plans may well entail, so that they can secure in their minds whether there are not just short-term plans, but long-term plans as well?
The Prime Minister: Such contingency plans are being discussed. The reason why I have not given the details of those discussions is that they are not yet concluded. There is no point in us speculating about them before their conclusion, but, yes, they are being discussed among members of the UN, with the key allies. I would like to make it clear that whatever disagreements there are—for example, among European countries at the moment—it is still important, when all this is done, that we try to reach the broadest common agreement in the UN as to what the nature of any future regime in Iraq may be if it comes to conflict and, in particular, how we make sure that there is the proper humanitarian provision for people in Iraq.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. We now come to the ten-minute Bill.

Protection of Freedoms
1.38 pm
Mr. Mark Prisk: I beg to move.
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require each item of legislation to be subject to a statement as to how each measure included in it affects the freedom of expression, assembly, conscience and association; and why the benefits of the measure outweigh any loss of freedom.
Despite the current noise caused by Members leaving the Chamber, I am pleased to say that the Bill has attracted considerable support on both sides of the House. Not only has it received support from within the House and, indeed, the other place, but I am pleased to say that it has secured the support of the free country campaign in The Daily Telegraph and the campaign group, Liberty, and its director John Wadham.
It is fair to say that the natural instinct of any Government, of whatever political persuasion, is to seek more powers. However, the flow of legislation has grown dramatically in recent years. During the 1970s, the average number of measures passed by the House equated to between 1,000 and 1,500 per annum. Yet in the past five years, the average annual number of measures passed is now 3,866, or 15 new laws every working day, and that figure excludes what I can only describe as a continuous tidal wave of directives from Brussels.
That ceaseless flow of rules and regulations has eroded the true role of the House as a champion of liberty. Instead of a presumption in favour of freedom, there is a constant demand that "something must be done". All too often, that "something" is to interfere in or intrude into our lives, to restrict, to restrain, to control and to direct. In short, we have become a legislative factory in which producing more laws is an end in itself.
Of course, in the current uncertain and insecure climate, it is not surprising that people wish to see strong government. After all, the terrorist threat is at home, as the Prime Minister highlighted in his earlier statement. The problem, however, is that all too often legislation strays from its original purpose. Members will be familiar, for example, with the draft Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Bill, which came before the House late in 2001. That Bill included powers that would have enabled intrusive investigations not into someone found guilty of perhaps a terrorist crime, but into anyone suspected of any crime whatever. Fortunately, after considerable pressure, that ill-considered and authoritarian part of the Bill was removed. The fact that it was included in the first place and was defended robustly by Ministers, however, highlights the potential danger of security measures. In seeking to protect us, Government can undermine the freedom that they seek to defend.
My case is not to deny that there will be times when a Government need to take on new powers. My argument is rather that, when the Government of the day judge that they need to act, there must be a counterbalance and a specific requirement that they justify why we should relinquish our freedom. My Bill would protect our freedom by creating a liberty test. That test would be simple to administer, but it would have the widest of implications.
142
My Bill would require a sponsoring Department to identify how each measure affects our freedoms. The Bill lists four specific freedoms, as those are already established in law, but they should not be regarded as exclusive. The responsible Minister would have to publish the assessment and state to the House why the benefits of the measure outweigh any loss of liberty.
The advantages of the Bill would be threefold. The first advantage would be openness. As I said earlier, with nearly 4,000 Bills or statutory instruments passing through the House each year, it is impossible for us to identify, let alone challenge, each incursion into our freedom. The issue would be forced into the public domain by including the results of the liberty test in the Bill. While we all tend to focus on the big issues—for example, compulsory identity cards—we should not lose sight of other laws that erode our freedom bit by bit. Those include the following: the laws allowing closed circuit television; the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000; the heavy-handed regulation of parish councillors under the Local Government Act 2000; the banning of hunting; and, of course, the sweeping powers of Her Majesty's Customs and Excise. Each of those measures chips away at our freedom to go about our lawful daily lives without fear of Government interference. This Bill would enable everyone—Members of the House, media and public alike—to understand how each and every proposed law would affect us.
The second benefit of the Bill would be to effect a lasting cultural change in Whitehall and to re-establish a presumption of freedom. At present, there is no requirement on our civil service or Ministers to give specific consideration to the impact of legislation on freedom, or for Ministers to explain why a new law is justified in diminishing our liberty. My Bill would help to change that culture, and would put every demand that "something must be done" into the context of a presumption in favour of existing liberties.
The third benefit would be improved accountability. The ministerial statement that I described earlier would, of course, help the House in its efforts to scrutinise each and every measure. Just as importantly, however, the Bill would enable us to measure the overall impact of new rules and regulations, right across Government. This measure—what I call a "liberty audit"—would enable us and those we represent to understand how the balance is changing year on year between our personal freedom and the power of government. After all, we already count the cost to business of legislation in the form of regulatory impact assessments, so is it not now time that we measured the effect of government on our freedom?
All too often, Parliament today resembles a legislative factory, acting always with good intentions but often in the misguided belief that new laws are the answer when all too often they are the problem. This Bill would reverse that trend. By making our freedom an explicit factor in the preparation of Bills, the Bill would help to change the culture of Whitehall. By requiring Ministers personally to justify any loss of freedom, it would improve accountability, and, by applying this test across all UK laws, it would, for the first time, allow us to measure the overall impact of laws, rules and regulations in our lives.

143
I believe that this Bill would provide a simple, but effective means of restoring the true role of Parliament as the champion of liberty in our country. For that reason, I commend the Bill to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Mark Prisk, Mr. Graham Brady, Mr. Peter Lilley, Angela Watkinson, Mr. George Osborne, Peter Bottomley, Mrs. Marion Roe, Mr. Bill Wiggin and Mr. Stephen O'Brien.

PROTECTION OF FREEDOMS
Mr. Prisk accordingly presented a Bill to require each item of legislation to be subject to a statement as to how each measure included in it affects the freedom of expression, assembly, conscience and association; and why the benefits of the measure outweigh any loss of freedom. And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 7 March, and to be printed [Bill 60].
Orders of the Day
  Communications Bill
  As amended in the Committee, considered.
  Communications Bill
    New Clause 3

      COMPOSITION OF SERVICES IN RADIO MULTIPLEXES
      (1) Section 54 of the 1996 Act (conditions attached to radio multiplex licences) shall be amended as follows.
      (2) For paragraph (h) of subsection (1) (conditions as to composition of service) there shall be substituted—
      "(h) that, while the licence is in force, at least the required percentage of the digital capacity on the frequency or frequencies on which the service is broadcast is used, or left available to be used, for the broadcasting of services falling within subsection (1A)."
      (3) After that subsection there shall be inserted—
      "(1A) The services falling within this subsection are—

      (a) digital sound programme services;

      (b) simulcast radio services;

      (c) programme-related services; and

      (d) relevant technical services."

      (4) In subsection (2) (meaning of services referred to in paragraph (h) of subsection (1))—

      (a) for "paragraph (1)(h)" there shall be substituted "subsection (1A)"; and

      (b) in subparagraph (i), for the words from "(within" to "1990 Act" there shall be substituted "(within the meaning of section 240 of the Communications Act 2003)".

      (5) After that subsection there shall be inserted—
      "(2A) In subsection (1)(h), the reference to the required percentage is a reference to such percentage equal to or more than 80 per cent. as OFCOM—

      (a) consider appropriate; and

      (b) specify in the condition."

      (6) In subsection (3) (power to vary percentage in subsection (1)(h))—

      (a) for "subsection (1)" there shall be substituted "subsection (2A)"; and

      (b) for "paragraph (h) of that subsection" there shall be substituted "that subsection".'—[Dr. Howells.]

      Brought up, and read the First time.
      1.47 pm
      The Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting (Dr. Kim Howells): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 158, page 265, line 12, [Clause 303], at end insert 'and'.
      No. 159, in page 265, line 13 [Clause 303], at end insert `and music'.
      No. 160, in page 265, line 16 [Clause 303], at end insert
      'taking into account the way in which the existing range of programmes and music (taken as a whole) is calculated to appeal to a variety of tastes and interests'.
      No. 181, in page 266, line 6 [Clause 304], leave out from 'services' to end of line 8.

      145
      No. 182, in page 266 [Clause 304], leave out lines 20 to 30.
      No. 162, in page 267, line 4 [Clause 304], after 'news', insert 'and music'.
      Government amendment No. 65.
      Government amendment No. 68.
      Dr. Howells: I will deal first with new clause 3. At present, clause 239 allows the Secretary of State to set a minimum percentage of television multiplex capacity that must be devoted to broadcasting services and not, for instance, to data services. The Office of Communications may set a higher percentage in a particular licence, but not a lower one. There is a no similar provision for radio, and consequently any change in the percentage for broadcasting material on a radio multiplex can be made only by order.
      We now think that it would be more sensible to bring these provisions into line by replicating the television provisions for radio multiplexes. This would allow Ofcom, rather than the Secretary of State acting through Parliament, to set a higher percentage for the minimum amount of broadcasting data that must be carried on a particular radio multiplex. The percentage set by the Secretary of State would still represent the lowest percentage that could be specified in a licence.
      Amendment No. 65 corrects a minor omission from earlier drafting. Paragraph 3 of schedule 18 is a transitional provision to ensure that contracts and agreements between relevant parties are not terminated because the prevailing regime of licensing changes to one of general authorisations in cases where the contract or agreement depends on one or other of the parties holding a particular licence. Although it is mainly aimed at the holders of telecommunications licences, it also covers cases in which a Broadcasting Act licence may no longer be needed for a particular activity as a result of the Bill.
      Paragraph 3(2) of schedule 18 defines "relevant licence" for the provisions of the paragraph. The list should also include satellite radio services as defined in section 84(2)(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1990. Such licences will be abolished and most services will be provided under radio licensable content service licences. However, it is conceivable that some services that currently need a satellite radio service licence might not need a radio licensable content service licence. That outcome will be made more likely because the Bill changes the jurisdiction rules. Our minor amendment rectifies that omission so that the list of licences to which the provisions apply is comprehensive.
      Amendment No. 68 is to schedule 19 and repeals section 54(7) of the Broadcasting Act 1996 which is now superfluous.
      Rosemary McKenna: I am interested in amendment No. 65. The Minister will be aware that many hon. Members, especially those in the cross-party music group, are concerned that local radio stations play the same music throughout the country and that there is no diversity. Will he reconsider our concerns and those of the industry and require Ofcom to ensure that local music is treated in the same way as news?
      Dr. Howells: We discussed that at great length in Committee and will revisit it on Report. I know that my
      146
      hon. Friend cares passionately about the subject. I assure her that we want to do all that we can to promote and strengthen the localness and regional identity—by which I mean the cultural identity as much as anything else—of areas. As music is such an important factor in the health of broadcasting, especially radio broadcasting, we will give her suggestion serious consideration.
      Section 54(7) provides for section 94 of the 1990 Act to apply to radio multiplex services. Section 94 gives Ministers power to require radio broadcasters to include specified announcements in their services or to refrain from including specified matters in those services. The Bill reproduces section 94 in clause 326 and repeals it. The application of section 94 by section 54(7) of the 1996 Act is therefore no longer needed.
      Mr. John Greenway: New clause 3 seems sensible and will help to ensure that Ofcom has the flexibility to set higher percentages devoted to radio multiplexes which match the television arrangement, as the Minister said. However, as I said several times in Committee, we want a greater sense of urgency and a greater priority afforded to the roll-out of digital radio. The new clause would allow Ofcom to provide more digital radio opportunities if more of the multiplex was devoted to radio. I hope that the need to ensure a faster uptake of digital radio is well registered in the Minister's mind. We will need to consider his explanation of amendments Nos. 65 and 68, but we are happy to accept that they are minor drafting amendments.
      I shall speak to amendments Nos. 181 and 182, which relate to the new provisions in the Bill now renumbered as clause 304, which seek to define localness for commercial radio stations. It is fair to say that the clause is the cause of deep resentment in the commercial radio industry. The clause was not included in the original draft Bill and was added after the Scrutiny Committee did its excellent work on the draft Bill, not as a result of anything that the Scrutiny Committee said about the original draft Bill, but as a result, we strongly suspect, of the decision by the Secretary of State—a decision that we wholly applaud—to change the original three-plus-one requirement to only two-plus-one.
      That could be said to have given rise to concern that there may be a greater concentration of ownership, but the question for the House is whether the change justifies the far-reaching and, some would say, draconian powers given to Ofcom in respect of clause 304. The clause has been described by the Commercial Radio Companies Association as
      an astonishing leap from a proposed duty to protect output to a recipe for interfering in microregulation."
      The CRCA is also critical of the fact that the clause makes no reference to the views of listeners. It is surely more important to base judgments on localness—on what the listeners think—than on the entirely subjective judgment of Ofcom, notwithstanding the requirement for it to consult with persons whom it thinks may have a view.
      Mr. Nick Hawkins: As my hon. Friend knows, I have a long-standing interest both in communications, having served on the Committee that considered the previous Bill when we were in

      147
      government, and in commercial radio. I endorse my hon. Friend's comments about the concerns of commercial radio companies, and urge him to press the Government hard. It would be hugely damaging if the regulator had powers that were so draconian, yet could not take account of the views of local people. That is the crucial point.
      Mr. Greenway: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention. I hope that by the time I sit down, he will think that I have pressed the Government sufficiently hard on the matter. He intervenes at an extremely interesting point. I was about to explain to the House how we approached the issue in Committee. I commend the debates in Committee on the matter, particularly the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford and East Maldon—sorry, Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale). We had seven weeks to get that right, but I still got it wrong.
      In Committee, we sought to persuade the Minister to drop the clause. If I recall correctly, we even had a vote—quite a rare vote—in the Committee—[Interruption.] which the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) says we lost. That is correct. We were not able to persuade the Minister. He insisted that the clause should be retained.
      Not only did we win the argument, but with the help of my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley), we tried to persuade the Minister to make the provisions of the clause more akin to a longstop power for Ofcom to intervene, but to allow a self-regulatory approach, which is a key objective for Ofcom. Again, the Minister was unmoved, so today we are suggesting another approach which, although we do not agree with it, acknowledges that the clause might have some value. Let us take that as a base and assume that the clause has some value. We want to remove the elements that we and the commercial radio industry believe to be potentially the most damaging, and for which no real justification has been made—namely, the power of Ofcom to interfere in the day-to-day running of a local radio station to the extent that the station must employ local people, provide local training and development, and use
      "premises within the area or locality"
      served by the station.
      2 pm
      We are in complete agreement with the general objective that local commercial radio stations should provide a local service. The vast majority thrive because that is precisely what they do. Since serving on the Committee, I have had the opportunity to visit Scotland. I went to Radio Clyde, and I commend a visit to it to the Minister. Everyone there would be very pleased to see him, and I am sure that they would apply to him the same arguments that they applied to me. At the end of our discussion, however, it was clear that we agreed with them, whereas, at present, the Minister would not.
      Some years ago, Radio Clyde invested heavily in substantial new premises in Clydebank, and it runs its two radio stations from those excellent studios. The
      148
      programming that it offers has huge appeal to local listeners, and provides the most popular radio stations for the two age groups: Clyde 1 for the younger generation, and Clyde 2 for the older generation. I asked the presenter of a lunchtime programme why they were so popular, and why people listened to them and not to Virgin Radio, Radio 1 or other BBC stations. The answer was, "We relate to the local community. Our output relates to it, and the nature of our whole programme is local. We talk about things that people are talking about locally, rather than nationally." Notwithstanding that, the main item for discussion on the news that day was the fact that there were tanks at Heathrow airport, although I did not see any when I was there.
      John Robertson: As someone who lives only a mile and a half away from the studios that the hon. Gentleman visited, I hope that he drove through Glasgow, Anniesland and that he enjoyed that. May I ask him to cast his mind back to when we were discussing these matters in Committee? The great fear was that commercial radio would leave itself open to takeover by concerns outside this country. Working on the basis of what had happened to radio in America, it was felt that it would become centralised but still have a localness about it. Radio Clyde has been so successful owing to the fact that it is a west of Scotland radio station—or stations, as the hon. Gentleman rightly
      says that caters for local people. This American import, which could happen—I am not saying that it will, but it could—would get rid of stations such as Radio Clyde.
      Mr. Greenway: There is so much that one could say in response to the hon. Gentleman's intervention. Yes, I did enjoy my visit to Glasgow. I particularly enjoyed going to Hampden Park for the Scotland-Ireland match, although not many locals enjoyed the result. The point that I would make to him, however, is that the Radio Authority does not have such powers now, so why is it thought necessary to give them to Ofcom? The Radio Authority has not found it necessary to intervene in this way. The idea that some gabby cabby in New York could have a 10-minute phone-in to Radio Clyde because it was now being transmitted from the United States of America is complete nonsense. Radio stations will be able to provide a local service only by using people on the ground locally. The issue is whether we should be asking Ofcom to micro-manage what the commercial radio stations do to such an extent as is provided for in the Bill, or whether we should point out that local radio stations have been hugely successful and that the most successful are those that provide the most local service. Why do the measures need to extend so far?
      Mr. John Grogan: Is not the simple reason for tighter regulation that media ownership rules are loosening? Does not the hon. Gentleman fear the experience in the United States, where Clear Channel has removed most concepts of localness from many of its stations?
      Mr. Greenway: No. There are real dangers in trying to predetermine what commercial radio stations may need

      149
      to do. The issue for the regulator is content, to which the licence granted relates. That is the most important issue and the Bill provides for the powers that are needed. I urge the hon. Gentleman to read the three or four sentences that we seek to omit, which relate only to micro-managing of employees, training and premises.
      Pete Wishart: I am encouraged by the hon. Gentleman's knowledge of the radio stations of Scotland. I am sure that Radio Clyde is listening carefully to his remarks. As to local content, the hon. Gentleman seems to be referring only to the spoken word. Does he not agree that music is also important and that local acts should be included?
      Mr. Greenway: I agree with the hon. Gentleman's sentiment and will mention music later. It should not come as a surprise to any hon. Member that a Conservative party spokesman is familiar with the United Kingdom as a whole because we believe in precisely that.
      Given the track record of local commercial radio stations such as Radio Clyde and Radio Forth, it is something of an insult—at the very time when the Government are promising a light-touch regulatory future—to give Ofcom such far-reaching powers as would allow it to question and determine who a station employs, how much and where employees are trained, and how premises are used. Those issues are not central to whether or not a station can be defined as providing a local service—which is determined by reference to content and the relationship between a station and its listeners. Those are matters that the broadcasters themselves should be allowed to determine. As long as a broadcaster provides content output that listeners believe to be local, that should be the test when determining whether or not a station meets the local content requirement.
      In Committee, members of the Front Benches across parties agreed that Government and Parliament must be careful not to impose regulatory requirements on commercial television and radio broadcasters that may not be capable of being resourced in future. I understand the point made by the hon. Members for Selby (Mr. Grogan) and for North Tayside (Pete Wishart) that a greater concentration of ownership may mean that some studios may not be as local as now. However, given the harsh commercial realities under which many stations operate, surely that is for them to determine. They will not be successful in providing a local service unless they have local people on the ground. Interestingly, Radio Clyde—having moved to Clydebank—would now like a studio in Glasgow city centre, as that is where many of the people they want to interview are based. Scottish Television makes great use of its studio in Edinburgh for interviewing MSPs for local news and current affairs opt-outs. It seems physically impossible to provide a local service without a local presence but that is for the broadcasters to sort out, not a matter for interference by the regulator.
      Mr. Hawkins: Does my hon. Friend agree that in the early days of successful local commercial radio the commercial freedoms that he has argued for both on Report and in Committee made smaller stations most
      150
      effective? He has given examples from Scotland, and I would point to a station that I knew well in the past—Radio Wave in Blackpool, which was successful because it had the very freedoms that would now be micro-managed, as proposed by the Government. We are opposed to that.
      Mr. Greenway: As ever, my hon. Friend is extremely helpful and has added to my argument.
      Commercial radio is not hugely profitable. To make money, it has to be extremely successful. Success is achieved by offering something different—the local service. We should give broadcasters more credit for what they have achieved and ensure that the obligations—the longstop powers for Ofcom—agreed in the Bill are proportionate and necessary. The provisions in clause 304 are too prescriptive and give Ofcom too much power to micro-manage the workings of individual radio stations. As I have already said, I know of no difficulty experienced by the Radio Authority in ensuring localness in the past, and no case has been made for Ofcom to have such powers of interference in future. We therefore urge the Government to think again. I believe that they will encounter difficulty in relation to the clause in the other place, and it would be helpful if the Minister could signal his willingness to reconsider the matter, especially as the clause, as I have already said, was not subject to pre-legislative scrutiny.
      Turning briefly to amendments Nos. 158 to 160, and amendment No. 162, I sympathise with hon. Members who are concerned about the interests of the music industry, especially about local music. Local bands feature prominently on local radio, more so on commercial radio than on the BBC as a matter of fact. I hope that Ofcom will keep in mind the views of the House when assessing and judging the quality of local service provision. It is unthinkable that "local material"—the definition used in clause 304—should be interpreted to exclude local music. Putting it more positively, music is the mainstay of much radio content, to answer the point made by the hon. Member for North Tayside in his intervention. Local music contributes greatly to the local material on local radio.
      Dr. Howells: It does not.
      Mr. Greenway: Perhaps it needs to feature more, but I would be surprised if the Minister said that local material, as defined in the Bill, should not include music—it should. Whether the word "music" needs to be added to that definition is a matter for the House to determine when it has heard the arguments that are about to be made by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Anniesland (John Robertson). However, we have considerable sympathy with the concerns of the music industry. As I have already said, in my experience, commercial radio stations—clause 304 applies to them, not to the BBC—are doing more to promote local music than the BBC.
      John Robertson: I should like to draw the House's attention to my entry in the Register of Members' Interests. May I also add that British Music Rights gave me a ticket to last Thursday's Brit awards, which helped me to compile the information that I am about to use? I had an excellent time.

      151
      May I tell the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) that while he was enjoying the Scotland-Ireland game in Glasgow, I was in my office in London enjoying the England-Australia game on television? I know that he would get back to me if I did not mention that.
      2.15 pm
      I wish to speak to amendments Nos. 158 to 160, and amendment No. 162, which I tabled with my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. Dhanda), who unfortunately cannot be here as he is away on constituency business. The Bill could damage British music creators if it is not amended. A letter, which was also sent to me, has appeared in the Financial Times. In it, Mr. Tony Hadley, who used to be the lead singer of Spandau Ballet, said:
      "Looking at the music business now, I realise how lucky we were when we started Spandau Ballet in the early eighties. We found our audience through a vibrant live music scene and through national and local radio stations playing music which, like ours at the time, was outside the mainstream. Musicians today have far fewer opportunities, and the Government's approach to the Communications Bill threatens them still further when it should instead be a great opportunity."
      Michael Fabricant: Will the hon. Gentleman go further back in time and acknowledge the role of stations such as Radio Caroline and Radio London, without which we would never have heard of the Who or even the Beatles?
      John Robertson: The hon. Gentleman is all too familiar with those radio stations. I could mention Radio Scotland, which was based somewhere in the Irish sea, and Stuart Henry, who was a great DJ from our parts. I agree with the hon. Gentleman, and commend those stations.
      Mr. Hadley continued:
      "Opening up our radio market to US competitors"—
      I alluded to that in my intervention on the hon. Member for Ryedale—
      "when the US does not grant the same rights to European operators is just foolish. US operators will do here what they have done in their home market—buy up stations, merge their operations, centralise and computerise their programming, and generate their playlists entirely from computers."
      I expressed concern about that in my intervention. Mr. Hadley concluded:
      "UK artists will undoubtedly lose out to US artists and both musical diversity and local character will also suffer. Fewer operators means fewer stations, fewer types of records played, fewer opportunities and lower earnings for UK performers. All for absolutely no corresponding benefit whatever for UK music or audiences."
      A letter in The Guardian today signed by 29 professional artists says:
      "The government's proposed changes to the radio sector make it all the more crucial that the BBC deliver on its local and regional remit to support the arts. The current bill offers a great opportunity for the government to do something. Yet it seems deaf so far to our pleas."
      Mr. Hawkins: I have been listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman. What he has just said about the BBC
      152
      and its responsibility for its remit leads me to ask whether he has received letters from his constituents complaining bitterly that the BBC is dumbing down and chasing ratings, and that we are losing the best public service aspects that used to be the hallmark of the BBC? I am receiving lots of letters like that—is he?
      John Robertson: I have received letters. If they were only about the BBC, I would not be so concerned, as we could tackle that, but they are about problems across the board, including those experienced by commercial radio stations. However, the hon. Gentleman is correct.
      The letter in The Guardian continues:
      "An NOP opinion poll in January found that 68 per cent. of 15 to 24-year-olds want to hear a wider variety of music played on general radio stations, and some 72 per cent. of people would support measures to encourage local radio stations to cover local music. It is time this government started listening."
      Following my contribution today, I hope that that will be addressed.
      The Bill may have been amended to provide reassurance to other creators, primarily independent television producers, but the introduction of relatively stiff content regulation has not been extended to cover music. Given the Government's deregulatory approach to foreign ownership and consolidation, particularly in relation to the radio sector, the omission of any consideration of, or means of redress for, music creators isworrying. If one asks people what single thing has had the biggest influence or effect on them, most would say music. The young in particular are influenced by the music industry. At a time when politics is not, shall we say, high on their list of priorities, is it any wonder that they switch off when we cannot even be bothered to consider their favourite pastime?
      The amendments to clauses 303 and 304 are intended to counteract the potential for consolidation in the local radio market undermining musical diversity and local character. They are intended to act as a vital counterbalance to the power that the regulation will give the larger players to control access to, and thereby access within, the UK music market. The Bill defines a local radio operator as one who broadcasts to a specific locality or region within the United Kingdom, not nationwide. Given the technology that exists even now in both digital and internet radio, enabling people to listen to some so-called local stations from anywhere in the country, that premise is surely outdated before even being introduced. No matter how we seek to define it, for music creators local radio is a crucial route to national exposure.
      My amendments are important for two reasons. They would provide support for music at grass-roots level, encouraging local stations to cover local musicians and musical events and, more crucially, to support the British repertoire. The more airplay our artists are given, the more likely they are to succeed in the United Kingdom, in Europe, in—importantly—the United States and, indeed, in the world as a whole, and the more likely they are to contribute to the UK economy.
      I stress that this is not about setting quotas, as the French do. It is simply about giving our artists a better chance of breaking through. As was pointed out by the living legend Tom Jones, whom I saw at the Brit awards last week, "If you don't get played you don't have a career—it's as simple as that."

      153
      Amendments Nos. 158, 159 and 160 are intended to enable Ofcom to prevent the diversity of music from being diminished. Diversity of service results from careful approval of a range of programme applications.
      Pete Wishart: I, too, had the good fortune to attend the Brit awards on Thursday night; it was indeed a very enjoyable event. When I listen to local radio stations. however, I struggle to detect much local character and content, and presumably more foreign investment and ownership will cause local programming to decline further. Can the hon. Gentleman suggest any ways of encouraging local radio stations to include much more local content in their schedules?
      John Robertson: The hon. Gentleman is a former member of Runrig, a band whose compact discs I have in my house. I enjoyed his music, along with that of his fellow artists.
      It is difficult to force people to play certain music, and some would say that we were misusing our power if we did so. Last night I was present at a meeting with a telecom group, attended by the new chair of Ofcom. He agreed that local music must be given a chance, and said he would look favourably on any complaint that that was not happening. Perhaps the Minister will consider that when reports are produced on the extent of diversity among radio stations throughout the country. Who knows? Perhaps one day a private Member's Bill will be presented here with the aim of bringing about what the hon. Member for North Tayside (Pete Wishart) wants.
      My amendments are intended to tighten the conditions that an applicant must meet in order to secure Ofcom's approval of mid-term changes in the character of a programme service. That would mean a requirement for Ofcom, before approving any mid-term licence changes, to be satisfied that the departure would not narrow the range of programmes and music available, by way of relevant independent radio services, to persons living in the area or locality for which the service was to be provided. Service providers should honour their licence commitments in regard to diversity, unless Ofcom is genuinely satisfied that all the conditions under clause 303(3) have been taken into account in a properly balanced way.
      Clause 304 gives Ofcom a general duty to promote and protect the local content and character of local radio, specifically news broadcasts. However, the current definition of local material regrettably fails to provide the crucial safeguard for musical creativity and diversity. It is interesting to compare the conclusions of recent research carried out by commercial radio companies that want the clause removed—the hon. Member for Ryedale mentioned that—with those of the music industry, which wants it amended to mention music specifically. I wholeheartedly agree with that proposal.
      The radio industry survey revealed that most young people no longer consider radio to be an important source of news. As I said earlier, however, an NOP world poll found that 68 per cent. of those aged between 15 and 24 would like to hear a wider variety of music on the radio. Perhaps if we supplied that variety the young
      154
      would see radio stations in a different light, and as well as making local music available to young listeners we politicians might become accessible to them.
      Michael Fabricant: Having implicitly criticised the BBC Light programme when I mentioned Radio Caroline and Radio London, I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman agrees that Radio 1 is performing a valuable role in broadcasting more experimental and less mainstream music than many independent stations.
      John Robertson: I shall have to take the hon. Gentleman's word for that. I have now reached the age at which the music broadcast by Radio 2 becomes more one's kind of music. Radio 1's slot on the dial is sadly ignored these days: I am obviously getting very old. I understand what the hon. Gentleman means, however. I do not share the fears apparently felt by some of his colleagues about the BBC; I quite enjoy its coverage. My greatest fear is that it will be dumbed down, and will become a national rather than a local and regional service—covering, of course, not just regions but nations. That is intended for my nationalist colleagues on the Opposition Benches.
      While music may be given appropriate recognition by Ofcom as material relevant to the definition in clause 304, I do not think the clause properly reflects the significance that music clearly has for the public—particularly younger audiences—in the context of local radio services. For the avoidance of doubt, Ofcom should be specifically required to take account of local music when drawing up guidance for radio stations on local material.
      In amendment No. 161, which unfortunately was not selected, and in amendment No. 162, which was, I have sought to incorporate a safeguard for local jobs and skills in the music sector. The employment or use of local people is one of the determining factors in the requirement for local links to have been observed, but it is also important for that to reflect the way in which local radio provides a vital platform for the performance of local musicians and new bands that are establishing local fan bases.
      I commend what the Government have done and the scrutiny of the pre-legislative Committee. Along with many Members on both sides of the House, however, I was disappointed by the omission of music. Music is singularly the most important thing in most people's lives, as I have said. We think that it is nice to talk about politics, but then again, we would, wouldn't we? Fortunately, I doubt whether there is a single Member of this House who does not regard music as one of the greatest influences in their lives, particularly during their formative years.
      I hope that the Minister will take on board what I have said about our amendments, and that he will examine the issue and ensure that the word "music" appears in the Bill, and that musicians and local radio stations are encouraged to ensure that we develop a strong and vibrant music industry.
      2.30 pm
      Mr. Richard Allan: I rise to express sympathy with the amendments moved by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Anniesland (John

      155
      Robertson), and to express our view that the amendments on local commercial radio moved by the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) should be resisted. As it stands, clause 304 provides quite a good arrangement for Ofcom's powers in respect of local radio. The hon. Member for Ryedale was right to point out that these discussions are continuations of those that began in Committee.
      The hon. Member for Glasgow, Anniesland was right to point out that news may no longer be the principal item of local interest on radio stations. He put me in mind of a report that I read yesterday on the transition that is taking place in South Korea, where younger people in particular are turning to the internet as their primary source of news media, and a similar shift may well occur in the UK. As we write legislation, we must be aware that if we define local content in terms of news, even though people are no longer turning to radio stations to look for news, we may be missing the point. That strengthens the hon. Gentleman's argument that local music may be a primary determining factor in people saying that they want a local service, rather than a national one. They know that on a local radio station, they will get the local music content that they may not get anywhere else.
      The hon. Member for Selby (Mr. Grogan) rightly mentioned the fear of the worst-case scenario—of what might happen if these powers are not given to Ofcom and that is why we want to resist the amendments moved by the Conservatives. In a sense, we have to return to the underlying principle, which is that a radio spectrum broadcasting licence is a privilege. There is a limited supply of such licences, and conditions can be associated with the awarding of them that express certain public goods that go beyond those that the market alone might provide. Indeed, where the market alone does provide local radio stations that use local people, work from local premises, provide local music content, and so on, there is no reason for Ofcom to intervene. However, we have a legitimate fear, based on the experience of other countries, that that might not always remain the case. Owners of radio stations could seek to break down the local infrastructure, which is why provisions that extend the public good beyond mere content by referring to other requirements are significant.
      The hon. Member for Ryedale said that we should talk only about content, but we disagree. In other areas, particularly local television production, we are going beyond the field of content by saying that a licence can have associated conditions that go beyond mere content of the material put out by referring to the media infrastructure. The awful phrase "media ecology" was used in Committee—I do not know whose fault it was; I certainly do not want to claim ownership of it—but it is true that elements such as the skill bases in local media and the associated training take a very long time to build up.
      As I said in Committee, I am particularly sensitive to this issue. I come from Sheffield, which has quite a good media environment. A couple of local universities—Sheffield and Sheffield Hallam—have great media schools, but we are not the regional capital. The regional capital is Leeds, and even a reduction in local content that moved everything up to Leeds would be
      156
      significantly to our disadvantage. As a result, a young Sheffielder who wanted to get into music. the media or broadcasting could be discouraged, because there would be nothing on his or her doorstep. It is essential that we retain localness, and 1 hope that we can keep clause 304 as it is. We hope that these powers will not have to be used in any significant way, and that Ofcom can adopt a very light touch. The media environment will be such that local radio licence holders will in any case want to do all the right things. However, we have to be prepared to use back-stop powers in situations where owners decide to do things differently and seek to withdraw local services for financial reasons. I do not believe that Ofcom would be so silly as to realise the fear that has been expressed by making the conditions so onerous that they put everybody out of business. That would be a nonsense. The reality is that there are plenty of bidders for limited spectrum local licences that are, as I said, in effect privileges. It is entirely right that we have a regulating public body that ensures that, in return for that privilege, we extract certain public goods that the market on its own may not deliver in all circumstances.
      Mr. Andrew Lansley: I want to offer a word of support for my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway), who spoke to amendments Nos. 181 and 182, and to speak briefly about the other amendments. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Anniesland (John Robertson) advanced a very good argument for the inclusion of music in material for local radio broadcasting, and I do not disagree with the desirability of that. Of his various amendments, I hope that the House and the Government will incline towards amendment No. 162, so as to make it clear that music is comprised especially within the definition of local material. I cannot go along with him on amendment No. 160, however. If we start to litter the Bill with references to the desirability of appealing
      "to a variety of tastes and interests",
      one wonders why that objective was elevated to a general duty in clause 3. If that duty is included in clause 3, it should be one of Ofcom's strongest considerations in taking into account a range of other matters. I therefore see no need to repeat the provision in clause 303.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale put forward a very strong argument concerning the manner in which Ofcom should regulate the local content and character of services. Given the desire expressed in clause 6 to maintain only those regulatory burdens that are necessary, it seems entirely inconsistent for Ofcom to be asked elsewhere in the Bill not only to pursue a purpose—the maintenance of local programming and content—but to specify precisely how that is to be achieved. My hon. Friend is seeking to remove from the Bill not the purpose of local programming, but Ofcom's effective obligation to specify training, employment, premises, and so on. In setting up Ofcom, it is clear that we must try to move away from that, and try instead to extend commercial freedom in terms not only of ownership, but of the manner in which such stations are run.
      The hon. Member for Glasgow, Anniesland will recall from our deliberations in Committee examples such as 'Clear Channel', in Australia. It may have set out with a

      157
      commercial desire and an imperative to cut costs that led to centralisation, but in so far as the result was a reduction in localness, it proved to be a commercial danger and a handicap to those services. The argument rests on the commercial imperative of localness as part of local radio stations. In the absence of it, any amount of legislation will not lead to localness. If it exists, we do not need to legislate for it to happen. If we pursue local content as a purpose, Ofcom will be able to regulate with a very light touch, because it will discover that that is what the radio stations themselves are setting out to achieve.
      The Minister took us briefly through new clause 3 at the beginning of his comments, but I must confess that I am still unsure about the purpose of it. The Broadcasting Act 1996 provides for a 90 per cent. prescribed percentage for digital multiplex services. In 1998, that was reduced to 80 per cent. by way of statutory instrument. The nature of the argument is how far can one go while still retaining the necessary digital capacity to ensure not only the provision of services, but the CD quality of digital audio broadcasting, and the bit rate available for it. Those matters are quite technical, and it can happen over time that the parameters change, not only commercially but technically.
      Section 54 of the Broadcasting Act made it possible for the Secretary of State to come to Parliament to change the percentage up or down, but the Minister is asking us to remove the ability to take that percentage below 80 per cent. I cannot construct an argument for why it would be necessary to go below 80 per cent., but changes in technology could mean that the requisite quality for digital audio broadcasting could be achieved with a lower bit rate and, at the same time, the simulcast of television services was considered desirable. It does not automatically follow that because something is broadcast on television, there is no demand to listen to it. For example, some people like to listen to news programmes from the television and others are happy to listen to soaps, perhaps with additional commentary, but not to watch them. Such services are not included in the list. It does not automatically follow that 80 per cent. is now and for all time the minimum percentage of capacity on the digital multiplex that is required for those particular services. I am, therefore, slightly concerned that the Minister is attempting to remove that flexibility.
      Michael Fabricant: One of the attractions of the Bill was the light touch that it would give to Ofcom, so I am a little concerned that there will now be a little too much prescription. Hon. Members have made some interesting points. I especially liked the comments from the hon. Member for Glasgow, Anniesland (John Robertson), who mentioned the need for experimentation in music. It is its unique funding—as the BBC would call it—that enables Radio 1 to support that, and it is to be congratulated on it. Other, commercially funded, radio stations are attempting to do the same. However, it would be wrong for the Government or Ofcom to try to prescribe programming policy.
      Ofcom makes the decision when it issues the licensing agreement in the first place. Once the agreement is made, it must be up to the independent radio broadcaster to decide for itself how to maximise its audience. As my
      158
      hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) said, the imperative for independent broadcasters is to be commercial. Ofcom can legislate as much as it likes, but it will do no good if a radio station goes out of business—as has happened with Centre FM, which was based in Leicester, and Gwent Broadcasting in Wales. The old Independent Broadcasting Authority tried to prescribe too much the sort of programming that those radio stations should put out. As a consequence, their overheads were too high and the advertising revenues they received were not enough to sustain cashflow and allow the stations to broadcast.
      Mr. Simon Thomas: The hon. Gentleman is making an important point about the commercial aspect of radio broadcasting, but that is only one side of the coin. The spectrum is owned by the nation and sold or licensed to those who wish to make profits from it. That is an effective use of the market to deliver a service to a wide number of people, but we must acknowledge an ongoing public service remit throughout all aspects of broadcasting. It is stronger in the BBC and weaker in commercial radio, but still present. We must ensure that the Bill contains a framework sufficient to ensure the relevance of local broadcasting, whether commercial or not.
      Michael Fabricant: The hon. Gentleman raises an interesting point. It is almost a philosophical question. One could argue that if a radio station is popular and pulling in a large audience, it is providing a public service. One could also argue that if a radio station is broadcasting in the Reithian tradition of programmes that people ought to hear but it has no listeners, it is not providing a public service. As in all things, it is a question of balance. The thrust of the hon. Gentleman's question is right. There is a duty of care, including the need to ensure that the spectrum, which is one of the nation's assets, is used wisely. That includes the content of programming, such as music and news, and its localness—or indeed its Welshness, as the hon. Gentleman would have it.
      If a radio station is solely funded through the sale of advertising time, it must be popular. It is not for Ofcom to impose conditions that would force the station into bankruptcy, because it would provide no public service if that happened.
      2.45 pm
      John Robertson: We need a balance between what is local and what is popular. I am concerned that the popular takes over and the local is forgotten. Therefore, we need someone who oversees the matter and Ofcom will be in an excellent position to do that. It will have a light touch, but it is necessary. One of the great successes of the local radio stations that have survived is their identification of local audiences. The radio stations that fell by the wayside made the mistake of trying to be too popular.
      Michael Fabricant: I disagree with the hon. Gentleman when he draws a distinction between local and popular as though they were mutually exclusive. They are not. As my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire pointed out, Clear Channel in Australia—if not in the United States—discovered that

      159
      a more centralised programming format, with all its output coming from Melbourne, proved to be unpopular. The whole point is that local can be popular. Ofcom should be a regulator, but it should have a light touch. The House would be right to resist anything that would mean Ofcom could interfere in the day-to-day programming of radio or television broadcasting.
      Dr. Howells: I wish to set the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) straight on the origin of the appalling phrase "broadcasting ecology". I suspect that it was born on the media pages of The Guardian, but it was nurtured on the south-facing slopes of the Rhondda by the hon. Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant), who took an inordinate interest in that ecology. The hon. Gentleman reminded us of the great difficulties in trying to balance the question of localness and the worthy Reithian principle, with the hard realities of broadcasting in a commercial world. I congratulate him on having done that with great clarity.
      Amendments Nos. 158 to 160 were tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Anniesland (John Robertson). Among other things, clause 303 sets out the factors that Ofcom must take into account before agreeing to a request for changes to the character of a licensed radio service. A licence will contain conditions that are appropriate to securing that the character of a licensed service, as proposed by the licence holder when making his or her application, is maintained. Ofcom will be able to vary those conditions if, and only if, the departure would not substantially alter the character of the service or narrow the range of programmes available, which is an important consideration. The departure in the case of local licences would need to be conducive to maintaining or promoting fair competition or require evidence of significant local support for the change.
      The final two elements added by the new clause are new factors for Ofcom to consider. The Government accept the case for some further relaxation to make it easier for licence holders to respond to local audience expectations and demand. In well-developed major markets, Ofcom will now also be able to allow format changes in mainstream stations to facilitate competition. That could result in stations going head to head, where it is felt that that would be beneficial to competition and to listeners.
      Amendment No. 160 proposes that Ofcom should take into account the effect of any proposed changes on the range of programmes and music offered by a service. I have sympathy with the intention behind the amendment. It is clearly important that Ofcom takes into account the effect of any changes on the range of a station's music output. However, that in essence is what Ofcom will have to do under the new clause as drafted, as its purpose is to guide Ofcom in its consideration of changes to the character of commercial radio services.
      We all know that commercial radio is about music. It would be impossible for Ofcom to consider the effect of a change in the range of programmes without also considering the range of music on offer. In this context, the two are virtually synonymous, and I do not consider that the amendment would add anything substantial or
      160
      usable to Ofcom's range of powers. However, I fully expect that, in considering these issues, Ofcom will consider the implications for music.
      I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Anniesland on raising a matter on which discussion of the Bill has been slow to touch. However, I spend much time travelling around the country, as do many hon. Members. I always listen to my car radio, and there is an incredible sameness and blandness about the music on offer everywhere.
      I recently attended the biggest meeting of representatives from the music industry that I have ever attended. They banged their gums about the need to protect local music on radio. I asked what they meant by the term "local music", and no one came up with a clear answer. Does it mean British music or European music? Wherever I go, I hear the same sort of music on the radio.
      I have great respect for the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway), but I got lost when he compared the BBC and commercial stations, which have different set-ups. Classic FM is an exception among commercial stations, as I think it was bailed out by American money when no British money was available. I think of Radio 3, and my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Anniesland—who is getting old and past it—has talked about Radio 2. The subject of music and creativity is often discussed on Radio 4, which also some very good arts programmes. I do not see that variety in commercial radio in general. Indeed, I have gone on record with my disappointment about what has happened to Jazz FM. There is an incredible blandness through the day. It still has some decent jazz after 7 pm, thank God, but it disappoints people looking for variety in music, and for specialist music on some channels.
      Mr. John Whittingdale: I was also present at last week's Brit awards, which demonstrate what British music is capable of. The BBC has a duty to promote different sorts of music. Radio 1 is a good example, but commercial stations, in the end, are obliged to attract listeners. This debate is more a commentary on the sad state of British music, a lot of the blame for which I attach to programmes such as "Pop Idol" and the various reality TV shows. London has a number of good commercial stations, such as XFM. It provides a very different type of non-chart music and is an example of how a commercial station can provide opportunities that are not always available on the BBC, let alone any other station.
      Dr. Howells: I agree, and I know that the hon. Gentleman is an avid listener to contemporary music on the radio, as he told us so in Committee. His analysis is broadly correct, and I was careful to say that, in general, the commercial stations around the country to which I listen have a sameness about them. However, the hon. Gentleman is right to say that there are exceptions, and they prove the rule.
      Mr. Simon Thomas: I should like to mention one such exception. I listen to Radio 1 on my way back to my constituency on a Thursday evening, because it opts out and becomes a Welsh station. Bethan Elfyn's two-hour programme covers the Welsh music scene. The

      161
      programme is very popular, with live bands, reports and reviews and so on. It shows that the BBC can do such things, in contradiction of the contention from the hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale). Commercial radio could act in the same way.
      Dr. Howells: Yes, indeed. I shall take no more interventions on the matter, as I am sure that many stations could be mentioned, but the hon. Gentleman is right: the programme is excellent and a real innovation. I hope that the policy of BBC Wales to nurture local bands and talent will continue, and that it will be replicated around the country. That is happening in some areas.
      I note that it has been stated that the amendment would also ensure that Ofcom must be satisfied that all conditions are fulfilled before agreeing to any changes in licences. That is not so, but let us look at the intention. The proposed change would be more restrictive than the current legislation. I have heard no convincing reason why we should take such a retrograde step, which would mean that there could be no departure from the character of a station, even if a change would promote competition, or if there was evidence that people in an area would significantly support that change.
      The hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) gave an example of a programme that has a cult following in Wales. If it were a commercial station, and the amendment were accepted, would we say that the change was not in the original licence condition? We must be very careful and flexible about such matters, so that we do not tie ourselves down to a regime that would not allow the degree of flexibility and innovation that the hon. Gentleman described. If there is considerable local demand for a change, why should the regulator be prevented from agreeing to it? That would be self-evidently wrong.
      The hon. Member for Ryedale moved amendments Nos. 181 and 182. We discussed the issues involved at some length in Committee. There is no difference of opinion between me and the hon. Gentleman about the importance of local radio to the community that it serves, nor about the overriding need for local radio to be genuinely local. We do not disagree either about the need for a code to safeguard localness—at least, I do not recall any such disagreement in Committee. We agreed that the code should be designed to ensure that programmes consisting of local material would be included in local services.
      I am pleased that the importance and desirability of such a code is widely recognised. That should go a long way towards protecting the vital localness of local radio, regardless of who owns it. That very important point was stressed by the hon. Member for Ryedale, as that localness is what we have to protect. The disagreement hinges on what else the code should contain. We agree that it should cover outputs, but not about whether it should also cover what we call inputs. I want to concentrate on the nub of the disagreements—the importance of inputs—as all the rest is broadly agreed.
      First, I shall explain what I mean by the terms "inputs" and "outputs". A station's output is essentially what one hears coming out of the speakers—the music, the news, the travel and weather updates and local
      162
      information, and everything else that one hears on switching to a local radio station. We all agree that such material should have a genuine local flavour and relevance. We believe that the code will ensure that.
      The inputs are the things that happen on the other side of the speakers. They are not necessarily heard directly, but they contribute to a station's distinctive character and give it a vital, physical presence at the heart of its community. I was perplexed by the example given by the hon. Member for Ryedale. He is right to stress how important it is that Radio Clyde feels that it should be right in the middle of the city—that it should be part of the public that it serves. That is why we have to consider carefully the inputs, which are the vital elements he talked about. They have a good effect on the character of a radio service and are good for the community that it serves.
      3 pm
      Michael Fabricant: Just for clarification, what are the inputs? The Minister defined output as being that which comes out of the loudspeakers, but what does he mean by the inputs?
      Dr. Howells: The hon. Gentleman has such a vital and energetic brain that he is leaping ahead.
      Clause 304 identifies a number of possible inputs that could be covered by the code, namely locally made programmes and local advertising, local employment opportunities, local training opportunities and the use of premises in the area. The amendment would remove some of the items from the code. The code should be able to include local employment opportunities, local training opportunities and the use of premises in the area. I stress the words "be able to". The code does not have to include them—the clause merely allows Ofcom to include them if it considers it appropriate to do so. That is an important proviso, because whether they are included is very much in the hands of the industry. The code should be able to include those matters for two reasons. First, local radio stations get their spectrum for free, as the hon. Member for Ceredigion reminded us, and therefore have an obligation to the local communities they serve that goes beyond simply playing popular music. Secondly, those factors can have a perhaps unquantifiable, but not insignificant, effect on the character and ultimately the sound of a station.
      On the first point, local radio stations are awarded licences by the Radio Authority on the basis of a beauty contest based largely on their ability to appeal to the tastes and interests of those in the area, to broaden local choice and in recognition of the degree of local support for their proposals. Unlike national licences, those licences are awarded for free—apart from the application costs, which can be hefty. In those circumstances, it is not unreasonable that certain requirements should be placed on licensees. Those stations have, in a less explicit way than TV, certain public service broadcasting obligations, and it is reasonable to expect them to have a physical presence and to provide employment opportunities and training in the locality from which, after all, they generate their profits.
      Michael Fabricant: Does the Minister accept that smaller radio stations may find that to be a particular

      163
      burden? Although he is right to say that a local radio station should have a presence, it may be based out on an industrial estate—and why not, because the outputs that he spoke about will be just the same? Does he recognise that if the burdens are too tough the radio station's output will become nil, because it will not survive?
      Dr. Howells: I entirely agree. That is why I stressed that Ofcom will have to take those issues into account when it considers particular radio stations. As both the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Ceredigion have said, there are two sides to the coin—a tightrope has to be walked, and it is not easy.
      It is not unreasonable to expect local stations to be genuinely, not virtually, local. I take the hon. Gentleman's point about being stuck out on an industrial estate, as many stations are. However, they often employ local people and despite the fact that they are on an industrial estate they are nevertheless regarded as part of the infrastructure of the community. In my experience, those are important elements.
      On my second point, real links with the local community can have a subtle impact on the quality of stations. In other words, the more physically local a station is, and the more roots that it has in its community, the better it will reflect the community's needs and wishes. It has long been recognised in broadcasting regulation that inputs have a clear and definite effect on outputs. To quote the Commercial Radio Companies Association in another context, "You are what you eat." That is why we have quota requirements for public service broadcasting in terms of television and regional production.
      The industry has argued that localness is its bread and butter—its unique selling proposition—and that it does not need the regulator or the Government to tell it how to be local. However, the fact that the industry is opposed to the code including inputs shows that its view of localness is narrower than ours. We are about to enter a new world for radio, as my hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Grogan) said. The ownership rules have been and are being radically overhauled. We listened to representations from the industry and relaxed our original proposals, which were tighter than our latest proposals, and which already represented an enormous liberalisation so as to allow for the possibility—I hope that it does not come to pass—of two large radio groups dominating the UK market. If we do not take steps to prevent it, that level of concentration could lead to a drift away from localness. Many local radio stations strive to be more local. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam gave an important example when he pointed out that there is an enormous difference between the idea of localness if one lives in the city of Sheffield and the idea of localness if one regards Leeds as the most vibrant commercial centre of the region—in effect, its capital.
      Localness is the most expensive part of programming, so there is arguably a commercial incentive to do as little as one can consistent with maintaining audiences at a viable level. We have already seen nationwide playlists for local stations, the removal of local station managers in favour of national brand managers and extensive computer-driven automation of services. That has not
      164
      been mentioned, but it is up and running. In the situation of a national near-duopoly, there could be a further drift away from the parts of programming that are expensive. One may think that if the other side is doing it, it is better from a business point of view to do the same and to cut costs accordingly, especially if one believes that local listeners are mainly interested in music—in international music, if I might use that expression. We need a localness code to prevent that from happening.
      That brings me to an important aspect of the code. It does not have to include factors to which Opposition Members object, but it can. The extent of its coverage will depend largely on the actions of the radio industry itself. I am already on record as having said that the code should, as far as possible, be co-regulatory. That is also the view of the industry and the regulator. Clause 6 will place Ofcom under a duty to review regulatory burdens and it will have to have regard to the extent to which its duties can be secured or furthered by effective self-regulation.
      Amendment No. 162 would make it clear that music should be specifically included in the definition of local material. I have a great deal of sympathy with that sentiment. Music is central to the output of any local radio station, and a degree of local music would be desirable in any station's output, if we are to believe the rhetoric that is put out by the commercial radio station owners. They say that localness is very important to them, so there should be no problem with their wanting to play local music. There is nothing in the Bill to prevent Ofcom from including music in the definition of local material—the hon. Member for Ryedale rightly made that point—and I would be rather surprised if it did not do so. Among other things, that would guard against playlists being concentrated in too few hands, with the result that it becomes difficult for new bands to be heard on the radio. The question turns on whether we need to put the point beyond doubt by making provision in the Bill.
      There is always a danger that the more aspects that are specified in the definition, the greater the presumption that those that are not mentioned are excluded. That is the problem, although I have a great deal of sympathy with the point. I know fanatical members of the Cabinet, whom I could ring any time, night or day, when I worked with them, but never on a Sunday evening when they listened to "Poetry Now" on Radio 4. I never rang them at that time.
      Mr. Greenway: Local sport constitutes a good illustration of the Minister's case. I am sure that he would not want to miss local commentary on Pontypridd.
      Dr. Howells: Pontypridd is a great place.
      John Robertson: I have never heard of it. I understand my hon. Friend's point about music, but his argument could apply to politics and news. Why include those subjects in the Bill? Why not simply refer to "programmes"? We believed that the definition should include news and politics. I believe that music should also be included. "Music" covers an enormous range. It could not be interpreted to exclude something

      165
      because it encompasses so much. I implore my hon. Friend to reconsider and include the word "music" somewhere in the Bill.
      Dr. Howells: I understand my hon. Friend's point. However, I am not convinced that music should be included and I am wary of over-prescription. There is no need to specify music, although I support the sentiment behind my hon. Friend's amendments. I repeat my hope and expectation that Ofcom will consider music to be an important element of local material.
      I hope that hon. Members will not press their amendments.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New Clause 4

      INVESTIGATION OF THE BBC BY THE NATIONAL AUDIT OFFICE
      `() In Part 2 of Schedule 4 to the National Audit Office Act 1983 (c. 44), the words "the British Broadcasting Corporation" shall be omitted.'—[Mr.Leigh.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Edward Leigh: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: New clause 6—BBC research on television licensing—
      it shall be the duty of the BBC annually to commission and publish independent research into the efficacy, cost effectiveness and public acceptability of television licensing in the United Kingdom subject to such conditions and restrictions as the Secretary of State may by direction require.'.
      New clause 7—OFCOM research on television licensing
      It shall be the duty of OFCOM annually to commission and publish independent research into the efficacy, cost effectiveness and public acceptability of television licensing in the United Kingdom subject to such conditions and restrictions as the Secretary of State may by direction require.'.
      New clause 8—Preserved rights in respect of certain concessionary television licence;fees—
      `(1) Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the Wireless Telegraphy (Television Licence Fees) Regulations 1997 (S.I. 1997/290) shall be amended as follows.
      (2) After entry 5 in column 1 (type of licence), there shall be inserted—
      "Television licence (including colour) (Accommodation for Residential Care (preserved rights))."
      (3) After entry 5 in column 2 (description of licence), there shall be inserted—
      "A licence to install and use television receivers at such parts of accommodation which, in whole or in part, previously met the requirements specified in entry 5 in this column, where the resident of a unit of accommodation was resident in that accommodation at the time that the accommodation or part of that accommodation met the requirements specified in entry 5 in column 2 and was paying the issue fee specified in entry 5 in column 3."
      166
      (4) After entry 5 in column 3 (issue fee), there shall be inserted—
      "£5 for each unit of accommodation occupied by a resident, as defined in Part II of this Schedule, meeting the requirements specified in column 2.".'.
      New clause 9—Public services fluid—
      '(1) The Secretary of State shall by order make provision for the establishment of a fund to be known as the Public Services Broadcasting Fund.
      (2) There shall be at least 3 trustees of the Fund and the order shall make provision for the terms of their appointment, including their remuneration.
      (3) The primary function of the Trustees shall be the making of financial contributions to groups or organisations which make or propose to make programmes of local, regional or sectional interest for inclusion in a programme service.
      (4) The Trustees shall have such other powers as may be conferred on them by the order.
      (5) The BBC shall pay to the Trustees for the Fund in January of each calendar year in accordance with the provisions of the order made under subsection (1) an amount equal to 1 per cent. of the licence fee received by the BBC in the preceding calendar year.
      (6) The Secretary of State may by order vary the percentage for the time being specified in subsection (5).
      (7) An order under this section shall not be made unless a draft of the order has been laid before Parliament and approved by a resolution of each House.'.
      Mr. Leigh: The purpose of the new clause is to enable the Comptroller and Auditor General to enjoy full value-for-money access rights to the BBC and thus to open it up to exactly the same scrutiny on Parliament's behalf as all other bodies that are funded by tax.
      I stress from the outset that we are not considering a party-political issue. There is total consensus among members of the Public Accounts Committee, on which I serve, and in both Houses that the BBC's position outside the Comptroller and Auditor General's remit is a matter for concern.
      The new clause is supported by the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel), who is in his place, my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Bacon), the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams), who is Chairman of the Liaison Committee and one of the most senior Members of the House, the hon. Member for Croydon, Central (Geraint Davies), who is in his place, the hon. Member for City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg), my hon. Friends the Members for Fareham (Mr. Hoban), and for Tatton (Mr. Osborne), the hon. Member for Tamworth (Mr. Jenkins), my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale) and the hon. Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth).
      Mr. Andrew Mitchell: A fine body of men.
      Mr. Leigh: Indeed. Those names show that there is consensus, at least on the Public Accounts Committee. Like many hon. Members, I believe that the BBC should be in the same position as other public bodies.
      Mr. John Bercow: Is the new clause confined solely to the audit of financial management in the BBC or would its purview extend to considering

      167
      whether the BBC had honoured its obligations to observe due impartiality in matters of political and industrial controversy?
      Mr. Leigh: I am grateful that my hon. Friend, with his usual perspicacity, has moved to the central argument. Let me make it clear straight away that there is no intention to undermine, affect or question the BBC's editorial independence through the new clause.
      3.15 pm
      We all acknowledge that although we may tear our hair out about various aspects of programmes that we personally dislike, including political views with which we disagree and interviews on "Today", the new clause has nothing to do with that. I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) that the Comptroller and Auditor General, who is an officer of the House, is uninterested in what happens in programmes. He simply wants to subject the BBC to the same financial scrutiny as everyone else.
      We are considering £2.5 billion of taxpayers' money, which is raised through a compulsory licence fee. Let us be honest: it is effectively a poll tax on the majority of people in the country. It is no longer sustainable to keep that large sum beyond our scrutiny. I believe that the Minister privately acknowledges that, that his civil servants recognise it and that many people in the BBC accept it. Even the current chairman of the BBC publicly acknowledged that before he took up his current position. Whatever the Minister's negotiating position, I believe that everybody realises that the time is right for the BBC to come under Parliament's scrutiny.
      For those who are not familiar with the system, the Comptroller and Auditor General audits central Government and the bodies that they fund. I am delighted that the Government have made progress. They are in the process of correcting past anomalies—for example, the Comptroller and Auditor General was not allowed to scrutinise some non-departmental public bodies or Government-owned companies. I bend over backwards not to be party political when I speak on behalf of the Public Accounts Committee. I therefore pay tribute to the Government for their tremendous progress.
      However, the position on the BBC is much less clear. The Comptroller and Auditor General has only limited rights of access, which are far short of what is necessary. He can examine the arrangements for collecting the television licence fee and the use that the BBC makes of the grant from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to support the World Service. Those are only two small aspects of the enormous empire that constitutes the BBC. He cannot examine or report to Parliament on the bulk of the BBC's spending, which amounts to £2.5 billion. That is wrong. I want to convince the Minister that we must right the wrong now.
      Michael Fabricant: Does my hon. Friend acknowledge that there is an argument, to which I do not especially subscribe, that, if the National Audit Office were allowed to investigate the BBC, it would be in a position to judge and interfere with programming
      168
      and creative policy in the corporation? Will my hon. Friend either assure me that that would not happen or at least justify the reasons for it?
      Mr. Leigh: I know that my hon. Friend takes a deep interest in those matters. He talks to senior executives in the BBC and understands their mindset. I assure him, and perhaps BBC executives through him, that we have no desire to compromise the BBC's independence or limit its creativity. It would be a retrograde step if Members of Parliament, the PAC, the Comptroller and Auditor General or anybody else tried to inhibit editorial independence. The argument that that independence would be compromised—if such an argument is being put forward—simply does not stand scrutiny. Let us consider what the CAG already does. He reports on the Arts Council and no complaint has ever been made by anybody in the Arts Council saying that the National Audit Office has been questioning their artistic judgments—[Interruption.] The Minister knows all about that. Perhaps people in the National Audit Office do not have the facility with words that he has shown on previous occasions in dealing with artistic matters, but there have never been any complaints about the activities of the CAG with regard to the Arts Council. The CAG also reports on our universities, but not a single complaint has come from any university saying that he has inhibited academic freedom. That simply has not happened.
      The editorial judgments made by the BBC would be the CAG's starting point. He would say "I am not responsible in any way for the editorial judgments that are being made", but he would provide a valuable insight into how the public funds that are at the BBC's disposal are being spent. We are outlaying all the money and we want to know that it is being spent efficiently and without waste. The CAG would provide Parliament with an independent insight into the quality of the BBC's financial management. That is what the process is all about. This House started its work a long time ago in scrutinising the Executive and trying to ensure proper financial management. There are still only two areas where Parliament does not have a right to investigate financial management where public money is used—the BBC and the civil list.
      Mr. Alan Williams: Is not the ultimate absurdity the fact that the BBC squeals at the very thought of a non-policy Committee such as ours considering its finances, but turns up to give evidence at the appropriate Select Committee, which can consider policy?
      Mr. Leigh: I am grateful that the right hon. Gentleman has mentioned that point, as I want now to deal with the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport. BBC executives have claimed that their appearances before that departmental Select Committee, which is involved in policy, while the Public Accounts Committee never is, provide some sort of accountability. I believe, however, that the appearances of BBC representatives before that departmental Select Committee have proved that, despite its best efforts, it does not have the expertise or support staff, including

      169
      the support of the National Audit Office and its 700 staff, that are necessary to provide an in-depth analysis of what is going on in the BBC's financial management.
      Mr. Brian Jenkins: Surely my friend realises that no matter how much experience, expertise and will there is, without the figures, one cannot possibly make any judgment on effective use of resources?
      Mr. Leigh: That is absolutely right; indeed, it explains why a Committee of Parliament that is supported by its own civil service in the shape of the National Audit Office is needed to investigate the BBC and ensure that £2.5 billion of our money, which we spend, is being spent properly. I understand that members of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, some of whom are present in the Chamber, agree with me and realise that they cannot provide the sort of scrutiny that would be afforded by the CAG.
      Last July, when the Culture, Media and Sport Committee took evidence from the BBC on its annual report, my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant), who is present in the Chamber, remarked to the BBC witnesses that the idea that his Committee could substitute itself for the NAO in scrutinising the BBC was—I hope that I am not misquoting him—"frankly ridiculous". That is the view of that departmental Select Committee and I entirely agree with it.
      If there were some problem with editorial independence, surely a complaint would have been made about the scrutiny that we provide in respect of the World Service. As far as I know —I have checked this matter with the National Audit Office—there has never been any complaint from the chairman or chief executive of the BBC about any findings or recommendations on the World Service ever made by the Public Accounts Committee in working on Parliament's behalf. There has never been any complaint that we have interfered in the editorial judgments or freedom of the World Service. Our work on the World Service could be regarded as a pilot study. We have been looking at the World Service for all these years, we have done our studies and we have tried to improve the service and make it work better, and never has a single complaint been made about our compromising editorial independence.
      The CAG is simply an officer of the House. He is wholly independent of the Government and is effectively appointed for life. The National Audit Office gives him complete discretion in respect of the topics that he chooses to examine, how he carries out his work and whether he produces a report. I cannot force him to undertake a particular inquiry and neither can members of my Committee. He is an independent officer and is completely outwith any sort of party political or even political process. He is supported by an expert staff. They have expertise and experience that are second to none, and we believe—I want to be helpful to the BBC—that they would add genuine value to the financial management of the BBC. We believe that they could help it. They are not bean counters who will crawl all over it and subject it to all sorts of difficulties and time-wasting processes. They can help the BBC, using all the experience of the NAO, in trying to ensure that that
      170
      great organisation, of which we are all proud in our various ways, is as modern and progressive in its financial management as any other Government body.
      Brian White: One of the criticisms made in the IT world is that fear of the Public Accounts Committee inhibits innovation and risk taking in the public sector. How does the hon. Gentleman respond to that criticism in the context of modernisation of the BBC?
      Mr. Leigh: That is a fair point and I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman has made it. The point that we make to Whitehall is that we are not risk averse—quite the contrary. We want Whitehall to take risks, as long as they are well thought out. My Committee has made numerous recommendations over the years that prove that point. We recognise that the BBC has to take risks. For example, it had to be prepared to take a risk in launching BBC News 24. All sorts of problems may be involved, but we would not create an atmosphere or background in which executives think "I am not going to launch a new television or radio channel because I might be summoned by the PAC to account for myself." If executives make mistakes and are wasteful or take decisions that result in the mishandling of tens of millions of pounds of public money, however, surely it is only right that they should be brought in front of Parliament to account for their actions.
      Why should it be the case that in one part of the public sector—the BBC is effectively a part of the public sector—executives are not held to account by shareholders, of whom there are none, and are not subject to discipline under the Companies Act 1989, but are not accountable to Parliament either? I say to them that we are not trying to prevent them from taking risks. All we are saying is that, like everybody else in the public and private sectors, they should be held to account.
      Michael Fabricant: Does my hon. Friend agree that executives who are in a position in which they can be investigated are also thereby given a degree of protection? From time to time, the corporation has been criticised on the ground that it has used public licence money to compete in the commercial market. It has always denied doing that, but it is currently its own judge and jury. Would not the locus of my hon. Friend's Committee include an investigation in that area if such an accusation were made? Does he agree that his work and that of his Committee might be more believable than that of the corporation in trying to defend itself?
      Mr. Leigh: In some ways, I feel sorry for the BBC. It is the national butt of complaints. We all complain about it, saying that it is not doing this or that right. We all have an opinion on it. One reason for resentment of the BBC—from MPs, members of the public and its private sector competitors—is that it is an entirely independent empire that is not held to financial account by anybody. It would be a defence mechanism for the BBC to come in front of a parliamentary Committee to explain its decisions.
      3.30 pm
      Dr. Howells rose
      Mr. Lansley rose—
      Mr. Leigh: I had better give way to the Minister first.
      Dr. Howells: No, it is all right.
      Mr. Lansley: Perhaps the Minister and I were about to make the same point. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh), but I do not want his argument to stretch too far. He appeared to agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant), but I think that the argument is being stretched too far. If the BBC were to use licence fee money to subsidise services in a way that went beyond its public service remit and interfered with competition, it would be subject to scrutiny from the competition authorities. This does not diminish my hon. Friend's argument, but we must be clear that there are certain BBC activities that are subject to scrutiny.
      Mr. Leigh: I accept that. If there is unfair competition, or if the BBC is acting outwith its statutory framework, there are other ways of righting the wrong.
      Dr. Howells: The hon. Gentleman's hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) second-guessed me. However, I wanted to ask the hon. Gentleman another question. This is an important debate and I am enjoying his contribution very much. He said that people should be held to account. As a veteran of the PAC, I can well imagine that, if somebody had invested in a computer system—and such systems provided great fare for the PAC in many investigations by the CAG—and millions of pounds had been lost, that would be well worth investigating. However, what about an executive who was responsible for producing a series or a top-end drama that had lost millions of pounds? How would the PAC investigate that kind of loss, where earnings could have been made from the product but were not?
      Mr. Leigh: That is an important intervention and it probably goes to the heart of what concerns BBC executives. It is difficult for me to give the House a categorical undertaking. I do not speak for the Comptroller and Auditor General in the way Ministers speak for their civil servants. I cannot tell the House exactly what the CAG would want to investigate. However, I have some experience of what he would want to investigate in other parts of the public sector. The Minister has put his finger on the central issue. I suspect that the CAG would, as the Minister suggests, be interested in the purchase of a new computer or information technology system that had not been properly thought through, resulting in major financial loss for the BBC. However, I cannot conceive of any circumstances in which the CAG would think that he had the expertise to second-guess the editorial judgment of senior executives in the BBC who had thought that a particular programme or series would be popular when in fact it was a great flop that nobody wanted to watch, leading to it being taken off the air with the waste of vast sums of money.
      We all accept that creative people have to take risks and that sometimes they will get ahead of what public opinion wants. However, why anybody in the National
      172
      Audit Office would think that they had the expertise to second-guess that kind of decision, I cannot imagine. It is not going to happen. It is not for me to speak for the CAG, but I think that I can give the Minister and the BBC that reassurance.
      Mr. Jenkins: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that it is not what is produced that we want to consider, but how it is produced? Within the enclaves of the BBC—an organisation that is protected from the rigour of the world of commercial enterprise—we want to ensure that the most effective use is made of resources that are, in effect, a donation from the taxpayer. We are critical not of the programmes but of the methods used to put them together.
      Mr. Leigh: The hon. Gentleman has put the argument far better than I could have done. What is being produced is none of our concern. We do not have the expertise to question whether a particular programme is desirable or not. However, how the BBC is run—this huge public corporation that spends £2.5 billion a year—is surely of some interest to Parliament.
      Let me describe how the Public Accounts Committee works. The PAC does not question the right of the Government to make a particular policy decision—for example, to introduce individual learning accounts. If the Government of the day want to introduce ILAs, that is for the Government. We do not question that. However, we have a perfect right to say, "You introduced ILAs but you didn't get a sufficient grip and the whole thing went out of control. There was massive fraud and the taxpayer ended up losing tens of millions of pounds." A similar argument would apply to the BBC. We will not get involved in its policy decisions. That is the key. The PAC has a defence mechanism: we never get involved in policy decisions. We will not question a particular policy decision of BBC senior management to produce a series of programmes or even to set up an entirely new service. However, we would be interested in how the programmes were produced or the service set up.
      Brian White rose—
      Mr. William Cash: I apologise for coming to the debate rather late. I heard my hon. Friend talking about policy decisions. Does he agree that it is essential that the BBC should subscribe to its charter and to the ingredients that go with it? If it does not, it will be under attack on two fronts—on impartiality and the way that the guidelines function, and on its accounts.
      Mr. Leigh: I am not going to be taken down the route of saying that we should in any way get involved in impartiality. To do so would be to defeat immediately all the arguments that I have been trying to elucidate for the past 20 minutes. It may be that the BBC is not impartial, but that is none of my business. Other mechanisms can deal with that issue, and I contend that they work perfectly well.
      My hon. Friend refers to accounts management. That is something in which Parliament has a perfect right to get involved. There is no adequate mechanism—under the charter or by any other means—to question whether things are being done properly.

      173
      Another hon. Member has tried to intervene, but I must finish soon to allow other hon. Members to contribute.
      Brian White: I want to ask about the BBC's quota of independent productions. Would the PAC be involved in monitoring those contracts? If so, what is to prevent it from becoming a sort of court of appeal for independent contractors who feel that they have been hard done by?
      Mr. Leigh: The hon. Gentleman has done a good job in presenting some fears that BBC management may have expressed. However, some people do not understand the way in which the Public Accounts Committee operates. In this country, we raise and spend the best part of £700 billion of public money every year. The PAC is only one Committee of the Parliament. We have twice as many hearings as any other Committee but we still meet only 60 times a year. I assure the hon. Gentleman, and anybody else who takes a close interest in these matters, that the PAC will not spend the whole year—or indeed a half or a quarter of the year—crawling over every aspect of the BBC, whether quotas or anything else. I suspect that, if Parliament gets this Bill right, people in the BBC will say, "Well, we'll have to be a bit careful about our financial decisions because we could be held to account." However, there will be only one hearing, or maybe two hearings, on the BBC each year. The CAG will feel his way extremely carefully. He is very attuned to all the sensitivities about his ever getting involved in editorial independence. He will not go down any route that will get him into trouble.
      Michael Fabricant: The Minister intervened on my hon. Friend to ask an interesting question from which this discussion—this sub-debate, if you like—has arisen. The Minister asked about a series, or an individual programme, that made a loss. Does my hon. Friend accept that a programme that is made for the BBC cannot, in itself, make a loss? It is not made as a commercial production, unless we have to take account of some co-production deal with, for example, an American broadcaster. Does my hon. Friend—
      Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): Order. This is rather a long intervention.
      Mr. Leigh: I agree with my hon. Friend. I cannot conceive of a situation in which the CAG would want to become involved in decisions about the way in which the BBC is run, or in which it would be appropriate or right for the CAG to question why a series of programmes had been made. We can put that canard to rest now; it simply will not happen.
      I wish to say in conclusion—I am trying to get to the end of my speech without too many interventions—that the practical and constructive work of the CAG has saved £1.5 billion over the past three years. His independence is a safeguard for the BBC and for Parliament. It is important that we keep in view the principle that lies behind the new clause: simply to increase parliamentary accountability of the BBC. In 2001–02, the licence fee raised £2.5 billion, yet although the CAG can examine its collection, he cannot look at how well the money raised is spent. That is a significant weakness in public accountability.
      174
      Arguments in favour of extending the CAG's rights of access to the BBC have been repeatedly and forcefully made on many occasions by the PAC, by the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, by Lord Sharman in his review of audit and by many others. I recognise that, in the Davies review, the BBC has been subject to some external reviews and other measures designed to improve its financial accountability, but, of course, they do not provide the ongoing parliamentary scrutiny and accountability that is needed.
      The Bill provides a unique opportunity for the House to rectify a wrong that has existed for too long. It is essential that the BBC is opened up to proper parliamentary oversight. This argument will not go away; nor should it until the requirements of the House and the licence payers whom we represent are met and the new clause is accepted.
      Jon Trickett: I rise partly to correct an omission: because of an oversight, my name did not appear in support of the new clause. I am a member of the PAC, and I would deplore any suggestion that the PAC's support for the proposal was anything but unanimous. All its members, from all parties, endorse all the points that have just been made so persuasively in making what is, frankly, an irrefutable case.
      From time to time, probably quite frequently, all hon. Members will encounter constituents who wish to raise certain matters about the BBC and the licence fee. We are answerable for the fact that the licence fee is now well over £100 a year and is sometimes levied on extremely poor households. Yet, as we have just heard, Parliament is unable to scrutinise the mechanisms that the BBC uses to organise itself and its expenditure patterns. That is clearly wrong.
      The Chairman of the PAC has just said that there are two only two areas of public expenditure where the Comptroller and Auditor General is not currently allowed to venture—the civil list and the BBC—but the PAC and certainly the NAO have looked at certain elements of royal expenditure, such as royal travel and grace-and-favour flats and other properties that belong to the royal household. So the principle itself has been accepted that Parliament, which votes the civil list, may consider certain items of royal expenditure.
      The BBC is the last bastion to resist parliamentary control, although all hon. Members will notice that it frequently knocks on the door when it wants the licence fee to increase. If it expects us to be able to argue the case for raising money for the BBC, as we all do, it should accept the associated principles of accountability and transparency. A fairly puerile argument has been developed as a defensive mechanism by the BBC, which suggests that, somehow or other, its integrity would be affected by such scrutiny.
      3.45 pm
      All hon. Members understand the difference between a democracy and a totalitarian arrangement. In totalitarian countries—for example, Zimbabwe—the press is subject to close control by politicians. That must be resisted in a democracy. Whatever the political, editorial and creative impulses behind the media, their independence must be protected at all costs. That is precious and must be kept independent of the political

      175
      process. That is well understood, and for the BBC to develop such an argument in defending itself from financial scrutiny by Parliament is, frankly, an insult to ourselves as parliamentarians, to Parliament as in institution and to the electorate, by suggesting that they would allow elected politicians to interfere in something as precious and important as the BBC's editorial and creative independence. Frankly, that argument is not sustainable, and displays a fundamental misunderstanding of the way in which the PAC and certainly the CAG conduct their business.
      The fact is that the argument about the BBC's editorial independence is almost exactly analogous to the argument that we in the PAC frequently have about policy. Every member of the PAC well understands that we may not stray into policy issues when questioning civil servants. The relationship between the policy advice given to Ministers and the ministerial response is beyond the PAC's remit; it is for Parliament to address. Although we understand that, our questions may be robust occasionally, but if a member of the PAC inadvertently strays into policy issues, the other members and certainly the Chairman—I pay tribute to him for his independence and the non-partisan way in which he chairs the Committee—would quickly remind that member that he or she was straying into an inappropriate area.
      It is a fact that our modus operandi is well established—the PAC is the oldest Committee of the House—and we do not stray into policy issues, but we frequently tackle financial irregularities, inefficiencies and so on. That distinction is clear in our minds, and it is precisely analogous to the argument about the way in which the BBC's finances, but obviously not its editorial policy, should be accountable to Parliament through that process.
      The NAO, supported by the PAC, has identified substantial savings across the public sector over the years. That has been well demonstrated, and I should have thought that the BBC would welcome any assistance that Parliament could provide in identifying savings, which could then be redeployed into additional programming and, perhaps, more creative activities. So, if anything, I see us as an ally of the BBC.
      Finally, I would tell those in the BBC who think that they are defending it that they are actually exposing themselves to criticism. This is an Achilles' heel for the BBC. I see myself as a great advocate and friend of the BBC, and I suppose that most hon. Members feel the same. When constituents ask me, "You are raising £110 a year from me"—or whatever the licence fee may be—"How do I know that I'm getting value for money from the BBC?", I would like to be able to tell them that they are getting value for money, that the accounts are subject to close scrutiny and that we are convinced, because we can demonstrate that the BBC is being examined, that such efficiency has been achieved. However, the fact is that we cannot say that, so those hon. Members who would like to defend the BBC are unable to do so, and the BBC is doing itself a great disservice. The argument is beyond persuasive—it is
      176
      irrefutable—and I hope that the Minister will indicate that the Government are moving in our direction even if he does not accept the new clause this afternoon.
      Mr. Whittingdale: I want to speak to new clauses 6, 7 and 9. Before I do so, I should say how pleased I am that my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) tabled new clause 4. I am even more pleased that the other members of the Public Accounts Committee have put their names to it. We debated the issue in Committee, and it was notable that everyone who spoke in Committee, from all parties represented on it, supported the idea that the BBC should come under the scrutiny of the National Audit Office. I had an impression from the Minister's response in Committee that he, too, could appreciate the arguments, and that it was a question of time rather than a debate about the desirability of such scrutiny. I hope that he may be able to provide a further guide on that point this afternoon.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough has set out a powerful case. The BBC receives some £2.5 billion of public money, and anybody who has had any dealings with the BBC recognises that it is not exactly a model of efficiency—one does not have to look hard to discover examples of waste. Nor is it a model of transparency. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Bryant) is not present this afternoon, as he played a considerable part in debates in Committee, and he is a former employee of the BBC. He said:
      "When I was at the BBC, whenever there was a threat that somebody might start looking at the hooks, it was a bit like Saddam Hussein trying to hide things from the weapons inspectors; things would move from one office to another and an exciting time was had by all."—[Official Report, Standing Committee E, 6 February 2003; c. 1063.]
      That is his account of his experience as a senior employee of the BBC—[Interruption.] I am sure that he performed an important function in the BBC—he told us that he wrote the chairman's speeches, as I seem to recall, which is a very important function. As a former speechwriter, I recognise that. Not only has almost every Member of the House who has spoken on this subject supported the idea of scrutiny, but almost every external examination of the BBC has reached the same conclusion that it is anomalous, to say the least, that the BBC, almost alone among public bodies, should remain outside the scrutiny of the PAC.
      The report to which I wanted to draw attention in particular, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough has already referred, is the review of the funding of the BBC conducted in 1991. It stated:
      "The most serious lacuna that results from this structure concerns financial control. The BBC is disposing of a substantial sum of what is essentially public money."
      The report concluded:
      "The Panel does not accept, therefore, that more scrutiny need mean more interference. There is nothing in the National Audit Office's remit which threatens the proper independence of the BBC."
      It is worth remembering that the person who chaired the committee that reached that conclusion is now the chairman of the BBC. It is strange, to say the least, that since arriving in his new position he has changed his mind on that point, particularly when we consider every

      177
      other report that has been conducted. Reference has been made already to Lord Sharman's report, which concluded that the Comptroller and Auditor General
      "should be given access to the BBC as originally recommended by the Davies Review".
      The Culture, Media and Sport Committee reached the same conclusion, and the Public Accounts Committee has been making the case strongly, not just under the chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough but under its previous Chairman, my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis), who, I am delighted to see, has joined us in the Chamber. This is not a party political matter, as my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough said at the beginning of his remarks; the need for such scrutiny is widely recognised across all parties.
      One or two reasons have been given for why the BBC has been so reluctant to allow the PAC and the National Audit Office access to its accounts. I recall that when the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) attempted to draw those out from the director-general of the BBC at the PAC hearings, the director-general said that he knew what they were but was not prepared to tell the PAC on that occasion. In the past, however, the BBC has argued that involving the NAO might result in interference with programming decisions.
      In relation to the Minister's point about a programme that might lose money, my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) is right: it is difficult to say whether a BBC programme loses money. The raison d'être of the BBC is not to make money but to fill a market failure and, therefore, make programmes that are likely to have a relatively small audience. It might be possible to sell those programmes overseas, providing an income in future, although BBC programmes are produced not for financial reasons but as part of the public service remit. I see no evidence to suggest that the Comptroller and Auditor General would wish to get involved in any question relating to programming decisions. Nor is there evidence that the involvement of the NAO would in any way affect the impartiality of the BBC, which is another argument that has been put by those who are opposed to allowing the CAG in.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough made the decisive point that the PAC and the NAO already scrutinise one part of the BBC's output—the World Service. If there is one part of the BBC in which it is most important that there should never be any suggestion of partiality, interference by Government or any political consideration, it is the World Service. The reason why the World Service is respected across the world is that people trust it for its objectivity and impartiality. When the permanent secretary was questioned on that point, she made it clear that the Foreign Office had never had any complaints about interference in the World Service. It is on that freedom that the World Service's reputation rests, yet it can be subject to examination by the NAO without any damage to its impartiality.
      The arguments in favour of new clause 4 are absolutely overwhelming. I was encouraged when the Minister said in Committee that he was examining the matter, and that he would present the Government's conclusions in due course. I hope very much that he will be able to say this afternoon that he has reached a
      178
      conclusion, and that he will support new clause 4, which has the unanimous support of all the members of the PAC.
      New clause 7, which is linked to new clause 6, relates to the question of the future of the licence fee and its part in financing the BBC. That question, too, has a long history. It has been the subject of examination by outside bodies over several years. It was considered by the Peacock committee, and it was examined again by the committee chaired by Gavyn Davies in 1999. Most people who have examined the licence fee have recognised that, as a method of financing, it has many drawbacks. Until now, however, it has been argued that it is perhaps the least bad method of financing the BBC. Examination has been made of possible alternatives such as financing the BBC through advertising, subscription, and, possibly, direct Exchequer grant. I fully recognise that drawbacks are associated with each of those methods, too.
      There is no question but that, since the issue was last examined, the whole broadcasting world has completely changed. I shall resist the temptation to refer to broadcasting ecology, as I share the Minister's distaste for the term, although I found in my research that it appeared in the original Peacock report, so it has been around for some time. The fact that we live in a world in which people have access to hundreds of television channels rather than just three or four means that the time has come when we need to look again at the licence fee. That appraisal is also particularly important given that the licence fee has been increasing year after year. Indeed, the Secretary of State confirmed only the other week that it would rise to £116.
      The licence fee, as everyone who has examined it knows, is a highly regressive charge that bears heavily on those with the lowest incomes. The Gavyn Davies review said:
      "The licence fee, correctly described, is a tax and a poor tax at that. It is levied on everyone who has a television set. It takes the same amount from every household, rich or poor. A wage-earner on the national minimum wage has to work for a week to earn enough to pay it, but pay it he or she must, whether they choose to watch the BBC or not."
      That is an accurate description of its effect.
      4 pm
      As my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough said, the licence fee is a poll tax. Indeed, it is considerably worse than the community charge, which attracted that label. Unlike the community charge, there is no means-tested benefit available for those who are on low incomes and who cannot afford to pay. It is almost impossible to think of any other charge levied by the state on almost every person in the country for which no means-tested assistance is available whatever.
      Geraint Davies: Do not people over the age of 75 receive a free television licence?
      Mr. Whittingdale: People over the age of 75 receive a free licence, and that is very comforting for them. However, the rest of the population—whatever their income—have to pay the licence fee, so it remains a poll tax.

      179
      The effect of the licence fee was examined by the Davies review and it conducted its analysis by splitting up the proportion into income deciles. The review discovered that the flat rate charge was highly regressive and represented 1.7 per cent. of the net income of the poorest decile, but just 0.28 per cent. of the income of the top decile.
      Michael Fabricant: My hon. Friend is arguing that the licence fee is a highly regressive tax, but is he suggesting that it should remain a tax that is perhaps based on income or council tax bands? Alternatively, is he suggesting that there should not be a licence fee at all and that the BBC should be funded completely from commercial sources?
      Mr. Whittingdale: I do not want to anticipate the rest of my speech, but I will argue that I agree with the Government in that there needs to be a full debate on this issue. I think that the arguments in favour of the licence fee are becoming weaker by the day. I will set out why I believe that to be the case, but before that I shall conclude my comments on the drawbacks of the existing system.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) has tabled a new clause that has considerable merit. It draws attention to the enormous resentment that is felt by many people about the existing concessionary licence system in which some people find that they are eligible to pay just £5 whereas their next-door neighbour may have to pay the full amount. Those who pay the full amount may look around and see that others, who may be better off than they are, are able to claim a concessionary licence. That is a cause of great anger and frustration and I suspect that every Member will have heard people complaining about how unfair the existing concessionary licence scheme is. I therefore very much welcome my hon. Friend's new clause. I hope that she will elaborate on it shortly.
      The other aspect of the existing system that gives rise to real anger is the way in which the collection system is enforced. The BBC has responsibility for collecting the licence fee and it contracts that operation out. That results, however, in many people being hounded by inspectors who refuse to believe that people do not have a television set and have no particular wish to possess one.
      The Committee chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough conducted a useful examination of the system of collecting the licence fee. Other than the World Service, that is the only part of the BBC's activities that the Committee is currently allowed to examine. It reached the conclusion that, although the licence fee enforcement officers were extremely assiduous in trying to pursue people evading the licence, they were also remarkably unsuccessful. Out of 3.5 million visits conducted by inquiry officers, only 459,000 suspected evaders were actually caught. The result is that a huge number of people are hounded, and I have heard examples of that in my constituency. I am sure that other Members also know of people who have repeatedly been pursued despite the fact that they have
      180
      made it clear to the licensing office that they do not have a television set and that they have no intention of acquiring one.
      The criminal sanctions that are brought against those who do not have a licence are often brought against some of the poorest people in our community. In the most recent year for which figures are available, 120,000 people had proceedings brought against them for their failure to have a television licence. That resulted in a number of convictions over the year and in prison sentences when people did not pay the fines.
      I have no particular wish to endorse in any way the failure to pay a fine or, indeed, the failure to purchase a television licence, but this part of the criminal law is biting at people who are among the poorest in our society. Indeed, I understand that, in some years, licence fee crime has accounted for more than half the criminal convictions among women. That is an extraordinary figure, and it is another reason why we need to reconsider whether the licence fee remains the best way of financing the BBC.
      It has been said that the licence fee still commands public support and that most people regard it as providing value for money. Indeed, for many years the BBC ran campaigns on television in which it argued that many people were unhappy that they were not able to pay even more for the BBC because it provided such wonderful value for them. However, that view is not borne out by the evidence that has been accumulated. For example, the Gavyn Davies committee considered the future of the financing of the BBC—
      Geraint Davies: The report of the Public Account Committee and the report of the National Audit Office that preceded it found that about 30 per cent. of those who had had fines imposed on them for not paying the licence fee simply did not pay their fines. The hon. Gentleman seems to be suggesting that those people should not have had to pay for the licence in the first place. However, in another report from the Public Accounts Committee, we found that a similar number of people were not paying any fines at all for criminal activity. Is the hon. Gentleman therefore suggesting that they should be let off? His arguments do not hang together. People should pay fines, but he seems to think that they should not.
      Mr. Whittingdale: I specifically said a few moments ago that people should pay fines and should pay the licence fee. However, as the hon. Gentleman's Committee has identified, many people do not pay the licence fee and do not pay fines. They are among the poorest in our society and, at the very least, that should give rise to questions as to whether the licence fee is the best way of continuing to finance the BBC.
      I was about to say that the licence fee does not continue to command widespread public support. At the time of the Gavyn Davies review, an opinion poll was conducted. It found that 45 per cent. believed that the licence fee provided good value for money and that 42 per cent. did not. A majority of just 3 per cent. supported the view that it was good value. However, when they were asked whether the BBC should introduce advertising, 55 per cent. as opposed to 40 per cent. supported that view. When they were asked

      181
      whether the BBC should introduce the sponsorship of programmes, the figure was 74 per cent. in favour as opposed to 16 per cent. against.
      Since that time, a number of further opinion polls have been conducted. One conducted last October concluded that 46 per cent. favoured the licence fee whereas 51 per cent. favoured some other means of financing the BBC. In another poll conducted a few weeks later, 58 per cent. said that
      "the licence fee was no longer justifiable in an era when as many as 300 television channels were available."
      That resentment will increase as the licence fee increases, especially as other broadcasters are suffering and finding it far harder to raise money. The fact that in the past few weeks the Secretary of State agreed to a further increase in the licence fee to £116 merely adds insult to injury. The original decision to increase the licence fee was taken at a different time, when commercial broadcasters were much better off than they are today.
      There is another cause of resentment. A large and growing number of people have access to digital television channels and pay to receive channels that they choose to watch. People who pay a subscription for additional channels that they want to see resent the fact that they are also made to pay a licence fee to receive channels that they might not want to watch. While those who can receive digital television are beginning to resent the imposition of the licence fee, those who do not receive it equally resent the fact that they have to pay a significant amount for the development of the BBC's digital channels when they have no opportunity of watching them.
      Those problems have given rise to challenges to the licence fee. Hon. Members may be aware that a particular journalist, Mr. Jonathan Miller, publicly announced that he does not intend to pay his licence fee and, in doing so, cited the European convention on human rights. He pointed out that article 10 says:
      "Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. That right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority".
      The Minister may tell us that that does not apply to the application of the licence fee, but the BBC and the Government seem remarkably reluctant to put that to the test. Although they are happy to hound people who cannot afford to pay their licence fee and, in some cases, to send them to prison, there has been an interesting delay in taking any action against Mr. Miller.
      Mr. Miller is not alone. Vladimir Bukovsky recently joined his protest. I would not go so far as Mr. Bukovsky, who has compared his anti-licence protest to the hunger strikes that he organised when in prison in the former Soviet Union, but he has said:
      "The BBC's TV licence is such a medieval arrangement I simply must protest against it. The British people are being forced to pay money to a corporation which suppresses free speech—publicising views that they do not necessarily agree with."
      There is also the test case in Liverpool which involves people who have failed to pay the licence fee. So a growing body of opinion is undoubtedly unhappy with the existing system of financing the BBC.
      182
      It appeared for a long time that the Secretary of State had ruled out the possibility of change to the licence fee system. She went on record as saying that she regarded it as
      "somewhere between the improbable and the impossible".
      However, she appears to have changed her mind in recent weeks. I welcome her statement that the BBC needs to demonstrate that the licence fee still represents value for money and to justify that it uses licence-fee payers' money, and earns their support,
      "by offering services that extend the range and enhance the standards of what is available".
      I am pleased that the Secretary of State has recognised that there will have to be a public debate in the run-up to charter renewal on whether the licence fee is still the best system for financing the BBC. Alternatives are available. It may be that no one single method is appropriate and that we have to look instead to a mix of different sources of finance for it, but the debate must happen and we contend that it must be properly informed. One way to do that is by determining the attitude of the public because they are the people who are required to pay the licence fee.
      The purpose of new clause 7 is relatively modest. It would simply put a duty on Ofcom to carry out research into the efficacy, the cost-effectiveness and the public acceptability of the licence fee so that the debate, which the Secretary of State rightly said will take place, is properly informed and we know what the public think. We can no longer accept the assurance that the vast majority of people believe that the BBC is a wonderful institution for which they would happily pay as much as they are asked to contribute.
      4.15 pm
      New clause 9 is also a relatively modest proposition. It suggests that part of the licence fee money is used to—
      Geraint Davies: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. On the list of amendments selected for discussion, new clause 7 is not included in the group of amendments that we are debating.
      Madam Deputy Speaker: The group includes new clauses 6 to 9.
      Mr. Whittingdale: I am speechless. If the hon. Gentleman cannot read the list of selected amendments properly, it is not for me to correct him.
      New clause 9 proposes that a small part of the licence fee proceeds should be put to one side and placed in a public service fund. The essential justification for having a state-owned and state-funded broadcaster is that it supplies public service programmes that the market would not otherwise produce. I accept that the BBC will be the main provider of public service programmes for the foreseeable future, but I do not understand why it has to have a monopoly on that. Commercial broadcasters are under an obligation, as part of their public service remit, to produce public service programming. Although one can identify many excellent programmes that are produced by the BBC which no one would argue are not part of the public service broadcasting obligation, for every "Lost Prince"

      183
      that it produces there is a "Forsyte Saga" on ITV; for every "Daniel Deronda", there is a "Dr. Zhivago". Many programmes that are produced by the commercial channels are equally desirable and fit the public service remit. Indeed, it is sometimes hard to distinguish between the output of BBC and ITV.
      New clause 9 would put just 1 per cent. of the licence fee to one side so that broadcasters could bid for it to receive finance for public service programming. The remaining 99 per cent. would stay with the BBC. Our proposal would inject that little bit of extra competition and break the monopoly that the BBC enjoys on receiving proceeds from the licence fee. The idea is not new. It has been proposed many times. The Davies committee recognised it as having merit and the Peacock committee discussed it. Many people think that there is no reason why the BBC should continue to enjoy a monopoly of public finance for producing public service programmes. I hope that the Government will consider our modest proposal.
      Mr. Lansley: Does my hon. Friend recognise that there is an argument for going further than new clause 9 in respect of the proportion of the licence fee that could be available for competitive bids to provide the public service remit and to expose the BBC directly to competition? As it is drafted, it would take 1 per cent. out of the BBC's ambit as distinct from applying competitive pressure on how well it meets its public service remit compared with other public service broadcasters.
      Mr. Whittingdale: Personally, I find that an attractive suggestion, and over time, the public service fund that we suggest could grow in size and achieve that purpose. In the new clause we make provision for the Secretary of State to increase the proportion of the licence fee that could be diverted to the public service fund. At this stage, however, I do not want to be too ambitious. We are suggesting a modest first step in that direction. Given the modesty that we are displaying on the matter, I hope that that will make it all the more attractive to the Minister.
      Geraint Davies: I shall speak briefly in support of new clause 4, which would give the National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee unfettered access to the accounts of the BBC. Through their effectiveness, the NAO and the PAC are saving about £500 million of public money each year—10 times the cost of providing the facility. Given that the BBC spends £2.5 billion, it is not unreasonable to infer that the public would save millions of pounds if the National Audit Office were able to carry out value for money and financial audits of the BBC and if scrutiny took place.
      It has been argued that that would undermine the editorial independence of the BBC, but, as has been said by others, the remit of the Public Accounts Committee extends not to policy, but to effectiveness. When we audit the national health service, for instance, we are in the business not of telling surgeons how to perform heart operations, but of telling people how to manage their affairs effectively to save money. As has also been
      184
      said, the millions of pounds that we would undoubtedly save could be ploughed back to provide value for the viewer in terms of the quality of programmes.
      Other speakers, particularly the hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale), referred to the work of the Public Accounts Committee in the context of the BBC and the licence fee. As our report states, we found that of 3.5 million visits to try to catch evaders, 80 per cent. were unnecessary. In almost 60 per cent. of those cases, people failed to answer the knock at the door, perhaps because they knew who was knocking, or because they were not in. Twenty per cent. of the visits were to vacant properties, and a further 22,000 visits were to householders who had moved. Through that simple analysis, and by examining the number of prosecutions that ended in paid fines and in people getting licences, we provided valuable insights to improve value for money in the collection of the licence fee, and thereby to help the public.
      It is clear, therefore, that the activity of the NAO can help to deliver value for money. In the past three years, savings of £1.54 billion have been achieved, so the arguments for allowing a national audit to provide better value for viewers and the public are virtually unchallengeable. I urge the Government to give positive consideration to the probing new clause.
      Mrs. Angela Browning: I shall speak to new clause 8, which seeks to amend part 1 of schedule 2 to the Wireless Telegraphy (Television Licence Fees) Regulations 1997. I raise the matter because since those regulations came into law constituents and local authority housing departments have brought to my attention material changes concerning the effect of the licence on people who live in accommodation for residential care, and the concessionary rules that apply.
      I wrote to the Minister last year on behalf of East Devon district council, and I hope that his portfolio tonight carries that correspondence. He wrote back to me on 25 March last year, and it may save time if I outline from the Minister's own correspondence the current qualifying criteria for what is called the ARC—accommodation for residential care scheme. They include the requirement that sheltered housing must be provided for occupation by disabled persons or retired persons aged 60 years or more. The criteria also include the requirement that that sheltered accommodation should have a person such as a warden whose function is to care for the needs of the residents and who lives on site or works there for at least 30 hours per week.
      The purpose of the existing requirements is to ensure that qualifying sheltered accommodation is directly comparable to a residential home. Under those conditions, people living in such accommodation and over the retirement age—but of course now under 75 years of age—qualify for the £5 a year concessionary licence. In practice, although there may be purpose-built or purpose-acquired accommodation for an older population, many housing departments are finding that if at any time they cannot fill that accommodation with people who are disabled or over the retirement age, they necessarily have to put people of mixed age groups in the accommodation. They, of course, do not qualify for the concessionary television licence, and the status of the accommodation changes.

      185
      People who lived there and previously qualified for the £5 licence suddenly find that they no longer qualify. I had a case in Crediton in my constituency where an elderly lady living in such accommodation moved from the ground floor to the first floor. On the ground floor she had qualified for the £5 licence, but unbeknown to her, by moving to a different floor of the same building, she lost that entitlement. New clause 8 seeks to tidy up the regulations in the light of the changing circumstances to give people preserved rights, so that if at any time they had qualified in a particular building but the external circumstances had changed, they as individuals would continue to benefit from that £5 licence and the preserved rights would apply to them as individuals.
      When I wrote to the Minister on behalf of East Devon district council last March, he wrote back to me and stated:
      "The Government intends to introduce preserved rights for ARC beneficiaries whose accommodation ceases to meet the qualifying criteria in such circumstances"—
      as I described—
      "so long as it continues to be provided or managed by a local authority, a housing association or a development corporation."
      I have no disagreement with that. The Minister went on to tell me that consultations had already begun between Department for Culture, Media and Sport officials and the BBC on the formulation of the necessary amendments to the television licence fee regulations.
      The Minister stated that the Government intended to introduce the amendments as soon as they could. That was a year ago, so I was a little disappointed to find that he had not used the opportunity of the Bill to amend the regulations, as there seems to have been a reasonable amount of time for the details to be finalised. I hope that tonight the Minister will look favourably on the new clause in order to tidy up the existing regulations in the light of changing circumstances. Although there are not millions of people who would qualify, there are sufficient numbers of people. As I know from the individuals with whom I have spoken in my constituency, they feel aggrieved when they previously qualified for the concession and it is removed from them through no fault of their own.
      Mr. Grogan: The remarkable speech from the hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale) deserves some response. He described his new clauses as being relatively modest and a first step, but it is clear in what direction he would take us and what his second and third steps would be were he to find himself the Minister for Culture, Media and Sport in 2006–07—we must imagine under which Prime Minister he would be serving. His remarks today were a sustained assault on the licence fee and, at times, on the BBC as well.
      The hon. Gentleman referred to a recent article in The Sunday Times about a widespread refusal to pay the licence fee, and he offered us two examples—a gentleman called Jonathan Miller and a Soviet dissident, Vladimir Bukovsky. The hon. Gentleman said that he would not go quite as far as Mr. Bukovsky, but those two examples were supposed to demonstrate the widespread refusal to pay. He also referred to press attacks on the BBC and the general dumbing down of the BBC. He is right; there have been such attacks. I shall give the House three brief examples.
      186
      "The Corporation has fallen woefully short of its duties to the public";
      "Many of the BBC's present popular programmes would have been condemned by the BBC itself five years ago as intolerably shoddy";
      "The BBC's policy seriously threatens the unique role the BBC has played in the cultural and intellectual life of the country."
      It could prove
      "disastrous to the standards and quality of public service broadcasting."
      The first quote came from The Times in 1958, the second from The Observer in 1960, and the third from a letter written in 1969. The fact that this is an old debate does not mean that it is not important. The BBC quite rightly has to justify its licence fee to each generation, but I believe that it can do so.
      4.30 pm
      The hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford rightly characterises his new clauses as modest, but I would also characterise them as somewhat lop-sided. In the case of new clauses 6 and 7, it is like the Government doing a survey on what the public think of VAT, then using the finding that they do not particularly like paying it to conclude that the public do not like the health service, the education service or whatever. The proposals are very lop-sided. I am sorry about that, given that the hon. Gentleman appears to have liked "The Lost Prince". Like him. I was invited to its première. I was among the B-list category of celebrities, in that I was invited to "The Lost Prince", and not to the Brit awards as most contributors to this debate seem to have been.
      How about asking what the public think of the BBC's output, and whether they think, for example, that Radio 2 has a successful schedule or whether they like programmes such as "The History of Britain" and "The Blue Planet"? We were talking about dumbing down, but those programmes are watched by far more people of this generation—between 6 and 7 million—than ever watched landmark programmes such as "The Ascent of Man" and "Civilisation" in the late 1960s and early 1970s, which achieved only about 1.5 million viewers. It is important to take a rather more comprehensive view of public opinion than those two new clauses propose.
      Obviously, there are conflicting pressures on the BBC in regard to the efficiency of licence fee collection. If it did not collect the fee with sufficient vigour, it would be open to the criticism—such as that levelled by the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh)—that it was evading its financial responsibilities. It is worth noting that since 1991, when the BBC took over responsibility from the Home Office for collecting the licence fee, levels of evasion have shrunk considerably. In 1991, there were 19.4 million licences in force; last year, the figure had grown to 23.7 million, yet evasion rates dropped from 8.8 per cent. in March 2001 to 7.9 per cent. in March 2002, and to 7.6 per cent. this year.
      Despite the existence of Mr. Miller and Mr. Bukovsky, I do not really detect a mass refusal to pay that would justify the comparison to the poll tax that the hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford made. Life was very different when we had the real poll tax in operation some years ago. Obviously, the licence fee is economically regressive, although it has been

      187
      pointed out that those over 75 receive not just a rebate but a complete exemption from it. Indeed, that exemption was introduced three days before my father was 75. That was the one time that he thought that I had any real political influence. Of course, the licence fee is economically regressive, but, in the wider context, it is extremely progressive, because it means that the very best of our culture and national life can be made available to everyone who has either a radio or a television. Those things are not only available to the wealthy on subscription. The hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford mentioned subscription TV.
      When we examine carefully the alternatives to the licence fee, I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman—who clearly wants to move away from the licence fee—would really carry his party with him. I would relish a political fight in the marginal seat of Selby if, for example, someone suggested introducing advertising to the very middle England Radio 2 channel, or privatising Radio 1. It is going to be hard to hold Selby next time, but a real challenge to the licence fee and the BBC would help me to reach parts of my electorate that I might not otherwise reach.
      I do not think that such a challenge would be electorally popular, especially given some of the alternatives to the licence fee, such as advertising, subscription and sponsorship. If they were introduced, the BBC would have to serve commercial priorities, not just those of the licence payer. It would also have to start competing for revenues with other commercial broadcasters. If it were funded by subscription, it would no longer be able to serve everyone. No longer would everyone be able to watch the football World cup; only those who could afford the subscription would be able to do so. Direct funding by the Government would surely endanger the political independence of the BBC.
      Mr. Whittingdale: The hon. Gentleman says that direct funding from the Exchequer would surely affect the political independence of the BBC. Does he think that the World Service is affected by the fact that it is directly funded by the Government?
      Mr. Grogan: Under the Conservative Government, the World Service's whole financial structure was threatened by cut after cut. That really politicised the World Service in a way that proved very difficult at the time. Thankfully, the present Government have reversed the effect of some of those cuts.
      The licence fee, which funds the BBC so well, and has done over so many generations, should not be thrown aside lightly. The hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford said that other public service channels produce public service programmes, and of course they do. But part of the role of the BBC down the generations has been to raise standards and to raise the aspirations of some of the commercial channels that have other pressures. The fact that we see excellent public service programmes on ITV, for example, is partly a reflection of that.
      Having had some measure of disagreement with the hon. Gentleman I would agree with him on one thing. The BBC's governors must take serious account of
      188
      today's debate on new clause 4, regarding accountability to the National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee. I urge the BBC's board of governors to discuss this issue at an early date—I know that there are differences of opinion among its members—because it is inevitable that this change will be made at some stage. It is time that the BBC recognised that.
      Another allegedly modest measure is the new clause that would set up a public services fund run by trustees and would, for the first time, split the licence fee from the BBC. Obviously, the long-term aim of that proposal is to increase the percentage from 1 per cent. to perhaps 5, 10 or 20 per cent. and perhaps to have an arts council of the air, as has been introduced in New Zealand, and destroy the BBC altogether. Again, I would urge great caution. In New Zealand, it has now been decided to reverse that measure and to re-fund the public service broadcaster, because a group of trustees sitting around doling out money cannot make quality public service programmes. The BBC has a value in terms of its public service ethos and of the creativity of its producers, its staff and its training that goes back for generations, and we must be very careful indeed before we rip up that tremendous heritage.
      Mr. David Rendel: I should like to start by making a few remarks about new clauses 6 to 9 on behalf of my hon. Friends—my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Nick Harvey), our chief spokesman on these issues, has suggested that, to speed up today's debate, I might make those remarks instead of him — before I go on to the real purpose of my speech, which is to speak in my capacity as a member of the Public Accounts Committee about new clause 4.
      My hon. Friends and I believe that new clauses 6 and 7 are unnecessarily bureaucratic and would involve the BBC in a lot of extra research work. In practice, new clause 4 will fulfil the financial requirements. It is much better to hand to the NAO the job of making sure that the money is properly spent. We have no particular problem with new clause 8 and have some sympathy for it. New clause 9 introduces an interesting idea, albeit one that should more properly be discussed when the licence system is reviewed at the time that the charter comes up for renewal. The hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale) pointed out that it would be possible for a future Government or a different Minister to increase the figure of 1 per cent. Since the whole basis of the hon. Gentleman's argument for new clause 9 is that 1 per cent. is so insignificant that we need not worry about it, for him to admit that it could be increased at the will of a Minister seems to destroy his argument.
      I am delighted to join the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee in his support for new clause 4, for which PAC members have been fighting for some time. I spoke on the proposal in the House a year ago; it was part of the Sharman report and it enjoyed the support of the PAC even before then. As the hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford pointed out, the current chairman of the governors of the BBC was fully in favour before assuming that office. It is funny how people sometimes change their views. Nevertheless, if the Minister chooses to go down that route, he may not meet quite the resistance from the BBC that might have arisen under previous chairmen.

      189
      The only counter-argument to new clause 4 is that we must defend the BBC's independence. It is hard to understand why anyone should imagine that it is necessary to defend the BBC's independence against someone such as Sir John Bourn, the Comptroller and Auditor General. It is absurd to argue that Sir John would say it was important to have Jim Davidson rather than Sandi Toksvig on Radio 4 or that the NAO would ever interest itself in editorial decision making. It will examine not policy or editorial matters but whether the licence payers' money is used effectively. That is even more important now that the BBC is doing much more contracting out and buying in of programmes from independent sources. The more that is done, the more important it is to examine the contractual processes and procedures.
      Only yesterday, the Comptroller and Auditor General, talking to the Public Accounts Committee about his budget for next year, made the point that he can in many ways be more objective even than a private sector auditor, who may work on a one year or three-year contract. As the contract comes up for renewal, the firm will begin to wonder whether it will be reappointed—so it comes under a little pressure to do what the client wants. Anyone who doubts the difficulties that that situation can create only has to think of the problems that Enron got into with an auditor that perhaps did not do its job well. If the National Audit Office were appointed for the BBC, it would not be under pressure to keep the BBC happy with its work because the NAO would be accountable not to the corporation but to the House.
      Whereas company shareholders theoretically have the right to reappoint auditors or throw them out on a regular basis, television licence payers—in effect the shareholders of the BBC—do not have the same right. There is a standard case for appointing the NAO as the auditors for the public. It is not the Government's auditors but Parliament's auditors—and through Parliament, the NAO is the auditor for the public. Where large sums of money are spent on behalf of the licence payers, the NAO should serve as the objective watchdog guarding that money and making sure that it is properly spent.
      4.45 pm
      Mr. Andrew Mitchell: I draw the attention of the House to my registered interests.
      I enter into debate with some hesitation, having listened to an interesting discussion as an outsider surrounded by many experts on media and culture in all parts of the House.
      The case made by my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) when moving new clause 4 was unanswerable. I am ashamed to say that I was not aware that his Committee was unable to look at the BBC in the manner in which he described. I hope that the Minister, who has an enviable reputation for his willingness to unsheathe his sword and do battle with powerful vested interests, will not forbear from doing so on this occasion with the governors of the BBC.
      I rise to speak as a humble seeker after truth. The Bill clearly addresses an important lacuna in broadcasting arising from far more competition and much more economic activity. All independent surveys show that
      190
      the media and other creative industries will grow enormously over the next 10 years and that we will all spend much more money on such activities. It is in almost everyone's interests that the position of independent producers is improved. There is a need for a good plural marketplace in which dominant broadcasters cannot be overbearing and property rights will be properly protected.
      The BBC raises by means of a compulsory tax £2,500 million a year in public money. That represents a massive privilege for the BBC and a massive interference in normal practices and terms of trade in the commercial marketplace. I listened with great interest to my hon. Friend's comments about the licence fee. I do not entirely agree with his analysis but recognise the power of his arguments. I yield to no one in my admiration for the BBC, but where there is a powerful, rampant force in the marketplace it is important that we understand the ramifications.
      The Minister will recall that in 1988 Lady Thatcher made the landmark decision that 25 per cent. of public sector broadcasting should be made by the private sector—a decision that was welcomed at the time. News and sport were exempted, so in fact the percentage is probably nearer the low teens.
      I think we would all agree that the best ideas in the marketplace should attract the money. That is good for our culture and for our country. Some 75 per cent. of the BBC's production is therefore in-house. Given that that does not tend to vary much over the years, the 75 per cent. is clearly guaranteed; otherwise the figure might be 76 per cent. or even 80 per cent. in one year, and rather lower in another.
      That brings me to a point made by one of my hon. Friends, whose view is that the BBC's position is entirely justified by the fact that it cures market failure. Certainly it is responsible for some wonderful productions, such as costume dramas and foreign affairs documentaries, but what worries me is that it seems to cause more market failure than it addresses. Let me give four examples.
      First, I understand that the BBC—funded with public money—attracts more than 50 per cent. of all radio audiences. That must have a real effect on the marketplace. Secondly, I believe that the BBC has the dominant website in the UK. It does not, as I thought, cover only news, although it covers a huge amount of news; it also deals with entertainment, children's issues and lifestyle. That dominance is deeply resented by the commercial operators, and it must crowd out some of the commercial markets.
      Thirdly—I mention this with some misgivings—there is BBC Worldwide. We should be fair to the BBC, which was charged with greatly increasing its revenues by commercial means. At the same time, however, it enjoys a luscious funding settlement. BBC Worldwide is, in my view, an example of unfair competition, although that is hardly its fault. It should be told either to maximise its income, or to trade fairly in the market. It cannot do both.
      Fourthly—this strikes me as, in many ways, the most powerful justification for the argument—the BBC is a publisher of books and magazines. Those publications, however, seem to me to constitute an exploitation of pieces of intellectual property. "Top Gear Magazine" is

      191
      an example. I do not think the BBC has any right to intervene in the magazines market in that way, or that it should be allowed to do so. Books and magazines should be licensed into the magazines market. There should be a bidding process to provide transparent valuations in the marketplace, enabling the licence fee payer to receive the benefit and preventing the magazines market from being distorted by public money.
      I end as I began. We are dealing with a huge, rampant beast in the market, at a time when many of the companies with true commercial interests are in a greatly weakened state. That is clear from some of their share prices, valuations and profit schemes. In no other UK industry do we allow public money to distort the market in this way.
      I hope the Minister will give us his views, and perhaps encourage us to believe that tight control will be exercised. I should certainly like to think that ministerial attention will be focused on the points I have made.
      Michael Fabricant: My hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Mitchell) has raised an interesting and important point. The BBC would argue that the magazines to which he refers are not funded by licence fees, but operate in a commercial market. It would argue that the profits made from their production are used to supplement television licence fees so that programmes can be made. The point is that we have to take the BBC's word for that.
      Perhaps the BBC is right, but we do not know. This returns us to a fundamental point that I made time and again in Committee, in connection with both the National Audit Office and Ofcom's role in controlling the BBC—that the BBC ought not to be its own judge and jury. Time and again, people and commercial organisations have complained about the BBC, and not just in respect of publications. When the BBC launched its own computer some years ago, in competition with other manufacturers, it was said that it was using the licence fee to fund a commercial operation.
      The BBC has produced a grand document about fair trade. It states that the BBC will never compete using licence payers' money, that it always operates independently, that it is audited by a good firm of auditors, and so on. However, as I said, we can never be sure about such matters, and we need an independent organisation—not merely an auditor—to look after them. I shall be interested to hear whether the Minister proves to be the only person in the Chamber who argues against the NAO having the power to investigate such matters. It is quite extraordinary that in this day and age, only the civil list—as has already been pointed out—and the BBC are exempt from such investigation. Although I have the greatest respect for the BBC, I do not put its chairman, whose hospitality I so recently enjoyed, in quite the same category as Her Majesty the Queen.
      The NAO would give protection to the BBC. Many of the accusations made against the BBC are probably not well founded. When the Bill was being considered in
      192
      Committee, we were approached by The History Channel. It suggested that the BBC was acting unfairly in setting up UK History, which is available on Freeview. The BBC argued hard and well, saying, "No. We are operating in competition. Why should we provide programmes to The History Channel any more cheaply than we provide them to the public service broadcasting organisation in the United States, to the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, or to any other broadcaster?" I rather suspect that the BBC was right, but The History Channel rightly felt that this was yet another case of the BBC being its own judge and jury. How can we be sure that the BBC was right? In my view, the NAO would give the BBC the necessary protection in that regard.
      I realise that the BBC would not want the NAO to interfere in its direct running, and particularly in the creative side of the corporation. The Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee offered good reassurance that the PAC has neither the time nor the inclination to interfere in that way; nor, indeed, would the Comptroller and Auditor General have the necessary resources or interest to do so. The Minister mentioned a particular programme or series perhaps proving a loss-maker. The only such programme that I can think of is "Eldorado", but on the other hand the BBC has to experiment. It seemed like a good idea at the time—isn't that what it always says?—and it would be very wrong for a particular organisation to say with the benefit of hindsight that the BBC was wrong to experiment. It is experimentation that has given the BBC its very strength.
      I wonder whether you, Madam Deputy Speaker, saw "The Great War"—the 40-year-old series that was originally shown on BBC2, and which is being re-run on Saturday nights. Before it was broadcast, a documentary was shown about how it was made, including the arguments and the struggle within the BBC that led to its production. The series "The Great War" was earth-shattering—
      Mr. George Osborne: So was the war itself.
      Michael Fabricant: As my hon. Friend points out, the war itself was obviously earth-shattering, but so was the series. It was the first time—
      Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman should relate his remarks to the new clause.
      Michael Fabricant: They are related to the new clause, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Minister rightly pointed out the locus of new clause 4, which would allow the NAO to investigate the BBC. I simply mention "The Great War" as an experimental programme made by the BBC. It was the first time that a broadcaster—ABC also showed the series—had ever invested in producing a 24-episode series on such a specialised issue.[Interruption.] Hon. Members may chortle, but from that came the series on the second world war. That was produced not by the BBC but by the old Associated Rediffusion, which reinforces the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale) that it is not only the BBC that produces public service broadcasting.

      193
      5 pm
      The National Audit Office would and should not look at that area, and as I suspect that that is the only area that concerns the BBC, it need not worry. The BBC can be reassured that the NAO would consider only the structure within which the corporation's operations take place in the broadest terms, not the cost of producing individual programmes, such as that groundbreaking series, "The Great War".
      As my hon. Friends the Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford and the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee have said, universities are investigated by the PAC and they have not complained. The Arts Council falls within the ambit of the PAC, and it has not complained. I hope that the BBC will regard the change as a protective shroud, not as something that will endanger the BBC or its ethos.
      I have mixed feelings about the licence fee. It is a regressive tax, but there are no easy solutions. The BBC costs £2.5 billion, which is, on the whole, probably well spent. We do not know for sure, because the NAO has not been allowed to investigate. However, if £2.5 billion were taken out of the total amount of advertising revenue available to television now, it would cripple an already semi-crippled ITV, it would cripple Channel 4 and it would destroy Channel 5. Nor would it be possible for the BBC to be funded from subscription. In that case, it would he the BBC that was destroyed. It would no longer be the public service broadcaster that most of us respect at present.
      On the other hand, I support new clause 7, which would provide for research on television licensing and alternative funding for the BBC. I do not share the fears of the hon. Member for Selby (Mr. Grogan)—he spoke eloquently in support of the corporation, and I agreed with much of what he said—that if the BBC were funded by a system based on council tax bands or a percentage of income tax, it would necessarily result in the Government interfering in the daily operation of the BBC. I do not seriously suggest either method as a way of raising funds for the BBC. A percentage of income tax might be a better form of revenue for local government, although I would certainly be out of order if I pursued that thought Madam Deputy Speaker. The NAO would not wish to interfere in the daily operation of the BBC either.
      In 1936, the Government—I presume that it was a Conservative Government, although I look to the historians among us to correct me if I am wrong—
      Mr. George Osborne: National Government.
      Michael Fabricant: The National Government set up the BBC World Service, which has received a grant in aid ever since. In 1940, there was a battle between the Government and the World Service over editorial policy, which the BBC won. Ever since, no such battle has taken place. No Government, Labour or Conservative—or a future National Government, God forbid—would ever wish to interfere with the internal editorial independence of the BBC, regardless of whether it was funded by licence fee or some form of income tax. We could always ensure that protection was provided, by modifying this legislation or the royal charter.
      194
      The BBC should regard the new clauses as helpful to its future governance. More importantly, I hope that the Government will consider them helpful, and that they will accept them.
      Mr. George Osborne: I begin by saying that I enjoyed very much the speech introducing new clauses 6 to 9 by my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale). It was very eloquent and did credit to the Guild of Speechwriters, of which I am also a member.
      I rise to support new clause 4, so ably moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh), the Chairman of the Select Committee on Public Accounts. I note that almost every hon. Member to speak in the debate also supports the proposal. The diversity of that support shows that this is a non-partisan issue. I draw the Minister's attention to the words of the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams), who has enormous experience. He was a member of the Public Accounts Committee before I was born. I always bow to his much greater experience. In Committee, the Minister said that there was
      "no one else in the House to whom I would look for more wisdom on the subject of public accountability."—[Official Report, Standing Committee E, 6 February 2003; c. 1065.]
      The right hon. Gentleman has now joined the Chairman of the PAC and hon. Members of all parties to urge the Government to accept a recommendation from an inquiry set up by the Government. If the Minister were still a PAC member, I suspect that he would have put his name to the clause as well, and probably spoken in favour of it. I am sure that his instincts are correct and that we shall hear from him shortly.
      In the bipartisan spirit in which the new clause was moved, I want to congratulate the Government on the way in which they set up the Sharman inquiry and on their acceptance of almost all the inquiry's recommendations. In the coming months and years, the Comptroller and Auditor General's remit will be extended to many non-departmental public bodies that previously escaped public and parliamentary scrutiny.
      That that is an excellent thing is accepted on all sides of the House, and it makes all the more strange the Government's refusal to accept Sharman's recommendation about the BBC. That is the only major recommendation in Sharman that the Government do not support, and it is a glaring omission. The arguments advanced by the Government are not convincing to any hon. Member who has taken part in the debate.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough made it clear that the BBC is nervous about the proposal because it believes that it threatens the corporation's editorial independence, the way it goes about commissioning programmes or covering political events, and all sorts of other activities. That concern demonstrates an ignorance of the work of the CAG and the National Audit Office. I hope that that ignorance is genuine and innocent. As has been said several times, the new clauses deal with the implementation of policy, not with policy itself. That must be right, given the amount of public money—£2.5 billion—involved.

      195
      It must be a central principle in a democracy that there should be clear and transparent accountability when it comes to the spending of public money. That is not the case with the BBC at the moment. There are 12 BBC governors, supported by a small staff. Even if they had the inclination, they are unable to provide the same scrutiny of the BBC's finances as the NAO, which has more staff and greater expertise.
      The BBC has nothing to fear. After they have survived an encounter with the PAC, departmental permanent secretaries say that they have learned something and that the discussion has served to improve the way in which they manage their Departments and run Government programmes. It is one of the reasons why the Government accept the overwhelming majority of the recommendations from the National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee. It would do the BBC a lot of good, on its own terms, to have its work scrutinised and improved on by the NAO. As my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough said, there is no question that the Comptroller and Auditor General would try to second-guess the BBC's right to make a drama series out of a Jane Austen book or to cover a particular political event. That would not happen; it is not the way in which the Comptroller and Auditor General operates. It must, however, be correct that someone—I would argue that it should be the Comptroller and Auditor General—should examine matters such as the way in which the BBC commissions programmes and the cost of commissioning programmes vis-à-vis other organisations, how it makes use of its extensive property holdings and whether those buildings are being efficiently used, how it provides digital services, and the way in which it commissions IT systems. That is the bread and butter work of the PAC and the Comptroller and Auditor General in relation to Departments, and they produce pretty outstanding results. The BBC has nothing to fear from that kind of scrutiny.
      That is not just my view but the view of a vast range of organisations, reports and independent inquiries into the subject. It is the conclusion of the Sharman inquiry and of the independent review panel chaired by Gavyn Davies. It is worth reminding hon. Members of what the review panel's report said:
      "The most serious lacuna that results from the structure of the BBC concerns financial control. The BBC is disposing of a substantial sum of what is essentially public money."
      It then quoted a letter that had been sent to the panel by the then Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis), who said:
      "The Comptroller and Auditor General's inability to report to Parliament on the way the BBC uses the licence fee seriously weakens the accountability of the BBC."
      Gavyn Davies' review panel said:
      "We agree and, accordingly, recommend that the National Audit Office should be empowered … to carry out periodic financial audits of the BBC's accounts and its fair trading arrangements."
      196
      It is also the view of the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport and the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), who said to the BBC:
      "The idea that Parliament, which creates you and funds you, ought not to have the right for the NAO to investigate you I have to say … is a misuse of the very important ethos of BBC independence in terms of politicians not interfering in any way with what you broadcast."
      He was absolutely spot on.
      I shall be interested to hear what the Minister says. Every hon. Member who spoke, on both sides of the House, supported the new clause. If the Minister were to say that it does not have to be done through legislation, but can be done by amending the BBC charter, and gives a commitment to do that, we would all be satisfied. I want to hear from him either a defence of the indefensible—the exclusion of the BBC from the remit of the Comptroller and Auditor General—or, I hope, a clear indication that the Government will move forward on a central recommendation of a report that they initiated.
      Dr. Howells: This is not an easy one for me. The hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) spoke elegantly and convincingly. He is right that I am a veteran of the Public Accounts Committee, and I have a theory that once one has experienced that, one is changed for ever. When he responded to my intervention, he said some reassuring and important words about what the Comptroller and Auditor General does and what the Public Accounts Committee is interested in. I trust that those important words will be heard throughout the country.
      5.15 pm
      I note that there are many race courses in the constituency of the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne). I do not know whether that is significant. He said that he would perhaps think more kindly of the Government if I gave him an undertaking to consider the new clause.
      Mr. Whittingdale: Not consider, but act.
      Dr. Howells: The master of semantics has spoken and I shall not argue.
      The hon. Member for Gainsborough convinced me that the Comptroller and Auditor General is not interested in trying to influence editorial policy and that his scrutiny would not therefore constitute a threat to editorial independence or the governors' important powers. If I have anything to do with the matter, such scrutiny will be one of the most important matters that is considered in the course of charter renewal, and of the renewal of the agreement between the BBC and the Secretary of State.
      Michael Fabricant: Will the Minister give way?
      Dr. Howells: In a second. Let me finish the point first.
      As I explained in Committee in response to an almost identical new clause, the Public Accounts Committee's recommendation can be implemented without amending schedule 4 of the National Audit Office Act

      197
      1983, as new clause 4 proposes. Section 6(3)(d) of the 1983 Act permits the National Audit Office to carry out value-for-money reviews of the BBC by agreement between the corporation and a Minister of the Crown. I understand the difficulty that the hon. Member for Gainsborough experiences with that.
      The amount of NAO access that the hon. Gentleman proposes could be achieved without changing existing legislation, but I agree that it is by no means such an elegant solution. It is complicated and should be examined at the appropriate moment, when the charter is up for renewal and we reconsider the agreement between the Secretary of State and the BBC.
      David Davis: The interim proposal that the Minister outlines is better than nothing but not much better. The NAO sought such powers over the Housing Corporation and housing associations; it now has them through the Government's response to the Sharman report. It explicitly sought to negotiate access, but that was denied it on the occasions when it was necessary, for example, in cases of criminal fraud. That is the problem. Negotiation of access gives people who are misbehaving, or not behaving as well as they should, the right to opt out of the process. That is why the Minister's option is so weak.
      Dr. Howells: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that it is a weaker option, although not as weak as he suggests. It has been suggested that relying on section 6 of the 1983 Act would give the BBC a power of veto over NAO access. However, agreement between the Secretary of State and the BBC is at the centre of the corporation's regulatory framework. That arrangement works effectively and has not prevented the Government from introducing necessary regulatory measures.
      Mr. Lansley: Does the Minister recall paragraph 18(4) of the BBC charter? It states:
      "The Corporation shall at all reasonable times upon demand give to Our Secretary of State or Our Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and all other persons nominated by either of them full liberty to examine the accounts of the Corporation"
      and so on. It is therefore not necessarily the case that access to the accounts happens with the BBC's agreement. Are the Government willing to use that paragraph of the charter?
      Dr. Howells: Obviously, I would have to consider the request that was made, but I am not aware of any request having been made in those terms. I may be wrong and the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis), who chaired the Public Accounts Committee, or even the hon. Member for Gainsborough, its current Chairman, might be able to help me, but I am not aware of any such request. If I discover that such a request has been made, I shall let the House know.
      Michael Fabricant: I sought previously to intervene on the Minister to ask a question that it is even more suitable for me to ask now. He recognises that the proposed solution might be unsatisfactory as a short-term solution and has accepted in Committee and today that there is an argument for national audit
      198
      investigation, although perhaps not under the mechanism proposed through my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh). He said that if he was still around when charter renewal was discussed, the matter would then be considered. What is the current policy of the Department? Just as there may or may not be life after death, there must also be policy after a Minister goes.
      Dr. Howells: The policy is precisely what I am saying to the House: we can rely on section 6 of the National Audit Office Act 1983. However, I hope that I have hedged that about with enough reassurances to provide the hon. Gentleman at least with a clear picture of what this Minister thinks. I hope that that is helpful.
      I recognise that many hon. Members feel strongly about this subject and I understand their arguments about the need to ensure the BBC's accountability to Parliament and licence payers. As I explained in Committee, successive Governments have been reluctant to grant the NAO greater access to the BBC because of concerns that that could compromise the corporation's editorial independence and inhibit its creativity. I repeat that I think that the hon. Member for Gainsborough eased very considerably the worries and concerns of this place in that regard. Instead, other means have been adopted to ensure financial accountability, and the BBC is subject to a range of external reviews as well as to independent audit. However, the Government will respond formally to the report of the Public Accounts Committee. It would not be right for me to pre-empt that response, but I can assure hon. Members that, in reaching our conclusions, we will certainly bear in mind the very powerful arguments that have been advanced here and elsewhere.
      New clause 6 would require the BBC to commission and publish every year independent research into the efficacy, cost-effectiveness and public acceptability of television licensing in the United Kingdom. In contrast, new clause 7 would impose the same obligations on Ofcom. The National Audit Office already has power to carry out reviews on the economy, efficiency and effectiveness of arrangements for collecting fees and enforcing the television licensing system. The NAO's most recent report on the subject was published in May last year and the Public Accounts Committee published its report on 18 December last year. The independent research proposed by new clauses 6 and 7 might therefore be in danger of overlapping with the NAO and PAC review arrangements. Moreover, that research would have to be undertaken with a frequency that we do not believe to be necessary.
      Of course, the question whether the television licence fee is the best way of funding the BBC is a different matter. Public acceptability of the licensing system is part of that broader question. We shall be considering that issue in detail during the charter review process, which is due to begin in 2004. The proposed research would therefore also duplicate the Government's own deliberations and consultations in the charter review period. If the television licence fee is retained as the mechanism for funding the BBC, it will be after very careful consideration of all the relevant issues, including its sustainability in the longer term. We therefore doubt the need for an annual review of the arrangements.

      199
      In any event, it seems inappropriate for such research to be commissioned by the BBC, as new clause 6 proposes. It is for the Government and not the corporation to determine how the BBC should be funded. New clause 6 requires the research to be independent. However, because the issue here is the way in which the BBC should be funded, we do not think that it would be appropriate for the corporation to be responsible for commissioning that research.
      Let me turn to new clause 8. I can well understand the concern of the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) over the loss of entitlement to the accommodation for residential care—ARC—concession on the television licence. She gave the House some reasons for that, such as changes in the housing mix and the level of warden provision in sheltered housing schemes. I can also understand the sense of frustration that she and others feel—and I include myself in this—that the preserved rights to the concession, which the Government undertook to introduce nearly two years ago, are still not in place.
      In drafting new clause 8, the hon. Lady may have appreciated the reasons for the delay. At least, I assume that she may have. The regulations that govern the ARC scheme are very complex and the scheme gives rise to a number of anomalies. We were anxious, when introducing preserved rights, to avoid creating new anomalies or further complicating the administration of the scheme—which has often been the effect of previous changes. I am pleased to tell the hon. Lady that, in the next few weeks, we shall introduce amending regulations that will introduce preserved rights to the ARC. The regulations will be subject to the negative resolution procedure but will be in place well before this Bill receives Royal Assent.
      I should add that new clause 8, as it stands, would not achieve its aim of introducing preserved rights; it would require a person to have been paying the issue fee for a concessionary licence.
      Mrs. Browning: I am very pleased to hear what the Minister has said. As many others will be, I am delighted at his pledge to introduce the new regulations in the next few weeks. I tabled the new clause, but I had hoped that the Government would have done so. I accept that it may be technically flawed, but I wanted to prompt the Minister into the action that he has just announced.
      Dr. Howells: I think that the hon. Lady made a very good fist of it, which is why I wondered whether she had found it difficult. I certainly do.
      Mrs. Browning: I had a lot of help.
      Dr. Howells: That goes without saying—[Laughter.] I did not mean that in a nasty way—this place is besieged by lobbyists.
      New clause 9 would establish a public services broadcasting fund, funded by the BBC licence fee, to pay grants to groups or organisations to allow them to make programmes of local, regional or sectional interest for inclusion in a programme service. As I understand the new clause tabled by the hon. Member for Maldon
      200
      and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale), the programme services that could benefit are not limited to BBC services. The fund would be set up by order of the Secretary of State and would be approved by a resolution of each House.
      I am afraid that we cannot see our way to accepting the new clause. It would not be sensible—at least at present—to require that licence fee funds be deployed on the basis proposed. The BBC is at the heart of our broadcasting system and the licence fee is the way in which we have chosen to fund it. That decision was endorsed by Parliament at the time of the last renewal of the BBC charter—in 1996 under a previous Government. I accept that there is reasonable discussion about the proper role of the BBC and about the way in which it is constituted and funded. That discussion will no doubt lead to a more structured debate when we embark on the process of charter review in 2004.
      The hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) reminded us that the proposal in the new clause would amount not to a small sum of money but to £25 million. There would be no obvious means of accountability, which would be difficult to accept. As I have said, next year will see the beginning of the process of charter renewal.
      Mr. Leigh: The Minister has said that he is prepared for the Comptroller and Auditor General to look into the finances of the BBC during the process of charter renewal, which he has said will be in 2004. When will the Government resolve this issue? Will the Minister start the process now, having listened to this debate? Will the process have ended by 2004? May we have an idea of the time scale?
      Dr. Howells: The hon. Gentleman is quite right to ask that question. The charter comes up for renewal in 2006, but the process starts in 2004. Therefore, it begins in a very short time.
      As I have said, we will begin the process of charter renewal next year. I assure the House that the Government will be very content for the issues that have been touched on today to be fully examined in that context. At this stage, however, it does not seem to us that the proposed new clause could be justified in the framework of the BBC's current role and constitution, or that it would add anything useful to the arrangements on the BBC agreement set out in the Bill. I therefore ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw new clause 4 and suggest that new clauses 6, 7, 8 and 9 should not be pressed to a Division.
      Mr. Leigh: I wish to say a few words to thank all those hon. Members who have spoken in the debate. In particular, I wish to thank my hon. Friends the Members for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale), for Tatton (Mr. Osborne), for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant), and for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Mitchell) and the hon. Members for Newbury (Mr. Rendel), for Hemsworth (Jon Trickett), for Croydon, Central (Geraint Davies) and all those hon. Members who have spoken in favour of new clause 4. I am very grateful to them for their support.
      Some people say that debates in the House do not matter. I am a parliamentarian; I believe that they do matter, and this debate has made a difference. Debates

      201
      make a difference when strong and independent-minded Ministers are prepared to listen and respond to them, not to take refuge in the conceptual bullshit of their brief. The Minister has done precisely the opposite of that today. He has given a very important commitment on behalf of the Government. After all, Ministers speak on behalf of the whole Government; there is such a thing as collective responsibility, and therefore what a Minister says at the Dispatch Box must be considered with great care.
      The Minister has said today that, hitherto, there was an objection to Parliament, in the shape of the NAO, having a statutory right of access to investigate the BBC's finances because of the concern about its editorial independence. One assumes that the Government accepted that concern. In reply to what I have said today, the Minister has said that he accepts our reassurances. He accepts my reassurance, as Chairman of the PAC, that in no way do we want to interfere with the BBC's editorial independence, and he did so speaking for the Government.
      I believe that the debate has taken matters a great deal further. It is true that the Minister did not say that he accepts new clause 4. I did not expect him to do that—it is not the way the House operates—but he went almost as far as he possibly could in saying that, like every other hon. Member who has spoken, he accepts the inevitable logic of statutory access. Voluntary access is simply not good enough.
      My right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis) made an important intervention in saying that we simply cannot have a situation where an organisation's auditors have to request access to examine what may be a very difficult issue. That is not acceptable, but the Minister has given some important reassurances. I have listened to his speech very carefully, and I am grateful to him for what he said.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): Does the hon. Gentleman wish to press new clause 4 to a Division?
      Mr. Whittingdale: We would like to press the new clause to a Division.
      Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
      The House divided: Ayes 200, Noes 304.

      Division No. 93]

      [5.33 pm

      AYES

      Ainsworth, Peter(E Surrey)

      Blunt, Crispin

      Allan, Richard

      Boswell, Tim

      Amess, David

      Bottomley, Peter(Worthing W)

      Ancram, rh Michael

      Brady, Graham

      Arbuthnot, rh James

      Brake, Tom(Carshalton)

      Atkinson, David(Bour'mth E)

      Brazier, Julian

      Bacon, Richard

      Breed, Colin

      Baker, Norman

      Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

      Baldry, Tony

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Barker, Gregory

      Bruce, Malcolm

      Baron, John(Billericay)

      Burnett, John

      Barrett, John

      Burns, Simon

      Beith, rh A. J.

      Burnside, David

      Bellingham, Henry

      Burstow, Paul

      Bercow, John

      Burt, Alistair

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Cable, Dr. Vincent

      202

      Calton, Mrs Patsy

      Lewis, Dr. Julian(New Forest E)

      Cameron, David

      Liddell-Grainer, Ian

      Carmichael, Alistair

      Lidington, David

      Cash, William

      Lilley, rh Peter

      Chapman, Sir Sydney(Chipping Barnet)

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Loughton, Tim

      Chidgey, David

      Luff, Peter(M-Worcs)

      Chope, Christopher

      McIntosh, Miss Anne

      Clappison, James

      Mackay, rh Andrew

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Maclean, rh David

      Collins, Tim

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Conway, Derek

      Malins, Humfrey

      Cormack, Sir Patrick

      Maples, John

      Cotter, Brian

      Marsden, Paul(Shrewsbury & Atcham)

      Cran, James(Beverley)

      Curry, rh David

      Maude, rh Francis

      Davey, Edward(Kingston)

      Mawhinney, rh Sir Brian

      Davis, rh David(Haliemprice & Howden)

      May, Mrs Theresa

      Mercer, Patrick

      Djanogly, Jonathan

      Mitchell, Andrew(Sutton Coldfield)

      Doughty, Sue

      Duncan, Peter(Galloway)

      Moore, Michael

      Duncan Smith, rh Iain

      Moss, Malcolm

      Evans, Nigel

      Murrison, Dr. Andrew

      Ewing, Annabelle

      Oaten, Mark(Winchester)

      Fabricant, Michael

      O'Brien, Stephen(Eddisbury)

      Fallon, Michael

      öpik, Lembit

      Field, Mark(Cities of London & Westminster)

      Osborne, George(Tatton)

      Ottaway, Richard

      Flight Howard

      Page, Richard

      Flook, Adrian

      Paice, James

      Forth, rh Eric

      Paterson, Owen

      Foster, Don(Bath)

      Pickles, Eric

      Fox, Dr. Liam

      Portillo, rh Michael

      Francois, Mark

      Price, Adam(E Carmarthen & Dinefwr)

      George, Andrew(St. Ives)

      Gibb, Nick(Bognor Regis)

      Prisk, Mark(Hertford)

      Gidley, Sandra

      Pugh, Dr. John

      Goodman, Paul

      Redwood, rh John

      Green, Damian(Ashford)

      Reid, Alan(Argyll & Bute)

      Greenway, John

      Rendel, David

      Gummer, rh John

      Robathan, Andrew

      Hague, rh William

      Robertson, Angus(Moray)

      Hancock, Mike

      Robertson, Hugh(Faversham & M-Kent)

      Harris, Dr. Evan(Oxford W & Abingdon)

      Robertson, Laurence(Tewk'b'ry)

      Harvey, Nick

      Robinson, Mrs Iris(Strangford)

      Hawkins, Nick

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Hayes, John(S Holland)

      Rosindell, Andrew

      Heald, Oliver

      Ruffley, David

      Heath, David

      Russell, Bob(Colchester)

      Heathcoat-Amory, rh David

      Salmond, Alex

      Hendry, Charles

      Sanders, Adrian

      Hogg, rh Douglas

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Horam, John(Orpington)

      Selous, Andrew

      Howard, rh Michael

      Shepherd, Richard

      Howarth, Gerald(Aldershot)

      Simmonds, Mark

      Hughes, Simon(Southwark N)

      Simpson, Keith(M-Norfolk)

      Hunter, Andrew

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

      Jack, rh Michael

      Jackson, Robert(Wantage)

      Soames, Nicholas

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Spelman, Mrs Caroline

      Johnson, Boris(Henley)

      Spicer, Sir Michale

      Keetch, Paul

      Spink, Bob(Castle Point)

      Kennedy, rh Charles(Ross Skye & Inverness)

      Spring, Richard

      Stanley, rh Sir John

      Key, Robert(Salisbury)

      Steen, Anthony

      Kirkbride, Miss Julie

      Streeter, Gary

      Kirkwood, Sir Archy

      Stunell, Andrew

      Knight, rh Greg(E Yorkshire)

      Swayne, Desmond

      Laing, Mrs Eleanor

      Syms, Robert

      Lamb, Norman

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Lansley, Andrew

      Taylor, Ian(Esher)

      Laws, David(Yeovil)

      Taylor, John(Solihull)

      Leigh, Edward

      Taylor, Matthew(Truro)

      Letwin, rh Oliver

      Taylor, Dr. Richard(Wyre F)

      203

      Taylor, Sir Teddy

      Willetts, David

      Thomas, Simon(Ceredigion)

      Williams, Hywel(Caernarfon)

      Thurso, John

      Williams, Roger(Brecon)

      Tonge, Dr. Jenny

      Willis. phil

      Turner, Andrew(Isle of Wight)

      Wilshire, David

      Tyler, Paul(N Cornwall)

      Winterton, Ann(Congleton)

      Tyrie, Andrew

      Winterton, Sir Nicholas(Macclesfield)

      Viggers, Peter

      Walter, Robert

      Wishart, Pete

      Watkinson, Angela

      Yeo, Tim(S Suffolk)

      Webb, Steve(Northavon)

      Young rh sir George

      Weir, Michale

      Younger-Ross, Richard

      Weir, Michael

      Whittingdale, John

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Wiggin, Bill

      Mr. Mark Hoban and

      Wilkinson, John

      Mr. John Randall

      NOES

      Ainger, Nick

      Colman, Tony

      Ainsworth, Bob(Cov'try NE)

      Connarty, Michael

      Alexander, Douglas

      Cook, Frank(Stockton N)

      Allen, Graham

      Cook, rh Robin(Livingston)

      Anderson, rh Donald(Swansea E)

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Anderson, Janet(Rossendale & Darwen)

      Corston, Jean

      Cousins, Jim

      Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

      Cox, Tom(Tooting)

      Atherton, Ms Candy

      Cruddas, Jon

      Austin, John

      Cryer, John(Hornchurch)

      Baird, Vera

      Cummings, John

      Banks, Tony

      Cunningham, rh Dr. Jack(Copeland)

      Barron, rh Kevin

      Bayley, Hugh

      Cunningham, Jim(Coventry S)

      Beard, Nigel

      Cunningham, Tony(Workington)

      Beckett, rh Margaret

      Dalyell, Tam

      Begg, Miss Anne

      Darling, rh Alistair

      Bell, Stuart

      Davey, Valerie(Bristol W)

      Benn, Hilary

      David, Wayne

      Benton, Joe(Bootle)

      Davies, rh Denzil(Llanelli)

      Berry, Roger

      Davis, rh Terry(B'ham Hodge H)

      Best, Harold

      Dawson, Hilton

      Betts, Clive

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Blackman, Liz

      Dismore, Andrew

      Blizzard, Bob

      Dobbin, Jim(Heywood)

      Borrow, David

      Donohoe, Brian H.

      Bradley, rh Keith(Withington)

      Doran, Frank

      Bradley, Peter(The Wrekin)

      Dowd, Jim(Lewisham W)

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Drown, Ms Julia

      Brown, rh Nicholas(Newcastle E Wallsend)

      Eagle, Angela(Wallasey)

      Eagle, Maria(L'poolGarston)

      Brown, Russell(Dumfries)

      Edwards, Huw

      Bryant, Chris

      Efford, Clive

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Burden, Richard

      Ennis, Jeff(Barnsley E)

      Burgon, Colin

      Farrelly, Paul

      Burnham, Andy

      Field, rh Frank(Birkenhead)

      Byers, rh Stephen

      Fisher, Mark

      Cairns, David

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      Campbell, Mrs Anne(C'bridge)

      Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

      Campbell, Ronnie(Blyth V)

      Flint, Caroline

      Caplin, Ivor

      Flynn, Paul(Newport W)

      Casale, Roger

      Follett, Barbara

      Caton, Martin

      Foster, rh Derek

      Cawsey, Ian(Brigg)

      Foster, Michael(Worcester)

      Challen, Colin

      Foster, Michael Jabez(Hastings & Rye)

      Chapman, Ben(Wirral S)

      Chaytor, David

      Foulkes, rh George

      Clapham, Michael

      Francis, Dr. Hywel

      Clark, Dr. Lynda(Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Galloway, George

      Gardiner, Barry

      Clark, Paul(Gillingham)

      George, rh Bruce(Walsall S)

      Clarke, rh Tom(Coatbridge & Chryston)

      Gerrard, Neil

      Gibson, Dr. Ian

      Clelland, David

      Gilroy, Linda

      Coaker, Vernon

      Godsiff, Roger

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Griffiths, Jane(Reading E)

      Coleman, Iain

      Griffiths, Nigel(Edinburgh S)

      204

      Griffiths, Win(Bridgend)

      McFall, John

      Grogan, John

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Hain, rh Peter

      McIsaac, Shona

      Hall, Mike(Weaver Vale)

      McKechin, Ann

      Hamilton, Fabian(Leeds NE)

      McKenna, Rosemary

      Hanson, David

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Harman, rh Ms Harriet

      McNamara, Kevin

      Havard, Dai(Merthyr Tydfil & Rhymney)

      MacShane, Denis

      McWalter, Tony

      Henderson, Doug(Newcastle N)

      Mahmood, Khalid

      Henderson, Ivan(Harwich)

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Hendrick, Mark

      Mallaber, Judy

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Mandelson, rh Peter

      Heppell, John

      Mann, John(Bassetlaw)

      Hesford, Stephen

      Marris, Rob(Wolverh'ton SW)

      Heyes, David

      Marshall, David(Glasgow Shettleston)

      Hill, Keith(Streatham)

      Hoey, Kate(Vauxhall)

      Marshall, Jim(Leicester S)

      Hood, Jimmy(Clydesdale)

      Marshall-Andrews, Robert

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Martlew, Eric

      Howarth, rh Alan(Newport E)

      Meale, Alan(Mansfield)

      Howarth, George(Knowsley N & Sefton E)

      Merron, Gillian

      Michael, rh Alun

      Howells, Dr. Kim

      Miller, Andrew

      Hoyle, Lindsay

      Mitchell, Austin(Gt Grimsby)

      Hughes, Kevin(Doncaster N)

      Moffatt, Laura

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Mole, Chris

      Hurst, Alan(Braintree)

      Moonie, Dr. Lewis

      Illsley, Eric

      Morgan, Julie

      Ingram, rh Adam

      Mountford, Kali

      Irranca-Davies, Huw

      Mudie, George

      Jackson, Glenda(Hampstead & Highgate)

      Mullin, Chris

      Munn, Ms Meg

      Jackson, Helen(Hillsborough)

      Murphy, Denis(Wansbeck)

      Jamieson, David

      Murphy, Jim(Eastwood)

      Jenkins, Brian

      Naysmith, Dr. Doug

      Jones, Jon Owen(Cardiff C)

      Norris, Dan(Wansdyke)

      Jones, Kevan(N Durham)

      O'Brien, Mike(N Warks)

      Jones, Lynne(Selly Oak)

      O'Hara, Edward

      Jones, Martyn(Clwyd S)

      Olner, Bill

      Joyce, Eric(Falkirk W)

      O'Neill, Martin

      Kaufman, rh Gerald

      Organ, Diana

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Osborne, Sandra(Ayr)

      Keen, Alan(Feltham)

      Owen, Albert

      Keen, Ann(Brentford)

      Perham, Linda

      Kelly, Ruth(Bolton W)

      Picking, Anne

      Kemp, Fraser

      Pickthall, Colin

      Khabra, Piara S.

      Pike, Peter(Burnley)

      Kidney, David

      Plaskitt, James

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Pollard, Kerry

      King, Andy(Rugby)

      Pond, Chris(Gravesham)

      King, Ms Oona(Bethnal Green & Bow)

      Prentice, Ms Bridget(Lewisham E)

      Kumar, Dr. Ashok

      Prentice, Gordon(Pendle)

      Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

      Prescott, rh John

      Lammy, David

      Primarolo, rh Dawn

      Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Laxton, Bob(Derby N)

      Purchase, Ken

      Lazarowicz, Mark

      Purnell, James

      Lepper, David

      Quin, rh Joyce

      Levitt, Tom(High Peak)

      Rapson, Syd(Portsmouth N)

      Lewis, Ivan(Bury S)

      Raynsford, rh Nick

      Lewis, Terry(Worsley)

      Reed, Andy(Loughborough)

      Linton, Martin

      Robertson, John(Glasgow Anniesland)

      Lloyd, Tony(Manchester C)

      Love, Andrew

      Ross, Ernie(Dundee W)

      Lucas, Ian(Wrexham)

      Roy, Frank(Motherwell)

      Luke, Iain(Dundee E)

      Ruane, Chris

      Lyons, John(Strathkelvin)

      Ruddock, Joan

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Russell, Ms Christine(City of Chester)

      McCafferty, Chris

      McCartney, rh Ian

      Ryan, Joan(Enfield N)

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Sarwar, Mohammad

      MacDonald, Calum

      Savidge, Malcolm

      McDonnell, John

      Sawford, Phil

      MacDougall, John

      Sedgemore, Brian

      205

      Shaw, Jonathan

      Todd, Mark(S Derbyshire)

      Sheridan, Jim

      Touhig, Don(Islwyn)

      Shipley, Ms Debra

      Trickett, Jon

      Short, rh Clare

      Truswell, Paul

      Simon, Siôn(B'ham Erdington)

      Turner, Dennis(Wolverh'ton SE)

      Simpson, Alan(Nottingham S)

      Turner, Dr. Desmond(Brighton Kemptown)

      Singh, Marsha

      Skinner, Dennis

      Tynan, Bill(Hamilton S)

      Smith, rh Chris(Islington S & Finsbury)

      Vaz, Keith(Leicester E)

      Vis, Dr. Rudi

      Smith, Geraldine(Morecambe & Lunesdale)

      Ward, Claire

      Wareing, Robert N.

      Smith, Jacqui(Redditch)

      Watts, David

      Smith, John(Glamorgan)

      White, Brian

      Smith, Llew(Blaenau Gwent)

      Whitehead, Dr. Alan

      Southworth, Helen

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Squire, Rachel

      Williams, Betty(Conwy)

      Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

      Wills, Michael

      Stevenson, George

      Wood, Mike(Batley)

      Stewart, Ian(Eccles)

      Worthington, Tony

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Wright, Anthony D.(Gt Yarmouth)

      Strang, rh Dr. Gavin

      Stringer, Graham

      Wright, David(Telford)

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      Wright, Tony(Cannock)

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Wyatt, Derek

      Taylor, David(NW Leics)

      Thomas, Gareth(Harrow W)

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Timms, Stephen

      Mr. Phil Woolas and

      Tipping, Paddy

      Charlotte Atkins

      Question accordingly negatived.

    New Clause 10

      POWER TO CONFER FURTHER FUNCTIONS ON OFCOM RELATING TO THE BBC
      '(1) The Secretary of State may by order amend this Act to such extent as he considers appropriate to give effect to the provisions of—

      (a) any Royal Charter granted to the BBC after the commencement date;

      (b) any licence granted by the Secretary of State to the BBC after that date;

      (c) any agreement made by the Secretary of State and the BBC after that date.

      (2) In subsection (1) "the commencement date" means the date of commencement of section 193.
      (3) An order under this section shall not be made unless a draft of the order has been laid before Parliament and approved by a resolution of each House.'.—[Mr. Whittingdale.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Whittingdale: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 199, in page 171, line 22 [Clause 193], at end insert—
      '() the BBC Charter:'.
      Mr. Whittingdale: We have made it clear throughout that, in the main, we are supportive of the general provisions. We support the liberalisation of the ownership rules and the establishment of a new single regulator, Ofcom. As has been demonstrated in all the debates in the Chamber and in Committee, there is no doubt that Ofcom will be a powerful body. It brings together five existing regulators and will have considerable powers to oversee all the broadcasting organisations with one exception. It is that exception
      206
      that the new clause is designed to address. The glaring omission from the Bill is the fact that the biggest and most powerful broadcaster—the BBC—is not fully within the scope of Ofcom.
      The first part of the Bill deals with the regulation of the telecommunications sector. If one draws a comparison between that part of the Bill and the section dealing with broadcasting, it is like arguing that the telecommunications sector should be subject to regulation so that all the small companies seeking to compete are subject to scrutiny and regulation, but the biggest, in the form of British Telecom, is not subject to the oversight of the regulator. In the same way, the Government propose that all the broadcasters competing and operating commercially should be subject to oversight and regulation, but the BBC should not.
      That would seem an extraordinary proposal at any time, but it is particularly so now, when the dominance of the BBC has continued to grow. As we discussed in the previous debate, in recent years the amount of resources available to the BBC has been growing steadily and now stands at more than £2.5 billion, with a further £100 million coming from the next increase in the licence fee. At the same time, other broadcasters have been subjected to a considerable squeeze as a result of the downturn in the advertising market, which has meant that many of the independent commercial broadcasters must make cuts. Channel 4 is now loss-making.
      John Robertson: If the independent television companies had been receiving the same amount of money as in the past, would the hon. Gentleman still attack the BBC as he has done during our consideration of the Bill?
      Mr. Whittingdale: I should like to think that I have not been attacking the BBC. I should like to think that my suggestions are helpful to the BBC. However, even if the commercial companies were not subject to a financial squeeze, it would not change the position: the BBC would still be the biggest and most powerful broadcaster in British broadcasting. Given that, the argument would still be overwhelming that it should be subject to the same scrutiny and oversight by Ofcom as other broadcasters are.
      The overwhelming dominance of the BBC is not just financial. In recent years it has undertaken a programme of expansion that is still continuing. As new opportunities have arisen for broadcasting, both digital television programmes and digital audio stations, in each case the BBC has felt it necessary to enter those areas and to match the activities of the commercial channels. There are therefore concerns about the way in which the BBC is competing with some commercial broadcasters, and a more general concern that has been growing over many years about the way in which the BBC meets its public service remit.
      There will be programmes that nobody could argue are not public service broadcasting in the fines tradition. We have covered some of them this evening. Some have also been highly successful. "The Blue Planet" was not just a wonderful programme that would certainly meet the public service remit; it was also

      207
      extremely successful in terms of the number of viewers that it attracted and in terms of overseas sales. I am not by any means arguing that the BBC should not make successful programmes. The BBC has demonstrated that it is possible to make high-quality public service programmes and extremely successful programmes which command a very wide audience. However, there have been other activities by the BBC which, in my view and the view of many other people, have strayed a long way from the BBC's original public service remit. I do not want to give a great catalogue of examples, but I shall cite one or two. ITV developed an extremely successful concept in the form of "Pop Idol", which has been repeated in the form of "Popstars—The Rivals" and other reality music shows. I still do not understand why the BBC felt it necessary to try to emulate that by making "Fame Academy", particularly as it seemed to be a rather pale imitation.
      At the same time, the BBC spends a great deal of money seeking to buy Hollywood blockbuster films. In bidding for those rights, it often finds itself in competition with commercial broadcasters. The overall effect of that is to increase the price that has to be paid to the American distributors. It also means that the British licence fee payer is having to spend a lot of money on purchasing American-made movies that would be shown anyway, since the commercial broadcasters have made clear their wish to purchase them. The effect is therefore simply to increase the amount of money that goes into American pockets from the licence fee payer. That, too, seems difficult to justify, particularly when we consider the BBC's record of showing British films, which is not that impressive. That issue is covered by amendments that we might debate later.
      Mr. Simon Thomas: Surely there is a public remit for the BBC to bid for blockbuster films. If the BBC did not go for them, they would possibly be available only on pay-per-view or satellite television. While it remains the case that the majority of people in this country have access only to analogue television, is it not right and proper that the BBC should provide the widest range of entertainment, including blockbuster films?
      Mr. Whittingdale: Almost every film is first shown on a box-office channel, which is pay-per-view. Normally, they are then shown on a premium movie channel and finally end up on terrestrial television. So this is not a question of people being denied the possibility of seeing them because they are being shown on a pay channel; it just means that they usually have to wait a little bit longer. In the cases that I am describing, however, ITV was seeking to buy the films in question. The most recent example was "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone", over which a bidding war took place between ITV and the BBC. That seemed wholly unnecessary and simply meant that we ended up having to pay more for it than we otherwise would have done.
      The BBC and, indeed, other broadcasters should be concentrating their efforts on screening British films, if they are to meet their public service remit. In this regard, the BBC's record is not at all impressive. In one study that I have seen recently, out of the total of 186 films broadcast by the BBC, only 44 were UK films, and only
      208
      six were less than five years old. That means that recent British films only formed 3.2 per cent. of the BBC's output, yet one would hope that the BBC, above all, would be willing to give a platform to British film makers, rather than screening a constant succession of Hollywood movies that are easily available on other channels.
      Michael Fabricant: I have considerable sympathy with my hon. Friend's argument about English—not just English, but British—films being shown on BBC television. But surely he cannot be arguing that the public service remit means that the BBC cannot also seek large audiences. If the BBC became a small ghetto with a tiny number of people watching it, there would be no justification for it at all.
      Mr. Whittingdale: That is an interesting debate that could occupy the rest of the evening. The BBC should obviously not set out to become a ghetto broadcaster or to attract only very small audiences. "The Blue Planet" is a very good example of a high-quality public service programme that can also attract very large audiences. I differ to some extent from my hon. Friend in that it has always seemed to me that the prime purpose of—indeed, the justification for—the BBC is to provide programming that is not otherwise available. Its motivation should not be to attract audiences, but to make high-quality programmes that meet its public service obligations. If it does that well, it can also expect to win substantial audiences. The BBC has produced programmes that cannot by any definition be described as public service broadcasting. One recent example is "Celebrity Boxing"—which not even commercial channels would claim met their public service remit. At a time when the general view is that there is dumbing down and that many programmes cater for the lowest common denominator, there has been a growing lack of high-quality programming of the kind that the public think the BBC is designed to broadcast.
      6 pm
      Much concern has been expressed in all parts of the House about the BBC's coverage of Parliament and politics in general. When that coverage was recently subjected to considerable change, we were given reassurances that the extent and depth of political coverage would not be diminished. Although it is early days, I do not believe that those reassurances have been met. The programmes that I have seen of the BBC's current political coverage do not provide anything like the depth of some of the programmes that they replace.
      Considerable concern has been expressed also about the BBC's coverage of the arts—particularly the recent decision to drop "Omnibus", which for 35 years was the UK's premier arts programme. Jonathan Miller commented that unless one's idea is for a programme about decorating houses or chopping up vegetables, it is impossible to get anyone at the BBC to commission it. There is widespread concern that the BBC is straying from its central public service remit.
      That matter is currently for the governors of the BBC. Unlike the other channels—which are required to report to Ofcom and are at the same time subject to monitoring and scrutiny by Ofcom to ensure that they meet their

      209
      public service remit—the BBC, which should have a stronger public service obligation than any other channel, is excluded from scrutiny. Responsibility for that rests with the governors, which seems entirely wrong. The BBC above all, because of the strength of its public service obligation, should be subject to external scrutiny.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Mitchell) spoke earlier of the BBC's capacity to compete with commercial broadcasters, take advantage of its privileged position, being funded by the licence fee, and offer unfair competition. One needs to distinguish between activities funded by the licence fee and others. A number of new BBC ventures have already given rise to complaints from commercial broadcasters that such developments represent unfair competition and replicate existing commercial programmes. The launch of BBC3 was delayed while the Secretary of State built in stronger safeguards against unfair competition. Even now, having watched BBC3, it does not seem to be a great innovation in public service broadcasting but competes head on with existing broadcasters such as E4 and Channel 4. Reviews of some BBC3 programmes shown to date do not justify the large sum of money that has been committed to that channel—including "Tories with Talent", despite the fact that about 1 o'clock this morning, I enjoyed watching my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) punch through a wooden log.
      Similarly, BBC4 should in many ways define public service broadcasting, being dedicated to arts coverage. There have already been complaints from Artsworld, an existing broadcaster, and Digital Classics—which directly blames BBC4 for its closure after making losses in the last year. Digital Classics has said that the BBC's free digital cultural channel has distorted the digital market. Moreover, concern about BBC News 24 was so great that the Secretary of State felt it necessary to commission an independent report on its activities, which led to new requirements being placed on the channel to ensure that it was "distinctive and different".
      It should not have been necessary for the Secretary of State to intervene. The fact that it was necessary demonstrates the inadequacy of the current arrangements, and the lack of action on the part of the governors. It would have been far better if an external body had been there to monitor the BBC's output constantly. Such a body could have ensured that the BBC was not breaching its fair trading commitment, and was providing channels that were both "distinctive and different" and in line with the public service obligation.
      We already have eight children's television channels. The BBC has launched two of its own, CBBC and CBeebies. In many ways those channels are distinctive and different, but it is a cause of great concern when their controller says that his ambition is to create the biggest children's channel and to take over those currently watched on the commercial channels.
      My hon. Friends have mentioned UK History, whose creation gave rise to complaints from the existing broadcaster, The History Channel, that it would merely replicate a channel that was already being provided commercially. UK History is not funded by the licence fee; it is part of the BBC Worldwide activities that are supposed to be separate and insulated from the licence
      210
      fee. I agree, however, with my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant), who asked whose assurance we had that that was the case. Any complaints relating to whether the BBC is properly maintaining an arm's-length relationship between its licence-fee-funded and its commercial activities are subject to adjudication by the governors: only they can look into such complaints.
      We now understand that there are to be two new channels, UK Comedy and UK Nature, on top of all the existing UK television channels. We have heard complaints about the BBC's provision of educational software: existing manufacturers of that software have complained vociferously about the unfair competition. The latest revelation is that the BBC has just acquired a stake in an Anglo-Dutch music and television production company, and will produce classical DVDs. There is already a thriving classical DVD market in this country, and I see no need for the BBC to move into it. The move is likely to prompt more complaints from those who are already in that area of the market, and who also consider that the BBC is engaging in unfair competition.
      Whether or not those complaints are justified, if the public are to be reassured that the BBC is meeting its public service obligations and is not engaging in unfair competition with commercial operators, there must be a mechanism allowing independent examination of the complaints. There must be a public assurance that they will be properly examined; it is not enough to rest on the assurances given by the governors of the BBC.
      The governors are, in fact, in an impossible position. They represent the overall management and control of the BBC, while at the same time being expected to act as independent adjudicators when complaints are made. A number of people think it is increasingly difficult for them to fulfil both remits. Many besides Conservative Members believe that Ofcom needs to extend its activities to cover the BBC. In recent years there has been a growing chorus of complaints from people who are certainly not the BBC's enemies. Lord Puttnam, a strong supporter of the BBC, says that there is a danger of "everyone's favourite Auntie" being turned into "an abusive Uncle". Barry Cox, a distinguished broadcaster and a great friend of the Prime Minister, has described the BBC as
      "a cultural tyranny—a … benevolent one, but a tyranny none the less".
      Lord Lipsey, another Labour peer, said that the current director-general of the BBC has failed to grasp
      "the emerging threat … if the BBC is just doing the same thing as other broadcasters, what is the case for it? Why should it get public funding, regulatory privileges, legislative protection?"
      Finally, in commenting on the current arrangements for oversight of the BBC, David Liddiment, ITV's director of programmes, said:
      "If the BBC is, as it claims, the most regulated broadcaster in Britain, this must happen invisibly, because I can't see it. There's little evidence of the governors having an objective perspective on the organisation for which they are accountable."
      So the truth is that many people feel that the existing arrangements for the oversight and control of the BBC are inadequate. The governors are trying to do two different jobs, and it is becoming increasingly difficult for them to do so. There is a need for an independent

      211
      regulator, and Ofcom has been set up for that purpose. The purpose of new clause 10 is not necessarily for Ofcom immediately to take over the job of overseeing the BBC; it is to lay the ground for that to happen. In particular, it would allow the Secretary of State to make an order to extend Ofcom's powers to cover the BBC.
      The Government have said that this matter should be considered in the run-up to charter renewal, and we are grateful for that concession. Nevertheless, we know what will happen. If the Government conclude that Ofcom should indeed take greater control over the BBC, we will be told that that is not possible without primary legislation, and that we will have to wait until a suitable opportunity arises. New clause 10 would give the Secretary of State the power to amend the legislation in order to give effect to any changes to the charter, or to the agreement, at some future date, without having to return to this House. We believe that such change will be necessary at some point, and the new clause is designed to ensure that it can be achieved easily.
      Mr. Grogan: It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale). I shall try to be brief, because, although we have heard a lot about the power of the BBC, we have yet to discuss media ownership and the powers of those such as Mr. Murdoch. I shall not be tempted to reply to the hon. Gentleman by making a complete tour of last month'sRadio Times, but I shall respond to a few of his comments. The BBC's new children's channels, which carry no advertising, show very few cartoons and have a largely British content, do provide something very different for parents and for children. They are a prime example of public service broadcasting. Many of the new digital radio channels—such as BBC 7 and Radio Five Live Sports Extra, which broadcast comedy and drama, and additional sports coverage respectively—add something to the BBC's firmament.
      The hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford is obviously a man of very fastidious tastes. I quite enjoyed the celebrity boxing, and as for the new politics shows, the contributions of the right hon. Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Portillo) on the late-night Thursday show have been as incisive as his contribution to the debate on the future of the Conservative party.
      I agree with the hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford when he says that the BBC should try to encourage original British films. Indeed, since the demise of Film Four, BBC Films is the only company that is involved in the co-production of British films. In that regard, "Billy Elliot" stands out. In the debate about dumbing down, there is a danger of looking back to a golden age. One must not forget that in the 1980s, "Kojak" and "Dallas" were very much prime-time BBC1.
      John Robertson: Does my hon. Friend agree that Ofcom perhaps needs to look at the provision and showing of British films?
      Mr. Grogan: Indeed, and it is a pity that we will probably be unable to discuss the amendments relating to that issue today. On the question of exactly what the
      212
      BBC should do, I would argue that blockbuster films on Christmas day, top quality sports coverage and good quality popular drama—all without adverts, which viewers seem to like—have a place in public service broadcasting. The BBC, in a way, exists to distort the market. Some Tory Members appear to think that the only thing that it should show is BBC Parliament. No one could argue with it showing that, but in every other sphere it will always have a commercial competitor somewhere.
      6.15 pm
      Under the Bill, the BBC will come under the auspices of Ofcom. The BBC will be under Ofcom on tier 1 regulation of taste and decency, and on tier 2 regulation of quotas for regional production—introduced for the first time—as well as original and independent production. On tier 3, the BBC will be influenced by Ofcom, because periodically it will have to review the whole firmament—I had better not say ecology—of public service broadcasting, and that will include the BBC. It is only the back-stop powers of judging whether the BBC is fulfilling its programme policies and remits that will remain with the governors, and with good reason. Ofcom is meant to be a light touch regulator of public service broadcasting in commercial television. It would be a very different role for it to perform the heavy touch regulation that is needed for the BBC. If the BBC were completely under Ofcom, we could be sure that every 10 minutes some commercial opponent would complain to the regulator that the BBC should not be doing something or other. Before we embark on that course, which will be considered when the time comes for charter renewal, the least we should do is revisit the debate in primary legislation, not have the changes slipped through under an order. On those grounds, I oppose new clause 10.
      Nick Harvey: I am sorry that the hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale) has felt it necessary to go over this ground yet again, because we have had these debates several times before. He has heard the response from Ministers that charter renewal will be the time to consider the big issues for the BBC, and that is a reasonable position for the Government to take.
      One cannot help but feel that the hon. Gentleman would like the BBC to provide for minority tastes and fill the gaps that the market does not otherwise fill. However, the point was made—correctly—by the hon. Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) that if the BBC was penned into providing only for the minority tastes for which the market would not otherwise cater, it would inevitably become a ghetto and could not build the substantial audiences that it needs to fulfil its public service remit. By definition, everything that the BBC does distorts the market, because it has unique access to a privileged flow of income to which no one else has any equivalent.
      It is a matter of public policy, not regulation, as to when and to what extent the BBC should be allowed to use that money to distort the market. The BBC is a market maker. If the BBC were not there, providing high quality programmes for large audiences, the overall quality of broadcasting would be much the worse for it. It is having a well funded and highly professional BBC

      213
      setting the pace that means that the market forms around the lead that it gives. It is right and proper that that should continue.
      The hon. Member for Selby (Mr. Grogan) makes the point, which has been made many times, that the Bill will put the BBC under the supervision of Ofcom in a substantial and meaningful way. What remains outside Ofcom is simply the test of whether the BBC has met its public service remit. The huge amount of money it has and the variety of television and radio channels it operates would mean that Ofcom's role would be completely distorted if it were tasked with the detailed supervision of the BBC in all its range and breadth. Some other apparatus has to be there for that purpose. The charter and the governing arrangements will be reviewed and revisited in the next few years. That would be the logical time to introduce such an apparatus.
      The purpose of new clause 10 is to allow any changes that might emerge to be made on the nod—by order of the Secretary of State. I am by instinct usually opposed to Secretaries of State being allowed to act by order, and this is no exception. Substantial changes must be effected by primary legislation, and any short delay in their introduction would not matter much. Parliament must retain the right to decide such things through primary legislation. For that reason, I strongly oppose new clause 10.
      Mr. Lansley: I rise to speak briefly to amendment No. 199, tabled in my name, and to express my general support for new clause 10.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale) did not have the opportunity to set out at length his view of the purposes and structure of the BBC, but I do not believe that the BBC's role is to provide the broadcasting that the commercial sector is unable or unwilling to provide. The BBC is a public service broadcaster, not a residual broadcaster. It can do many things that extend beyond the residual approach.
      Under the residual approach, one might leave the networks and the channels in the hands of commercial providers, which would package them together. That would leave the BBC as simply a provider of programmes, handing them out to anyone willing to show them. The BBC is subsidised through the licence fee, and programmes would be provided as a result.
      The BBC is more important than that. It provides channels that, in themselves, help to shape broadcasting, especially in the public service sector. For example, the programme "EastEnders" is ground breaking in drama terms but, along with key sporting events and certain films, it also renders the channel on which it is still shown attractive to a large number of people. They want to watch it regularly. If the BBC did not run channels, public service broadcasting would not have the reach and public impact that it has at present.
      We can have a debate about what the BBC is for, but all of us accept that that debate will take place in the runup to charter renewal in 2006. That is what amendment No. 199 is about, and new clause 10 does not interfere with that. The amendment would simply ensure that the decision could be given proper effect, in legislation and in relation to the function of Ofcom.
      214
      The difference between new clause 10 and amendment No. 199 is that new clause 10 would allow the Secretary of State to alter the legislation, by order, and place the BBC in a position analogous, in various respects, to that occupied by the licensed public service channels. As a result, the BBC would become the creature of statute, as distinct from being a charter body.
      At present, the BBC is bounded by statute in some respects, but it is primarily a charter body. The Bill means that the BBC will be regulated by Ofcom and that it will put itself in the analogous position that I have described, notwithstanding its charter obligations. That will happen because it will come to that agreement with the Secretary of State. We saw in Committee the draft of such an agreement. I might say in parenthesis that the reference to the difference relating only to the public service remit is insufficiently precise. Matters such as impartiality will remain strictly the province of the governors and will not be subject to scrutiny by Ofcom. In substantial areas—the public service remit is the most important—Ofcom will not be able to exercise its function.
      My continuing belief is that a major discontinuity will arise over time in relation to Ofcom's pursuing its objective of examining regularly, within five years at most, the overall public service broadcasting obligations of the BBC and other organisations. It will be able to enforce the conclusions that it reaches on that basis in relation to every public service broadcaster apart from the BBC. If the governors continue down the path of trying to be independent of the BBC management, as they profess to be at the moment, it is difficult to believe that that independence will not be manifested in their having their own distinctive view of the BBC's remit and how it discharges it. Over time, the governors are bound to seek to manifest that independence as independence from Ofcom, as well as from the BBC. We will have to decide whether the governors are effectively the board of directors of the BBC, as in the case of the board of directors of Channel 4, which is a perfectly acceptable solution, or, as new clause 9 suggests, trustees of the licence fee. Those are two different functions that will need to be separated.
      Either way, it will not suffice, when it comes to charter renewal, to leave it in the hands of the BBC to come to an agreement on the extent to which it is bounded by Ofcom's powers. No matter how we move forward, it is likely, under the constitution of the BBC, that Ofcom will need to have a role if it is to be able to give proper effect to its scrutiny of public service broadcasting obligations as a whole, and that that will appear in the charter. To include in the Bill a reference to the possibility that Ofcom will have functions bestowed on it through the charter, as distinct from an agreement made consequent on the charter, would he an accurate reflection of the likely situation at the end of 2006. Furthermore, it would preclude the possibility of the BBC believing that it can resist an agreement, or aspects of an agreement, by arguing that it was inconsistent with the obligations placed on it in the charter and that it would be unable to delegate to any other body its responsibilities for the BBC's functions. We should be clear now that, under the charter, Ofcom may have those responsibilities.

      215
      On the basis of that abstruse, quasi-constitutional argument, I profess my preference for amendment No. 199, but, in respect of the objective, I am sure that my hon. Friend and I are on exactly the same territory.
      Michael Fabricant: I rise in support of new clause 10.
      It was argued that the National Audit Office should be allowed to examine the operations of the BBC, partly to protect the organisation so that it can be seen not to be its own judge and jury. The same argument applies to Ofcom having control over the BBC, ultimately to demonstrate, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) explained, that the BBC board of governors cannot be its own judge and jury when people make complaints against the corporation. I do not hold the view that the BBC, in order to hold its public service remit, should be prevented from putting out popular programming. In an earlier exchange, I said to the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) that a fine balance must be struck between broadcasting specialist programmes and those of general public appeal. If the BBC has a small audience, not only will it fail to justify the way in which it is funded, but it could be argued that it does not provide a public service because it has few viewers and listeners.
      6.30 pm
      The unique way in which the BBC is funded means that it is different from other broadcasters. That is apparent in the programmes that it transmits, including its news output. It is worth repeating a point that was made in Committee. The BBC has more journalists than ITN, ABC News, CBS, NBC, FOX News and CNN combined. The reason for that is demonstrated in the quality of its overseas as well as its United Kingdom news coverage. If one visits the United States or Australia, one sees that BBC reporters often appear on television stations there. They are ambassadors not only for the BBC but for the United Kingdom. The corporation does that well.
      The corporation is not well served by being perceived as its own judge and jury. Being in the ambit of Ofcom would protect the BBC. The Bill is a culmination of legislation. If we consider the Radio Authority and the Independent Television Commission, it is clear that we would create an imbalance if the Bill did not have equal control over the BBC. Such control is in the BBC's interest and in our national interest.
      Dr. Howells: As the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) reminded us, amendment No. 199 would allow the BBC charter to contain Ofcom's functions in relation to the BBC. He will not be surprised to learn that I shall resist the amendment because I do not believe that the charter is the appropriate place for setting out such provisions.
      When the amendment was discussed in Committee, the hon. Gentleman pointed out that the way in which the charter is renewed could lead to inconsistency with the agreement. He suggested that it would be better to proof the legislation by specifying in the charter Ofcom's role in relation to the BBC.
      216
      I assure the hon. Gentleman that circumstances in which the charter and the agreement were inconsistent would not arise. The two documents should be considered as a package. A renewed charter would include a new corresponding agreement. The Government's policy has been to set out the BBC's regulation in the agreement. The agreement, not the charter, establishes the BBC's obligations and remit. It is therefore appropriate that when Ofcom has a role in relation to the obligations, it is woven seamlessly into the provisions in the agreement.
      An agreement between the BBC and the Government is just that—a document to which both parties have signed up. It is valid only when the House has approved it. The agreement does not give the BBC carte blanche to interpret the charter as it chooses, as the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire suggested in Committee.
      By setting out the BBC's relationship with Ofcom in the agreement, we will bring the BBC into the overall regulatory framework while preserving its special position and its constitutional relationship with Parliament. That is a fundamental principle to our approach to the BBC's regulation.
      The hon. Gentleman is right that I cannot pre-empt the outcome of charter renewal any more than anyone else can. There will be plenty of time for that during the debate on the review. The charter review itself could have any number of outcomes, many of which might require legislation. I am not convinced that it would be appropriate to single out a possible outcome for special recognition by catering for it expressly in the Bill.
      New clause 10 would give the Secretary of State a Henry VIII power to amend the Bill after it is enacted when he considers it appropriate to do so to give effect to any new BBC charter, licence or agreement. As policy relating to the BBC is generally set out in the charter and agreement rather than in the Bill, no amendment of the resulting Act would generally speaking be necessary in practice to enable a new charter or agreement to have effect. Following the charter review, if the current system of regulation through charter and agreement were to be turned into something so radically different as to involve amendments to the Act, I would expect Parliament to be given the opportunity to debate those amendments fully in the context of fresh primary legislation rather than measures implemented under the power that new clause 10 would confer. That point is particularly important given the wide scope of the proposed power, which could, for example, be used to put the BBC on to an almost wholly statutory basis without any new primary legislation.
      As my hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Grogan) pointed out, it is simply not true to say that the BBC governors will be judge and jury under the proposed regime. As he told us, in relation to most things, including most programme code standards, original productions, regional programme making, provision for the deaf and visually impaired, international obligations, equal opportunities and training, the BBC will not be judge and jury. In most cases, it will be Ofcom that decides whether the BBC has

      217
      breached any requirements, as well as what those requirements will be. I therefore hope that Opposition Members will see fit not to press the new clause further.
      Paul Farrelly: Will the Minister join me in expressing regret about the fact that the Opposition have turned this debate solely into a determined onslaught against the BBC, so we have had no opportunity to discuss on the Floor of the House very important issues of media ownership that were not discussed in Committee either?
      Dr. Howells: I understand my hon. Friend's ire about that. To be fair—I am a very fair person, except when I am watching England beating Wales at rugby—many defences of the BBC have been made, and they have come not only from the Labour Benches, but from the Opposition Benches. A sustained attack was made by the hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale), but he had been behaving himself throughout the debate, so it had to come out sooner or later, as my hon. Friend saw. There is general agreement in the House that the BBC does a pretty magnificent job in most respects, but there is no question but that there is room for debate. As I said, that debate will be focused on charter renewal and renewal of the agreement with the Secretary of State.
      Mr. Chris Mullin: I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Paul Farrelly) was inviting the Minister to share the regret of a number of people in this place and, no doubt, outside the Chamber that no time has been found today—and nor will any be found—for any discussion about the enormous changes to ownership of ITV and Channel 5 that the Bill proposes. Is that not an extraordinary situation that reflects badly on this House?
      Dr. Howells: I am sure that my hon. Friend knows that there were 65 hours of Committee sittings on the Bill. There has been very rigorous scrutiny, including that of the pre-legislative scrutiny Committee, which was chaired by Lord Puttnam. This Bill has been crawled over like no other Bill that I have known in 14 years of having the privilege of being a Member of this House. There was a moment—I will not point any fingers at anyone in the Chamber—when certain amendments should have been moved, but it was very early in the morning, so they were not spoken to and we did not get around to the discussion that that would have involved. I regret that very much, as I think that we have a substantial and strong case to make with regard to our proposals about ownership.
      John McDonnell: For the benefit of hon. Members who were not members of the Committee but who wish to enter the debate on media ownership, does my right hon. Friend agree that we should re-examine the programming motion so that the matter can be brought back for discussion?
      Dr. Howells: No.
      I hope that the new clause will not be pressed to a Division.
      Mr. Whittingdale: We remain unconvinced by the Minister's arguments. We feel strongly that this is the
      218
      biggest omission in the Bill. We hope that the Government will, in time, come round to that view. The purpose of the proposed new clause 10 was simply to allow that omission to be rectified without recourse to primary legislation. However, we have failed to persuade the Minister.
      Bearing in mind the remarks of Labour Members to the effect that we do not have much time left, I am willing to withdraw the new clause to allow a little time to discuss the next group. However, in withdrawing it, I do not in any way suggest that we do not still feel that the case for it is overwhelming. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
      Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

    New Clause 13

      MEANING OF CONTROL
      '(1) Paragraph (1) of Part I of Schedule 2 to the 1990 Act shall have effect subject to the following amendments.
      (2) For subparagraph (3) there shall be substituted—
      "(3) For the purposes of this Schedule a person has control of a body corporate if that person is able, or it is reasonable to expect that person to be able, directly or indirectly to ensure that the affairs of a body are conducted in accordance with that person's wishes.
      (3A) In determining whether a person controls a body corporate all relevant circumstances shall be taken into account including the level of participation in the body corporate of that person and the level of participation of other participants in the body, and if it is the case that the person does not ensure that the affairs of the body corporate are conducted in accordance with that person's wishes consistently or on a continuing basis, that fact shall be disregarded.
      Without prejudice to the generality of subparagraph (3)—

      (a) a person has control of a body corporate if that person is beneficially entitled to more than 50 per cent. of the equity share capital in the body or possesses more than 50 per cent. of the voting power in it, and

      (b) a person has control of a body corporate if that person is beneficially entitled to 50 per cent. of the equity share capital in the body or possesses 50 per cent. of the voting power in it, and is party to an arrangement with another participant in the body corporate under which they agree to exercise their voting power or any of it in a particular way either generally or in relation to any particular issue or not to exercise their voting power or any of it in relation to any particular issue."

      (3) Subparagraph (5) shall cease to have effect.
      (4) After paragraph 3 there shall be inserted—
      (3A)—(1) In this paragraph "guidance on control" means guidance on the matters which Ofcom consider should be taken into account in determining whether any person controls a body corporate within the meaning of paragraph 1(3) to (3A) above.
      (2) In determining the question whether a person has control of a body corporate account shall be taken of any published guidance on control.
      (3) OFCOM shall prepare guidance on control and shall publish a draft of the guidance in such manner as they consider appropriate for bringing it to the attention of persons who in Ofcom's opinion are likely to be affected by such guidance.
      (4) OFCOM shall also publish, together with the draft, a notice that any person may make representations to OFCOM on the draft within such period as may be specified in the notice, not being less than one month from the date of publication.
      (5) OFCOM shall take account of the representations made within the specified time in preparing the guidance on control and shall publish the guidance, not later than 3 months from the last

      219
      day on which representations may be made under subparagraph (4), in such manner as they consider appropriate for bringing it to the attention of persons who in OFCOM's opinion are likely to be affected by such guidance.
      (6) OFCOM shall keep the guidance on control under review and may publish revised guidance from time to time; and subparagraphs (3) to (5) above shall apply to any such revised guidance as they apply to the original guidance with any necessary modifications.
      (5)In Part 2 of Schedule 2 to the 1990 Act after 5A there shall be inserted—
      "5B. For the purposes of this Part two or more persons or bodies shall not be taken to control a body corporate otherwise than by virtue of paragraph 1(3A) or (3B) of Part I of this Schedule unless they are acting together in concert.".'.—[Mr. Greenway.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Greenway: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 12, in page 290, line 38 [Clause 337], leave out paragraph (a).
      No. 179, in page 290, line 39 [Clause 337], at end insert—
      '(bb) paragraph 2 (disqualification for religious bodies);'.
      No. 184, in page 294, line 5 [Clause 340], leave out subsections (1) and (2) and insert—
      '(1) Subsection (9) of section 32 of the 1990 Act (limits on participation in nominated news providers) shall cease to have effect.'.
      No. 149, in page 302, line 13, leave out Clause 347.
      No. 114, in page 424, line 4, [Schedule 14], leave out from 'order' to end of line 5 and insert
      'amend or repeal the preceding provisions of this Part, but any such amendment must not have the effect of increasing the restrictions on the holding of any licence and, in particular, may not increase any number (whether expressed in words or figures) in this Part'.
      No. 2, in page 424, line 5 [Schedule 14], at end insert—

      'PART 1 A CHANNEL 5 SERVICES
      6A(1) A person is not to hold a Channel 5 licence if—

      (a) he runs a national newspaper which for the time being has a national market share of 20 per cent. or more; or

      (b) he runs national newspapers which for the time being together have a national market share of 20 per cent. or more.

      (2) For the purposes of this paragraph, each of the following shall be treated as holding a Channel 5 licence—

      the actual licence holder; and

      every person connected with the actual licence holder.

      (3) The provisions of paragraphs 2 to 4 of this Schedule shall apply for the purposes of this Part of this Schedule insofar as they relate to national newspapers as if a Channel 5 licence were a licence to provide a Channel 3 service.'.
      No. 115, in page 429, line 33, [Schedule 14], leave out 'any provision' and insert 'Parts 3 or 4'.
      No. 13, in page 451, line 33 [Schedule 15], leave out subparagraph (4) and insert—
      '(4) For paragraph 1(2) and (3) of Part 2, there shall be substituted—
      220
      "(2) Subparagraph (1) shall apply in relation to any Broadcasting Act licence other than a licence to provide a Channel 3 service and a Channel 5 licence as if paragraphs (a) and (b) (and the reference to those paragraphs in paragraph (i)) were omitted.".'.
      No. 14, in page 550 [Schedule 19], leave out lines 3 to 5.
      No. 15, in page 550, line 6 [Schedule 19], leave out '(2) and'.
      Mr. Greenway: New clause 13 seeks to clarify the meaning of control for the purposes of schedule 2 to the 1990 Act, which contains the provisions restricting cross-media ownership, and for the purposes of clauses 339 to 342, which introduce new powers for Ofcom where there is a change in control of a Channel 3 or Channel 5 licence holder. So many important licensing issues depend on what is meant by control that it cannot be right to introduce uncertainty into its meaning now. We are, after all, a long way down the path of development of the law in this area. We should have learned enough to be clear and certain in any alteration that we make.
      The new clause is proposed as an alternative to clause 347, which, for the benefit of hon. Members who were not on the Committee, introduces the concept that a holding of 20 per cent. of equity or voting power is, of itself, evidence of control. That clearly is not logical or sensible. If enacted, it would introduce considerable uncertainty into this important area of media law. The presumption is rebuttable, but we all know how difficult it is to prove a negative. The 20 per cent. participant will, in many cases, be able to show that he does not control the company only by showing that another person does. However, there is no reason why he should have the necessary information to prove that another person has control. How would he know? The Government, in their response in Committee, did not justify the change. The Minister suggested that the reason for the change was that a 20 per cent. holding was the level at which questions started to be asked. We entirely agree with that, but it is a quantum leap from that position to the proposition that a person with a 20 per cent. holding should be deemed to be a controller unless he can show that he is not.
      The hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) made an impassioned plea on the need for more time to debate these matters. He knows about the criminal law; if we were dealing with a criminal offence, the Government would be the first to agree that it would be quite wrong to move from saying that someone is suspected of committing a crime to saying that he is guilty unless he can show that he is not. That is the philosophy that underpins clause 347. That is the effect that it will have.
      New clause 13 would change things so that a person would be deemed to have control only if that person does, in fact, have control—whether or not the control is exercised directly or indirectly, and whether or not it is exercised consistently. That would be so whatever the level of shareholding, but there is no chance that the licence-holding restrictions would hit someone who did not have control.
      I want to make it clear to the Minister that what we are seeking to say is not that a 20 per cent. holding can never constitute control, but that such a holding does

      221
      not automatically constitute control. Indeed, the new clause would still allow for lower percentages than even 20 per cent. to constitute control, but real control, not a mythical control that can never exist, would be considered under our scheme.
      6.45 pm
      The new clause does not include the changes proposed in clause 347(1). We are still not sure what those proposals are intended to achieve—no clear explanation was given in Committee—but they appear to add to the uncertainty that we are trying to remove. After all, if a person is to be judged according to whether he can get his own wishes carried out, he will be so judged whether or not he actually does that. In so far as clause 347(1) is an attempt to extend the definition of control to cases of limited control, it clearly adds to the uncertainty.
      What is meant by the word "significant"? What will happen if individuals take a genuine view that something is not significant, but Ofcom takes the view that it is significant? For example, finance directors can determine many significant financial dealings without generally being thought to control the company. Most executive directors make executive decisions of some importance. Are all those directors to be considered as controllers now?
      Any director with specific managerial responsibilities is likely to be able to get the company to carry out his wishes so far as they relate to those responsibilities, but can that director be described, in all seriousness, as controlling the company just because he has that kind of influence? We think not. The proposals in clause 347(1) appear to extend the notion of control to almost anyone with any influence. The Government need to give much more information to justify those proposals.
      The final part of the new clause—subsection (5)—would move what is now subsection (5)(1) of part 1 of schedule 2 to the Broadcasting Act 1990 into part 2 of that schedule. That is intended to clarify the meaning of subsection (5)(1), which, if left where it is, appears at first sight to have a much broader application.
      I now turn to amendment No. 184, which relates to the ownership of ITN by ITV. Colleagues will know that the 1990 legislation introduced the requirement for a majority shareholding in ITN not to be owned by ITV companies. As I made clear in Committee, I opposed those measures in the 1990 legislation against my own Government from the Back Benches, and the consequences that I predicted, chief among which was reduced investment by ITV in ITN, have come true. We can see no logical argument as to why ITV, or Channel 3, should not own its own news services in precisely the way that the BBC does.
      The Minister will know that I teased him in Committee by suggesting that perhaps he might like to ring up Mr. Greg Dyke and say that, in future, BBC news will be provided by someone else. That is not a case of BBC bashing; on the contrary, I am simply asking why, if the channel funded by public money is allowed to own its news provider, a commercial channel, which has no public money and pays money into the Treasury, is not.
      The changes in the 1990 legislation were intended to give ITN access to increased investment in news programming, but the opposite is the case, as ITN has
      222
      to bid competitively on price with other news providers and, in the latest competitive round, against Sky News. That drives down the price that ITV has to pay to ITN, thereby reducing investment. The result is that the investment value of the ITN contract from ITV went down from £80 million to just £38.5 million. In consequence, the value of non-ITV majority ownership is also undermined. So we propose in amendment No. 184 that we should sweep away the provisions in the 1990 Act to require a majority shareholding from non-Channel 3 companies.
      I want to remind Labour Members, should we have the opportunity to vote on this matter, of what happened when it was discussed in the 1990 Committee. All the spokespersons of the then Labour Opposition spoke generally against the provisions, including the current Secretary of State for Transport and several prominent Back Benchers, as did the Liberal Democrats and Plaid Cymru spokespersons. The only two Conservative Members who were able to speak in favour of the proposal were Mr. David Mellor and Mrs. Edwina Currie. Not only will Labour Members therefore be in extraordinary company if they continue to support the proposal but, if they stick with it, the lesson is that they will lose their seat at the next election, although they will have a career in radio—
      Mr. Andrew Miller: Egg on their face!
      Mr. Greenway: As the hon. Gentleman says from a sedentary position, they could get egg on their face. There are many more jokes that could be made.
      In all seriousness, ITN itself wants the system scrapped—it is not just ITV Channel 3 companies saying that they would prefer to own their news provider. ITN can see that the time to reverse the proposal has come. Even if the nominated news provider system is retained, which is dealt with in another range of amendments and new clauses that we are unlikely to reach, amendment No. 184, which I commend to the House, at least scraps the nonsense of having to have majority shareholders other than those from ITV companies.
      Finally, I come to amendment No. 179, which deals with an issue that I am sure will be familiar to every right hon. and hon. Member in the Chamber this evening: the vexed question of the existing restrictions on ownership of broadcast channels applying to religious organisations. I am sure that every Member present has received representations on the matter, and the Opposition have believed for some time that that unjustified discrimination should end. The amendment provides an opportunity for the Government to signal that they agree.
      Andrew Selous: I am grateful to my hon. Friend—and to other hon. Friends on the Front Bench—for tabling the amendment. I congratulate him on supporting the removal of broadcasting disqualifications for religious bodies. Does he agree that if amendment No. 170 is defeated tonight, the House should have a further opportunity on Report to discuss amendment No. 86 to clause 4? That will allow the supposed reasons for the disqualification of religious broadcasters to be debated in the House.

      223
      Furthermore, does he agree that it is out of order that religious broadcasters are still disqualified from using eight different types of licence under the Bill as it stands?
      Mr. Greenway: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I believe that he is right—subject to your selection of amendments for the second day of Report, Mr. Speaker—that we may have an opportunity to consider this matter again. As we are almost out of time, other hon. Members who might have wanted to contribute on this matter may wish to take that opportunity. My hon. Friend is also right that there are several broadcast stations that religious organisations are prohibited from owning. We are in danger of dismissing the arguments of religious organisations, so the Government should take a much more realistic view of the requests of those organisations. They are not asking to be awarded licences; they are asking to have the opportunity to apply for licences and to make their case in the same way as everyone else.
      We understand that the Centre for Justice and Liberty has expressed gratitude to the Government for allowing religious organisations to apply for digital programme services. However, that is not the request of such organisations. Instead of having to apply under exceptional determinations while still being disqualified, why cannot the religious disqualification be removed so that religious organisations can apply for licences on a level playing field with other citizens and secular competitors? That is what amendment No. 179 seeks to achieve.
      The religious organisations ask why they cannot have the same rights in our communications and broadcasting law that are proposed for citizens of non-EU member states, such as Mexico, the USA and Canada. That is a fair point. Why is a profession entered into by people as a vocation to serve the community rewarded by the Government with a legal disqualification? That is what happens for practitioners of this profession. Disqualification means, at the starting point in law, that religious organisations do not have the right to apply to broadcast.
      This issue has been long debated and the arguments are not unlike those that my hon. Friends have made in respect of the BBC audit. The matter has been under discussion for a long time, and we strongly believe that this part of our broadcasting law is no longer justified. The time has come for the Government to grasp the issue, so I commend amendment No. 179 to the House.
      Mr. Mullin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether you can assist me. There are relating major issues in the Bill to ownership—an issue on which we were just about to touch—but they have not been discussed either on Report or in Committee. However, a further day has been allocated for consideration of the Bill, so would it be possible to amend the timetable so that debate on the amendments dealing with ownership could be carried over?
      Mr. Speaker: Order.I interrupt the hon. Gentleman to say to him that I am bound by the programme motion
      224
      to which the House agreed. How we proceed is a matter for the House. I am therefore bound by the programme motion.
      Mr. Greenway: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I remind the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) and the House that the programme motion originally agreed by the House allowed for only one day of debate and—
      Mr. Speaker: Order. We are not going into that, because I must allow the new clause that the hon. Gentleman has moved to be debated.
      Mr. Mullin: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.
      Mr. Speaker: Order. I am not going to allow any further points of order. Does the Minister wish to speak to the new clause? No. I call the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell).
      Mr. Austin Mitchell: In the minute or so that remains, may I remind the House that the question of ownership has not been debated? Amendments Nos. 12 and 2 in this group deal with that very issue. They would prohibit American takeovers that would drive down the market and would prevent people and organisations, such as Murdoch and Sky, from taking over Channel 5 and changing the whole ecology of the broadcasting system by creating a monster competitor that is largely unregulated. That is the issue that we should be discussing and I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to mention it if only briefly.
      Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
      The House divided: Ayes 138, Noes 367.

      Division No. 94]

      6:59 pm

      AYES

      Ainsworth, Peter(E Surrey)

      Conway, Derek

      Amess, David

      Cormack, Sir Patrick

      Ancram, rh Michael

      Cran, James(Beverley)

      Arbuthnot, rh James

      Curry, rh David

      Atkinson, David(Bour'mth E)

      Davis, rh David(Haltemprice & Howden)

      Bacon, Richard

      Baldry, Tony

      Djanogly, Jonathan

      Barker, Gregory

      Donaldson, Jeffrey M.

      Baron, John(Billericay)

      Dorrell, rh Stephen

      Bellingham, Henry

      Duncan, Peter(Galloway)

      Bercow, John

      Duncan Smith, rh Iain

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Evans, Nigel

      Blunt, Crispin

      Fabricant, Michael

      Bottomley, Peter(Worthing W)

      Fallon, Michael

      Brady, Graham

      Field, Mark(Cities of London & Westminster)

      Brazier, Julian

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Flight, Howard

      Burns, Simon

      Flook, Adrian

      Burnside, David

      Forth, rh Eric

      Burt, Alistair

      Fox, Dr. Liam

      Cameron, David

      Francois, Mark

      Cash, William

      Gibb, Nick(Bognor Regis)

      Chapman, Sir Sydney(Chipping Barnet)

      Goodman, Paul

      Green, Damian(Ashford)

      Chope, Christopher

      Greenway, John

      Clappison, James

      Gummer, rh John

      Clarke, rh Kenneth(Rushcliffe)

      Hayes, John(S Holland)

      Collins, Tim

      Heald, Oliver

      225

      Heathcoat-Amory, rh David

      Robertson, Hugh(Faversham & M-Kent)

      Hendry, Charles

      Hogg, rh Douglas

      Robinson, Mrs Iris(Strangford)

      Horam, John(Orpington)

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Howard, rh Michael

      Rosindell, Andrew

      Howarth, Gerald(Aldershot)

      Ruffley, David

      Hunter, Andrew

      Selous, Andrew

      Jack, rh Michael

      Shepherd, Richard

      Jackson, Robert(Wantage)

      Simmonds, Mark

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Simpson, Keith(M-Norfolk)

      Johnson, Boris(Henley)

      Soames, Nicholas

      Key, Robert(Salisbury)

      Spelman, Mrs Caroline

      Kirkbride, Miss Julie

      Spicer, Sir Michael

      Knight, rh Greg(E Yorkshire)

      Spink, Bob(Castle Point)

      Laing, Mrs Eleanor

      Spring, Richard

      Lansley, Andrew

      Stanley, rh Sir John

      Leigh, Edward

      Steen, Anthony

      Lewis, Dr. Julian(New Forest E)

      Streeter, Gary

      Liddell-Grainger, Ian

      Swayne, Desmond

      Lidington, David

      Syms, Robert

      Lilley, rh Peter

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Loughton, Tim

      Taylor, Ian(Esher)

      Luff, Peter(M-Worcs)

      Taylor, John(Solihull)

      Mcintosh, Miss Anne

      Taylor, Sir Teddy

      Mackay, rh Andrew

      Tredinnick, David

      Maclean, rh David

      Turner, Andrew(Isle of Wight)

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Tyrie, Andrew

      Malins, Humfrey

      Viggers, Peter

      Maples, John

      Walter, Robert

      Mawhinney, rh Sir Brian

      Waterson, Nigel

      Mercer, Patrick

      Watkinson, Angela

      Mitchell, Andrew(Sutton Coldfield)

      Whittingdale, John

      Widdecombe, rh Miss Ann

      Moss, Malcolm

      Wiggin, Bill

      Murrison, Dr. Andrew

      Wilkinson, John

      O'Brien, Stephen(Eddisbury)

      Willetts, David

      Osborne, George(Tatton)

      Wilshire, David

      Ottaway, Richard

      Winterton, Ann(Congleton)

      Page, Richard

      Winterton, Sir Nicholas(Macclesfield)

      Paice, James

      Paterson, Owen

      Yeo, Tim(S Suffolk)

      Pickles, Eric

      Young, rh Sir George

      Portillo, rh Michael

      Randall, John

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Redwood, rh John

      Mr. Mark Hoban and

      Robathan, Andrew

      Mr. Laurence Robertson

      NOES

      Ainsworth, Bob(Cov'try NE)

      Bradley, Peter(The Wrekin)

      Alexander, Douglas

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Allan, Richard

      Brake, Tom(Carshalton)

      Allen, Graham

      Breed, Colin

      Anderson, rh Donald(Swansea E)

      Brennan, Kevin

      Anderson, Janet(Rossendale & Darwen)

      Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

      Brown, rh Nicholas(Newcastle E Wallsend)

      Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

      Atherton, Ms Candy

      Brown, Russell(Dumfries)

      Austin, John

      Bruce, Malcolm

      Baird, Vera

      Bryant, Chris

      Baker, Norman

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Banks, Tony

      Burden, Richard

      Barrett, John

      Burgon, Colin

      Barron, rh Kevin

      Burnett, John

      Bayley, Hugh

      Burnham, Andy

      Beard, Nigel

      Burstow, Paul

      Beckett, rh Margaret

      Byers, rh Stephen

      Begg, Miss Anne

      Cable, Dr. Vincent

      Beith, rh A. J.

      Cairns, David

      Benn, Hilary

      Calton, Mrs Patsy

      Benton, Joe(Bootle)

      Campbell, Ronnie(Blyth V)

      Berry, Roger

      Caplin, Ivor

      Best, Harold

      Carmichael, Alistair

      Blackman, Liz

      Caton, Martin

      Blizzard, Bob

      Cawsey, Ian(Brigg)

      Borrow, David

      Challen, Colin

      Bradley, rh Keith(Withington)

      Chapman, Ben(Wirral S)

      226

      Chaytor, David

      Hall, Mike(Weaver Vale)

      Chidgey, David

      Hall, Patrick(Bedford)

      Clapham, Michael

      Hamilton, Fabian(Leeds NE)

      Clark, Paul(Gillingham)

      Hancock, Mike

      Clarke, rh Tom(Coatbridge & Chryston)

      Hanson, David

      Harris, Dr. Evan(Oxford W & Abingdon)

      Clelland, David

      Coaker, Vernon

      Harris, Tom(Glasgow Cathcart)

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Harvey, Nick

      Coleman, Iain

      Havard, Dai(Merthyr Tydfil & Rhymney)

      Colman, Tony

      Connarty, Michael

      Healey, John

      Cook, Frank(Stockton N)

      Heath, David

      Cook, rh Robin(Livingston)

      Henderson, Doug(Newcastle N)

      Cotter, Brian

      Henderson, Ivan(Harwich)

      Cousins, Jim

      Hendrick, Mark

      Cox, Tom(Tooting)

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Cruddas, Jon

      Heppell, John

      Cryer, John(Hornchurch)

      Hesford, Stephen

      Cummings, John

      Heyes, David

      Cunningham, rh Dr. Jack(Copeland)

      Hill, Keith(Streatham)

      Hoey, Kate(Vauxhall)

      Cunningham, Jim(Coventry S)

      Holmes, Paul

      Cunningham, Tony(Workington)

      Hood, Jimmy(Clydesdale)

      Dalyell, Tam

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Darling, rh Alistair

      Howarth, rh Alan(Newport E)

      Davey, Valerie(Bristol W)

      Howarth, George(Knowsley N & Sefton E)

      David, Wayne

      Davies, rh Denzil(Llanelli)

      Howells, Dr. Kim

      Davies, Geraint(Croydon C)

      Hoyle, Lindsay

      Davis, rh Terry(B'ham Hodge H)

      Hughes, Beverley(Stretford & Urmston)

      Dawson, Hilton

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Hughes, Kevin(Doncaster N)

      Dobbin, Jim(Heywood)

      Hughes, Simon(Southwark N)

      Donohoe, Brian H.

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Doran, Frank

      Hurst, Alan(Braintree)

      Doughty, Sue

      Hutton, rh John

      Dowd, Jim(Lewisham W)

      Illsley, Eric

      Drown, Ms Julia

      Ingram, rh Adam

      Eagle, Angela(Wallasey)

      Irranca-Davies, Huw

      Eagle, Maria(L'pool Garston)

      Jackson, Glenda(Hampstead & Highgate)

      Edwards, Huw

      Efford, Clive

      Jackson, Helen(Hillsborough)

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Jamieson, David

      Ennis, Jeff(Barnsley E)

      Jenkins, Brian

      Ewing, Annabelle

      Johnson, Alan(Hull W)

      Farrelly, Paul

      Jones, Jon Owen(Cardiff C)

      Field, rh Frank(Birkenhead)

      Jones, Kevan(N Durham)

      Fisher, Mark

      Jones, Lynne(Selly Oak)

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      Jones, Martyn(Clwyd S)

      Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

      Kaufman, rh Gerald

      Flint, Caroline

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Flynn, Paul(Newport W)

      Keen, Alan(Feltham)

      Follett, Barbara

      Keen, Ann(Brentford)

      Foster, rh Derek

      Keetch, Paul

      Foster, Don(Bath)

      Kemp, Fraser

      Foster, Michael(Worcester)

      Kennedy, rh Charles(Ross Skye & Inverness)

      Foster, Michael Jabez(Hastings & Rye)

      Khabra, Piara S.

      Foulkes, rh George

      Kidney, David

      Francis, Dr. Hywel

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Galloway, George

      King, Andy(Rugby)

      Gardiner, Barry

      King, Ms Oona(Bethnal Green & Bow)

      George, Andrew(St. Ives)

      George, rh Bruce(Walsall S)

      Kirkwood, Sir Archy

      Gerrard, Neil

      Knight, Jim(S Dorset)

      Gibson, Dr. Ian

      Kumar, Dr. Ashok

      Gidley, Sandra

      Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

      Gilroy, Linda

      Lamb, Norman

      Godsiff, Roger

      Lammy, David

      Green, Matthew(Ludlow)

      Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

      Griffiths, Jane(Reading E)

      Laws, David(Yeovil)

      Griffiths, Nigel(Edinburgh S)

      Laxton, Bob(Derby N)

      Griffiths, Win(Bridgend)

      Lazarowicz, Mark

      Grogan, John

      Lepper, David

      Hain, rh Peter

      Leslie, Christopher

      227

      Levitt, Tom(High Peak)

      Prentice, Gordon(Pendle)

      Lewis, Ivan(Bury S)

      Price, Adam(E Carmarthen & Dinefwr)

      Lewis, Terry(Worsley)

      Linton, Martin

      Primarolo, rh Dawn

      Lloyd, Tony(Manchester C)

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Pugh, Dr. John

      Love, Andrew

      Purchase, Ken

      Lucas, Ian(Wrexham)

      Purnell, James

      Luke, Iain(Dundee E)

      Quin, rh Joyce

      Lyons, John(Strathkelvin)

      Rapson, Syd(Portsmouth N)

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Raynsford, rh Nick

      McCafferty, Chris

      Reed, Andy(Loughborough)

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Reid, Alan(Argyll & Bute)

      MacDonald, Calum

      Rendel, David

      McDonnell, John

      Robertson, John(Glasgow Anniesland)

      MacDougall, John

      McFall, John

      Robinson, Geoffrey(Coventry NW)

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      McIsaac, Shona

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      McKechin, Ann

      Ross, Ernie(Dundee W)

      McKenna, Rosemary

      Roy, Frank(Motherwell)

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Ruane, Chris

      McNamara, Kevin

      Russell, Bob(Colchester)

      MacShane, Denis

      Russell, Ms Christine(City of Chester)

      McWalter, Tony

      Mahmood, Khalid

      Ryan, Joan(Enfield N)

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Salmond, Alex

      Mallaber, Judy

      Salter, Martin

      Mandelson, rh Peter

      Sanders, Adrian

      Mann, John(Bassetlaw)

      Sarwar, Mohammad

      Marris, Rob(Wolverh'ton SW)

      Savidge, Malcolm

      Marsden, Paul(Shrewsbury & Atcham)

      Sawford, Phil

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Marshall, David(Glasgow Shettleston)

      Shaw, Jonathan

      Sheerman, Barry

      Marshall, Jim(Leicester S)

      Sheridan, Jim

      Marshall-Andrews, Robert

      Shipley, Ms Debra

      Martlew, Eric

      Short, rh Clare

      Meale, Alan(Mansfield)

      Simon, Siôn(B'ham Erdington)

      Merron, Gillian

      Simpson, Alan(Nottingham S)

      Michael, rh Alun

      Singh, Marsha

      Miliband, David

      Skinner, Dennis

      Miller, Andrew

      Smith, rh Andrew(Oxford E)

      Mitchell, Austin(Gt Grimsby)

      Smith, rh Chris(Islington S & Finsbury)

      Moffatt, Laura

      Mole, Chris

      Smith, Geraldine(Morecambe & Lunesdale)

      Moonie, Dr. Lewis

      Moore, Michael

      Smith, Jacqui(Redditch)

      Morgan, Julie

      Smith, John(Glamorgan)

      Morley, Elliot

      Smith, Llew(Blaenau Gwent)

      Mountford, Kali

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

      Mudie, George

      Mullin, Chris

      Southworth, Helen

      Munn, Ms Meg

      Spellar, rh John

      Murphy, Denis(Wansbeck)

      Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

      Murphy, Jim(Eastwood)

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Naysmith, Dr. Doug

      Stevenson, George

      Norris, Dan(Wansdyke)

      Stewart, Ian(Eccles)

      Oaten, Mark(Winchester)

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      O'Brien, Mike(N Warks)

      Strang, rh Dr. Gavin

      O'Hara, Edward

      Straw, rh Jack

      Olner, Bill

      Stringer, Graham

      O'Neill, Martin

      Stunell, Andrew

      Öpik, Lembit

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Organ, Diana

      Taylor, David(NW Leics)

      Osborne, Sandra(Ayr)

      Taylor, Matthew(Truro)

      Owen, Albert

      Thomas, Gareth(Clwyd W)

      Perham, Linda

      Thomas, Gareth(Harrow W)

      Picking, Anne

      Thomas, Simon(Ceredigion)

      Pickthall, Colin

      Thurso, John

      Pike, Peter(Burnley)

      Timms, Stephen

      Plaskitt, James

      Tipping, Paddy

      Pollard, Kerry

      Todd, Mark(S Derbyshire)

      Pond, Chris(Gravesham)

      Tonge, Dr. Jenny

      Prentice, Ms Bridget(Lewisham E)

      Trickett, Jon

      Truswell, Paul

      228

      Turner, Dennis(Wolverh'ton SE)

      Williams, Betty(Conwy)

      Turner, Dr. Desmond(Brighton Kemptown)

      Williams, Hywel(Caernarfon)

      Williams, Roger(Brecon)

      Tyler, Paul(N Cornwall)

      Willis, Phil

      Tynan, Bill(Hamilton S)

      wills. Michael

      Vaz, Keith(Leicester E)

      Wishart, Pete

      Vis Dr Rudi

      Wood, Mike(Batley)

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Woolas, Phil

      Ward, Claire

      Worthington, Tony

      Wareing, Robert N.

      Wright, Anthony D.(Gt Yarmouth)

      Watts, David

      Wright David(Telford)

      Webb, Steve(Northavon)

      Wright Tony(Cannock)

      Weir, Michael

      Younger-Ross, Richard

      White, Brian

      Whitehead, Dr. Alan

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Charlotte Atkins and

      Williams, rh Alan(Swansea W)

      Mr. Nick Ainger

      Question accordingly negatived.
      It being after Seven o'clock, MR. SPEAKER put the Question necessary to dispose of the remaining business to be concluded at that hour, pursuant to Order [10 February].
      Remaining Government amendments agreed to.
      Bill, as amended in the Standing Committee, to be further considered tomorrow.

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

      CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
      That the draft National Assembly for Wales (Representation of the People) Order 2003, which was laid before this House on 30th January, be approved.—[Dan Norris.]
      Question agreed to.

      LOCAL GOVERNMENT BILL (PROGRAMME)(NO. 3)
      Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Orders [28 November 2001 and 29 October 2002],
      That, in accordance with the Resolution of the Standing Committee dated 13th February 2003, the programme order of 7th January 2003 in relation to the Local Government Bill shall be amended by the substitution for paragraphs 4 and 5 (proceedings on consideration and Third Reading to be completed in one day) of the following—
      "4. Proceedings on consideration and Third Reading shall be completed in two days.
      4A. Proceedings on consideration shall be taken on each of the days as shown in the following Table and shall be taken in the order so shown, and each part of the proceedings shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the time specified in the third column of the Table.

      TABLE

      Day

      Proceedings

      Time for conclusion of proceedings

      1st

      New Clauses, other than new of Clauses relating to Chapter 1 of Part 8; new Schedules, other than new Schedules relating to Chapter 1 of Part 8; and Amendments to Clauses 1 to 19, Schedule 1, Clauses 20 to 42, Schedule 2 and Clauses 43 to 92

      The moment of interruption

      2nd

      New Clauses relating to Clauses 93 to 117; new Schedules relating to Clauses 93 to 117; and

      5 hours before the moment of interruption

      229

      Amendments to Clauses 93 to 100, Schedule 3, Clauses 101 to 105, Schedule 4, Clause 106, Schedule 5 and Clauses 107 to 117

      2nd

      New Clauses relating to Clause 119; new Schedules relating to Clause 119; and Amendments to Clause 119

      2½ hours before the moment of interruption

      2nd

      New Clauses relating to Clause 118; new Schedules relating to 1 hour before the Clause 118; Amendments to Clauses 118 and 120 to 124, Schedules 6 and 7 and Clauses 125 and 126; and remaining proceedings on consideration

      1 hour before the moment of interruption

      5. Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on the second of the days."—[Dan Norris.]
      The House divided: Ayes, 293, Noes 184.

      Division No. 95]

      [7:17 pm

      AYES

      Ainsworth, Bob(Cov'try NE)

      Coleman, Iain

      Alexander, Douglas

      Colman, Tony

      Allen, Graham

      Connarty, Michael

      Anderson, Janet(Rossendale & Darwen)

      Cook, rh Robin(Livingston)

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

      Cousins, Jim

      Atherton, Ms Candy

      Cox, Tom(Tooting)

      Austin, John

      Cruddas, Jon

      Baird, Vera

      Cryer, John(Hornchurch)

      Banks, Tony

      Cummings, John

      Barron, rh Kevin

      Cunningham, Jim(Coventry S)

      Bayley. Hugh

      Cunningham, Tony(Workington)

      Beard, Nigel

      Dalyell, Tam

      Beckett, rh Margaret

      Darling, rh Alistair

      Begg, Miss Anne

      Davey, Valerie(Bristol W)

      Benn, Hilary

      David, Wayne

      Benton, Joe(Booth)

      Davies, rh Denzil(Llanelli)

      Berry, Roger

      Davies, Geraint(Croydon C)

      Best, Harold

      Davis, rh Terry(B'ham Hodge H)

      Blackman, Liz

      Dawson, Hilton

      Blizzard, Bob

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Borrow, David

      Dobbin, Jim(Heywood)

      Bradley, rh Keith(Withington)

      Donohoe, Brian H.

      Bradley, Peter(The Wrekin)

      Doran, Frank

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Dowd, Jim(Lewisham W)

      Brennan, Kevin

      Drown, Ms Julia

      Brown, rh Nicholas(Newcastle E Wallsend)

      Eagle, Angela(Wallasey)

      Eagle, Maria(L'pool Garston)

      Brown, Russell(Dumfries)

      Edwards, Huw

      Bryant, Chris

      Efford, Clive

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Burden, Richard

      Ennis, Jeff(Barnsley E)

      Burgon, Colin

      Farrelly, Paul

      Burnham, Andy

      Fisher, Mark

      Byers, rh Stephen

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      Cairns, David

      Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

      Campbell, Ronnie(Blyth V)

      Flint, Caroline

      Caplin, Ivor

      Flynn, Paul(Newport W)

      Caton, Martin

      Follett, Barbara

      Cawsey, Ian(Brigg)

      Foster, rh Derek

      Challen, Colin

      Foster, Michael(Worcester)

      Chapman, Ben(Wirral S)

      Foster, Michael Jabez(Hastings & Rye)

      Chaytor, David

      Clapham, Michael

      Foulkes, rh George

      Clark, Paul(Gillingham)

      Francis, Dr. Hywel

      Clarke, rh Charles(Norwich S)

      Galloway, George

      Clarke, rh Tom(Coatbridge & Chryston)

      George, rh Bruce(Walsall S)

      Gerrard, Neil

      Clelland, David

      Gibson, Dr. Ian

      Coaker, Vernon

      Gilroy, Linda

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Godsiff, Roger

      230

      Griffiths, Jane(Reading E)

      MacDonald, Calum

      Griffiths, Win(Bridgend)

      McDonnell, John

      Grogan, John

      MacDougall, John

      Hain, rh Peter

      McFall, John

      Hall, Mike(Weaver Vale)

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Hall, Patrick(Bedford)

      McIsaac, Shona

      Hamilton, Fabian(Leeds NE)

      McKechin, Ann

      Hanson, David

      McKenna, Rosemary

      Harris, Tom(Glasgow Cathcart)

      McNamara, Kevin

      Havard, Dai(Merthyr Tydfil & Rhymney)

      MacShane, Denis

      McWalter, Tony

      Healey, John

      Mahmood, Khalid

      Henderson, Doug(Newcastle N)

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Henderson, Ivan(Harwich)

      Mallaber, Judy

      Hendrick, Mark

      Mann, John(Bassetlaw)

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Marris, Rob(Wolverh'ton SW)

      Heppell, John

      Marshall, David(Glasgow Shettleston)

      Heyes, David

      Hill, Keith(Streatham)

      Marshall-Andrews, Robert

      Hood, Jimmy(Clydesdale)

      Martlew, Eric

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Meale, Alan(Mansfield)

      Howarth, rh Alan(Newport E)

      Merron, Gillian

      Howarth, George(Knowsley N & Sefton E)

      Michael, rh Alun

      Miliband, David

      Howells, Dr. Kim

      Miller, Andrew

      Hoyle, Lindsay

      Mitchell, Austin(Gt Grimsby)

      Hughes, Beverley(Stretford & Urmston)

      Moffatt, Laura

      Mole, Chris

      Hughes, Kevin(Doncaster N)

      Moonie, Dr. Lewis

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Morgan, Julie

      Hume, John(Foyle)

      Morley, Elliot

      Hurst, Alan(Braintree)

      Mountford, Kali

      Hutton, rh John

      Mullin, Chris

      Illsley, Eric

      Munn, Ms Meg

      Ingram, rh Adam

      Murphy, Denis(Wansbeck)

      Irranca-Davies, Huw

      Murphy, Jim(Eastwood)

      Jackson, Glenda(Hampstead & Highgate)

      Naysmith, Dr. Doug

      Norris, Dan(Wansdyke)

      Jamieson, David

      O'Brien, Mike(N Warks)

      Jenkins, Brian

      O'Hara, Edward

      Jones, Jon Owen(Cardiff C)

      Olner, Bill

      Jones, Kevan(N Durham)

      O'Neill, Martin

      Jones, Lynne(Selly Oak)

      Organ, Diana

      Jones, Martyn(Clwyd S)

      Osborne, Sandra(Ayr)

      Kaufman, rh Gerald

      Owen, Albert

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Perham, Linda

      Keen, Alan(Feltham)

      Picking, Anne

      Keen, Ann(Brentford)

      Pickthall, Colin

      Kemp, Fraser

      Pike, Peter(Burnley)

      Khabra, Piara S.

      Plaskitt, James

      Kidney, David

      Pollard, Kerry

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Pond, Chris(Gravesham)

      King, Andy(Rugby)

      Prentice, Ms Bridget(Lewisham E)

      King, Ms Oona(Bethnal Green & Bow)

      Primarolo, rh Dawn

      Knight, Jim(S Dorset)

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Kumar, Dr. Ashok

      Purchase, Ken

      Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

      Purnell, James

      Lammy, David

      Quin, rh Joyce

      Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

      Rapson, Syd(Portsmouth N)

      Laxton, Bob(Derby N)

      Raynsford, rh Nick

      Lazarowicz, Mark

      Reed, Andy(Loughborough)

      Lepper, David

      Robertson, John(Glasgow Anniesland)

      Leslie, Christopher

      Levitt, Tom(High Peak)

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      Lewis, Ivan(Bury S)

      Ross, Ernie(Dundee W)

      Lewis, Terry(Worsley)

      Roy, Frank(Motherwell)

      Linton, Martin

      Ruane, Chris

      Lloyd, Tony(Manchester C)

      Ruddock, Joan

      Love, Andrew

      Russell, Ms Christine(City of Chester)

      Lucas, Ian(Wrexham)

      Luke, Iain(Dundee E)

      Ryan, Joan(Enfield N)

      Lyons, John(Strathkelvin)

      Salter, Martin

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Sarwar, Mohammad

      McCafferty, Chris

      Savidge, Malcolm

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Sawford, Phil

      231

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Tipping, Paddy

      Sheerman, Barry

      Todd, Mark(S Derbyshire)

      Sheridan, Jim

      Trickett, Jon

      Shipley, Ms Debra

      Truswell, Paul

      Short, rh Clare

      Turner, Dennis(Wolverh'ton SE)

      Simon, Siôn(B'ham Erdington)

      Turner, Dr. Desmond(Brighton Kemptown)

      Skinner, Dennis

      Smith, rh Andrew(Oxford E)

      Tynan, Bill(Hamilton S)

      Smith, rh Chris(Islington S & Finsbury)

      Vaz, Keith(Leicester E)

      Vis, Dr. Rudi

      Smith, Geraldine(Morecambe & Lunesdale)

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Ward, Claire

      Smith, Jacqui(Redditch)

      Wareing, Robert N.

      Smith, John(Glamorgan)

      Watts, David

      Smith, Llew(Blaenau Gwent)

      White, Brian

      Southworth, Helen

      Whitehead, Dr. Alan

      Spellar, rh John

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

      Williams, rh Alan(Swansea W)

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Wills, Michael

      Stevenson, George

      Wood, Mike(Batley)

      Stewart, Ian(Eccles)

      Woolas, Phil

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Worthington, Tony

      Strang, rh Dr. Gavin

      Wright, Anthony D.(Gt Yarmouth)

      Straw, rh Jack

      Stringer, Graham

      Wright, David(Telford)

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Wright, Tony(Cannock)

      Taylor, David(NW Leics)

      Thomas, Gareth(Clwyd W)

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Thomas, Gareth(Harrow W)

      Charlotte Atkins and

      Timms, Stephen

      Mr. Nick Ainger

      NOES

      Ainsworth, Peter(E Surrey)

      Donaldson, Jeffrey M.

      Allan, Richard

      Dorrell, rh Stephen

      Amess, David

      Doughty, Sue

      Arbuthnot, rh James

      Duncan, Peter(Galloway)

      Atkinson, David(Bour'mth E)

      Duncan Smith, rh Iain

      Bacon, Richard

      Evans, Nigel

      Barker, Gregory

      Ewing, Annabelle

      Baron, John(Billericay)

      Fabricant, Michael

      Barrett, John

      Fallon, Michael

      Beith, rh A. J.

      Field, Mark(Cities of London & Westminster)

      Bellingham, Henry

      Bercow, John

      Flight, Howard

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Flook, Adrian

      Blunt, Crispin

      Forth, rh Eric

      Bottomley, Peter(Worthing W)

      Foster, Don(Bath)

      Brady, Graham

      Fox, Dr. Liam

      Brake, Tom(Carshalton)

      Francois, Mark

      Brazier, Julian

      George, Andrew(St. Ives)

      Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

      Gibb, Nick(Bognor Regis)

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Gidley, Sandra

      Bruce, Malcolm

      Goodman, Paul

      Burnett, John

      Green, Damian(Ashford)

      Burns, Simon

      Green, Matthew(Ludlow)

      Burnside, David

      Gummer, rh John

      Burstow, Paul

      Hancock, Mike

      Burt, Alistair

      Harris, Dr. Evan(Oxford W & Abingdon)

      Calton, Mrs Patsy

      Cameron, David

      Harvey, Nick

      Carmichael, Alistair

      Hayes, John(S Holland)

      Cash, William

      Heald, Oliver

      Chapman, Sir Sydney(Chipping Barnet)

      Heath, David

      Heathcoat-Amory, rh David

      Chidgey, David

      Hendry, Charles

      Chope, Christopher

      Hogg, rh Douglas

      Clappison, James

      Holmes, Paul

      Clarke, rh Kenneth(Rushcliffe)

      Horam, John(Orpington)

      Collins, Tim

      Howard, rh Michael

      Conway, Derek

      Howarth, Gerald(Aldershot)

      Cotter, Brian

      Hughes, Simon(Southwark N)

      Cran, James(Beverley)

      Hunter, Andrew

      Curry, rh David

      Jack, rh Michael

      Davis, rh David(Haltemprice & Howden)

      Jackson, Robert(Wantage)

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Djanogly, Jonathan

      Johnson, Boris(Henley)

      232

      Kennedy, rh Charles(Ross Skye & Inverness)

      Rosindell, Andrew

      Ruffley, David

      Key, Robert(Salisbury)

      Russell, Bob(Colchester)

      Kirkbride, Miss Julie

      Salmond, Alex

      Kirkwood, Sir Archy

      Sanders, Adrian

      Knight, rh Greg(E Yorkshire)

      Selous, Andrew

      Laing, Mrs Eleanor

      Shepherd, Richard

      Lamb, Norman

      Simmonds, Mark

      Lansley, Andrew

      Simpson, Keith(M-Norfolk)

      Laws, David(Yeovil)

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

      Leigh, Edward

      Lewis, Dr. Julian(New Forest E)

      Soames, Nicholas

      Liddell-Grainger, Ian

      Spicer, Sir Michael

      Lidington, David

      Spink, Bob(Castle Point)

      Lilley, rh Peter

      Spring, Richard

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Stanley, rh Sir John

      Loughton, Tim

      Steen, Anthony

      Luff, Peter(M-Worcs)

      Streeter, Gary

      McIntosh, Miss Anne

      Stunell, Andrew

      Mackay, rh Andrew

      Swayne, Desmond

      Maclean, rh David

      Syms, Robert

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Malins, Humfrey

      Taylor John(Solihull)

      Maples, John

      Taylor, Matthew(Truro)

      Marsden, Paul(Shrewsbury & Atcham)

      Taylor, Sir Teddy

      Thomas, Simon(Ceredigion)

      Mawhinney, rh Sir Brian

      Thurso, John

      Mawhinney, rh Sir Brian

      Tonge, Dr. Jenny

      Mercer, Patrick

      Tredinnick, David

      Mitchell, Andrew(Sutton Coldfield)

      Turner, Andrew(Isle of Wight)

      Moore Michael

      Tyler, Paul(N Cornwall)

      Moss, Malcolm

      Tyrie, Andrew

      Murrison, Dr. Andrew

      Viggers, Peter

      Walter, Robert

      Oaten, Mark(Winchester)

      Waterson Nigel

      O'Brien, Stephen(Eddisbury)

      Webb Steve(Northavon)

      Öpik, Lembit

      Weir Michael

      Osborne, George(Tatton)

      Whittingdale, John

      Ottaway, Richard

      Widdecombe, rh Miss Ann

      Page, Richard

      Wiggin, Bill

      Paice, James

      Wilkinson, John

      Paterson, Owen

      Willetts, David

      Pickles, Eric

      Williams, Hywel(Caernarfon)

      Price, Adam(E Carmarthen & Dinefwr)

      Williams, Roger(Brecon)

      Willis, Phil

      Pugh, Dr. John

      Wilshire, David

      Randall, John

      Winterton, Ann(Congleton)

      Redwood, rh John

      Winterton, Sir Nicholas(Macclesfield)

      Reid, Alan(Argyll & Bute)

      Rendel, David

      Wishart, Pete

      Robathan, Andrew

      Young, rh Sir George

      Robertson, Hugh(Faversham & M-Kent)

      Younger-Ross, Richard

      Robertson, Laurence(Tewk'b'ry)

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Robinson, Mrs Iris(Strangford)

      Mr. Mark Hoban and

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Angela Watkinson

      Question accordingly agreed to.

      NATIONAL MINIMUM WAGE (ENFORCEMENT NOTICES) BILL [LORDS]
      Ordered,
      That, during proceedings on the National Minimum Wage (Enforcement Notices) Bill [Lords], the Standing Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it shall meet.—[Dan Norris.]

    PETITIONS

      South Elmsall, South Kirby and Upton
      7.28 pm
      Jon Trickett: I wish to present a petition from year-11 students from Minsthorpe community college. South Elmsall, South Kirby and Upton, which

      233
      are in my constituency, are former mining villages. Historically, they had a powerful sense of community, and were very tightly knit areas. I am proud to support the students of Minsthorpe community college, because they have shown the same sense of community that their parents and grandparents always possessed.
      The petition declares:
      The young people from South Elmsall, South Kirby and Upton, in the west Yorkshire area, would like to see changes.
      The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge Wakefield metropolitan district council, local agencies and the police to provide youth club facilities for seven to 16-year-olds; a local or mobile cinema; more police on the beat, backed up by security cameras, and action taken; the removal of drug dealers from our streets, and rehabilitation centres for drug users; dog wardens on patrol; local people made responsible for allowing their dogs to foul public areas; and improved swimming facilities in South Elmsall, South Kirby and Upton.
      And the Petitioners remain, etc.
      To lie upon the Table.

      War in Iraq
      7.29 pm
      Mr. Steve Webb: My constituents were dismayed when they learned that the Prime Minister could commit British troops in the Gulf without the approval of Parliament. In order to allow them to register their objections, I placed a petition on my website. To date, nearly 500 constituents have registered their support for the petition in that way. I understand that the procedures of the House do not allow me to register those names formally, but the number has been placed on the record, which is important.
      I do have a more traditional paper petition, which states:
      To the House of Commons
      The petition of residents of South Gloucestershire and others.
      Declares that British forces should not be committed against Iraq without the approval of Parliament.
      The Petitioners therefore request the House of Commons to urge the Government not to commit British forces against Iraq without a prior vote in favour by the House of Commons.
      And the Petitioners remain, etc.
      To lie upon the Table.

      Luton Airport
      7.30 pm
      Mr. Peter Lilley: I am proud to present a petition from 6,000 residents of Hitchin and Harpenden who believe that the Government's plans to expand Luton airport are unfair, because they assume that a new long runway will be built there, whereas plans to expand all other airports are treated as options, and because the site and infrastructure are unsuitable for an airport the size of Gatwick.
      The petition states that the Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons oppose
      the proposals for Luton airport as set out in the Government's consultation document.
      And the Petitioners remain, etc.
      To lie upon the Table.

      Council Housing
      Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Dan Norris.]
      7.31 pm
      Mr. Alan Hurst: I am pleased to have the opportunity to raise before the House this evening the important subject of a future for council housing. I am especially pleased that the Minister for Social Exclusion and Deputy Minister for Women is to reply. because she has visited my constituency, albeit an ancient market-town, within the past two years.
      It is somewhat of a contradiction for me to say that housing is a growing problem in my constituency, in the sense that Braintree, Witham and the other 45 villages that make up the constituency form one of the fastest growing areas in the country. Between the last two general elections, 7,000 extra voters were added to the list, and that has risen by another 4,000 since the last election. The town of Braintree is ringed by new housing developments, but they are mainly of executive-style houses with some social housing. The other major town in the constituency, Witham, is only 45 minutes from London Liverpool Street.
      People who move to the area from London, or even from Brentwood and Chelmsford further south in Essex, regard the Braintree district as a relatively cheap housing aria, but everything is comparative. Cheap in Braintree means that the average price is £153,000 for a house. Hon. Members will begin to see the difficulty in attracting key workers and others to move into the area when prices are running at that level.
      That difficulty is exacerbated in the villages that surround the main towns. They are picturesque villages with country cottages that people would go out of their way to buy if only they could, but over the years the cottages have been renovated, refurbished and given every modern improvement. They are now way outside the price range of the local people who have grown up there and the families who have lived there for generations. Many local people live in the council houses that still exist in most of the villages, although many have been sold. Some social housing schemes have been built through housing associations but the number built is insufficient to meet the need.
      Braintree has a larger council housing stock than many authorities. In 1979, we had 14,000 properties in the Braintree district, but that has now fallen to 9,000. Of course, the population was much smaller in 1979, so the ratio is rising all the time.
      Witham is a mediaeval market town. It expanded enormously in the 1960s and 1970s. The Greater London Council developed estates there, and people were attracted to the area to work. The housing was considered to be cheap compared with that in London and the inner-city suburbs. The local authority ensured that people who went to Witham to work had adequate housing, whether bought or rented.
      One of the schemes run by the old Witham urban district council involved houses built for sale. The council would build and sell the houses, and grant 100 per cent. mortgages on them so that people could move in straight away to work in the town. By chance, Mr. and Mrs. Hopkins from Witham came to my

      235
      advice surgery on Friday. It emerged from our conversation that they arrived in Witham in 1969. They were just married. Mr. Hopkins was working at the Crittall window factory in the town, earning £30 a week. He went to the council for a house, and was offered a new house—semi-detached, with three bedrooms—for £4,275. The council also offered him a 100 per cent. mortgage. His only outlay was £126 for legal fees and stamp duty. Recently, his son looked at a one-bedroom flat, priced at £105,000. Workers in the same position as Mr. Hopkins today would have to earn £54,000 a year—the same as a Member of Parliament, and not what a factory worker earns.
      Over the past century, housing policy has ebbed and flowed. The Labour party can claim credit for a number of policies, including Wheatley's Housing Act 1924, which allowed local authorities to subsidise council house building. That was the first spur that allowed large numbers of working people to have decent housing accommodation.
      David Lloyd George's remark about "homes fit for heroes" is often quoted, as though he betrayed the promise, but 1.5 million council houses were built between 1918 and 1939. To people used to slums and tenements, they were like small palaces. On the walls of many of the older council estates—in Witham, or Dunmow, for instance—one can still see the crest of some long gone urban or rural district council. They may be faded or covered in ivy, but they show the pride local authorities took in providing housing for their residents.
      After the second world war, the two main political parties vied with each other as to how many houses they were building. Between 1945 and 1951, the Attlee Government built 1 million houses. The Conservatives said that they would build more, and did—although we said that they were not as good as ours. The point was that the two main parties were taking part in what amounted to an auction, striving to build more and better houses for millions of working people.
      However, the shadow of the end began with the Heath Government of the early 1970s, when the sale of council houses started. It is true that our former colleague, when Prime Minister, was still building houses as well as selling them, but the change in the philosophy had already occurred. Of course, that led to the right to buy under Lady Thatcher's Government of the 1980s. It was a political—or cynical—stroke of genius. It was ultimately and understandably impossible to persuade tenants that they should not be allowed to buy their houses. How can those who already own houses argue with those who wish to buy them? However, the policy had a consequence.
      Restraint on capital receipts and ring fencing moneys meant that councils could not even bring themselves to think about building affordable houses for rent. The figures speak for themselves. In 1953, 200,000 council houses were built. That may represent the peak, but for a long time, the figures for construction in one year competed with those of the previous year. Yet at the beginning of the new century, the figure was 700. I appreciate that we should add housing association
      236
      properties to that, but they amounted to only 17,000 in 2000. There is a chasm between the actions of our political forebears and ours.
      The total number of houses built has decreased. In 1968, 350,000 houses of all sorts were built. In 2000, the figure was 135,000. Again, that represents an enormous drop. The crisis is not equal throughout the country; the pressure is concentrated in the south and the east. Councils must consequently juggle with an impossible position. They are statutorily bound to house people, but they do not have the houses. That means that the composition of council tenancy is totally different from that in more egalitarian times.
      I am encouraged by the starter home initiative and plans to help key workers, but I understand that the total number for Essex, one of the more populous counties, will be 179. Even if we greatly expand the programme, it will not deal with the devastating problem of the shortage of affordable housing.
      The Union of Construction, Allied Trades and Technicians is running a vigorous campaign on several fronts, especially on stock transfer from local authorities to arm's-length or third-party organisations. We await the outcome of the National Audit Office's evaluation; it is about to announce its results. UCATT is also campaigning for a programme of social housing and seeking solutions to an overheated housing economy.
      We all know that prices have soared in past few years in the south and east of our country. Low interest rates currently offer some comfort. However, not long ago, interest rates reached 15 per cent. If those times returned, current mortgages mean that a genuine housing disaster would loom. As Brer Rabbit rightly said about the old well, "What goes down must assuredly go up." Equally, what goes up must assuredly come down. We should remember that.
      I believe that there is an old saying, "Planning the future by studying the past." I invite the Minister to examine the part of the past that I recently studied and consider reinstating the programme of build for sale. The right to buy has created mental paralysis, and low cost housing is not constructed in sufficient numbers. If councils were empowered to build low cost housing for sale, backed by municipal 100 per cent. mortgages, we might begin to create decent houses for people on lower incomes.
      The Government should make land available. They and their many agencies have huge land banks. They are disposing of them, normally for private housing in a more expensive bracket than the sort of housing that I believe to be necessary for many ordinary working people in this country.
      Of course, the beauty of build for sale is that the mortgage repayments would be roughly the same as rent. On the sale of properties, the person who bought them would keep the profit, the mortgage would be returned to the council and the money would recycle—the beginning of a pump-priming programme. The gem of the scheme is that right to buy is no longer a problem, as the houses will have been sold. I understand that some houses will be needed for rent and that many people will never be able to buy outright, but for modest-income families, build for sale with 100 per cent. council mortgages is a way of restoring the situation and

      237
      providing the sort of house that my constituent, Mr. Hopkins, bought in 1969, and which my father bought in 1938 on the private market. We have to make certain that this generation can do as well as the previous one.
      In conclusion, we must not be so timid. In five or six years, the Attlee Government created the national health service, built a million houses, furthered the welfare state and established the national parks. It did so against the background of the crisis of the second world war, rearmament for Korea and a serious international financial situation. I believe that we can take steps along the road that I have indicated.
      In my constituency is situated the village of Silver End, which was founded in 1926 by my Labour predecessor as Member for Braintree, Sir Valentine Crittall. The Crittall family built the village as a farseeing model village for the people who worked in their factories. It was a wonder of its time. The motto of the Silver End coat of arms demonstrates the will to act as a lesson for us today. That motto reads: "Why not?"
      7.46 pm
      The Minister for Social Exclusion and Deputy Minister for Women (Mrs. Barbara Roche): I warmly congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr. Hurst) on raising this very important subject and on the extremely eloquent way in which he has done so. It is right to say that we do not discuss issues of housing and affordability as much as we should in this House, so I am very grateful to him for giving me the chance to air them in the Chamber. He was right to set the debate in the context of what previous Labour Governments have achieved. I hope that towards the end of my speech, I will have convinced him that what we seek to do is place the issue in today's context, but in a way that pays due tribute to those who came before us.
      I well understand the sort of pressures that exist in my hon. Friend's constituency, which I have had the pleasure of visiting. Indeed, I hope to visit the area again soon—something that we discussed earlier this evening, before this debate. The sort of pressures that exist in his constituency are a good illustration of what is happening generally in the south-east. Like many districts in the south-east, Braintree has experienced significant population growth. It also benefits from its location near to key roads and is well connected with Europe. As my hon. Friend made clear, it has obviously been experiencing significant economic growth.
      The truth is that in recent years all Governments, of whatever political complexion—this is not a party political point—have failed to face up to the implications of economic success, population change and the need to provide adequate levels of housing, especially in London and the south-east. On a constituency note, speaking as a London Member of Parliament, I know that only too well from my own experience.
      Quite rightly, my hon. Friend has spoken about the importance of council housing. There is no doubting the innovation in the building and the reconstruction that took place in the post-war period. My hon. Friend has accepted that people have different aspirations. We must provide them with a variety of options. Some will want tenure of social housing or to be in a housing
      238
      association, while others will want owner-occupation. The desire for owner-occupation is not new; it goes back a long way.
      Our focus has to be on the interests of tenants, the conditions of their homes and the services that are provided to them. My hon. Friend mentioned arm's-length management organisations. We will certainly return to that subject. It is the standard and decency of homes that is important, not who owns them.
      My hon. Friend's local authority, Braintree district council, has consistently been judged as one of the best performing authorities in the east of England in the annual housing investment programme. I remind the House that measures to be introduced in the Local Government Bill will give authorities the freedom to borrow to invest in public services, provided they do so prudently. We want to free up local authorities. Each authority will be required to establish the level of borrowing and debt that it is prudent for it to take on, in line with the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy code of practice.
      Hon. Members will be aware that the housing policy statement of December 2000 set out four housing management and investment options for local authority housing—arm's-length management organisations, the private finance initiative, housing transfer, and stock retention with existing resources. Three of those options see housing remain within local authority ownership; only housing transfer sees housing moving outside the local authority. No local authority and no tenants will be forced to adopt any particular option. It will be a matter of local choice. All we will require is that each local authority ensures that it has a plan in place by July 2005 for meeting the decent home objective. I know that my hon. Friend would agree with that objective. We are making good progress towards our target on standards on decency in houses. I know that that has the support of the great majority of hon. Members.
      We want to encourage the separation of the landlord function from the role of the strategic housing authority, whether or not the local authority retains ownership of the housing. That is part of our policy to improve services to tenants. In the past, there has been a lack of concentration on the broad strategic implications of the rate of economic growth. We have to ask what planning functions and what economic drivers will mean that we have to consider housing provision differently. We have to allow the landlord to focus on improvements in the physical condition of the stock, management arrangements and tenant involvement. The local authority should be free to ensure that its statutory housing duties are carried out and that housing policy decisions contribute to securing wider community regeneration.
      My hon. Friend mentioned build for sale. That is an extremely interesting concept and he gave us some fascinating examples.
      My hon. Friend is keen that local authorities make the best use of their land so that we can provide more housing. We are implementing policies to offer local authorities greater freedom than previously to exercise discretion in disposing of their land. In the local government White Paper "Strong Local Leadership—Quality Public Services", published in December 2001, the Government made a commitment to give greater

      239
      freedom to local authorities to dispose of land held under the terms of the Local Government Act 1972 for less than the best consideration reasonably obtainable.
      My right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and the Regions announced in September that councils will no longer need to seek central Government permission to take action on a range of local matters. He announced that 84 consent regime powers were being deregulated, including approval of local authority housing cash incentive schemes and the disposal of land at less than best consideration.
      My hon. Friend mentioned the role of land held by the Government, and English Partnerships will have a key strategic role to play in the disposal of public sector land, looking at its own sites and having a say in the disposal of surplus public sector land across government. English Partnerships and the Housing Corporation are working together towards that end. So I hope that I can reassure my hon. Friend that the good idea of the past has not been abandoned and that it has its successors in some of today's schemes.
      Another key issue that I want to raise is the sustainable communities plan, which my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister announced to the House only a short time ago. That plan includes a significant increase in resources—£22 billion will be spent over three years—so investment to improve housing and communities will be 42 per cent. higher by 2005–06 than in 2002–03. We are investing £5 billion in more affordable housing—double what it was in 1997. At least £1 billion of that is for key-worker housing over the next three years, which is more than three times the current annual level of funding.
      A massive new house building programme, worth more than £1.5 billion, has been allocated to the Housing Corporation's approved development programme. In the past three years, Braintree has received nearly £2 million in approved development plan funding from the Housing Corporation.
      240
      The starter home initiative, which my hon. Friend also mentioned, is helping key workers whose services are vital to communities—particularly teachers, the police, nurses and other essential health staff—to buy first homes in areas where high housing costs are undermining recruitment and retention. That is a key local issue. I am pleased to say that more than £500,000 of funding from the starter home initiative has been allocated to Braintree.
      We are also taking tougher action on empty properties, including discretion to end council tax discounts on empty homes and proposals to give councils powers to bring long-term empty properties back into use. We are also modernising the planning system. That is very important and will provide speedier planning consents and remove delays from the system that might slow the pace of house building. We have helped Braintree to respond to the challenges placed on its planning service, and we have allocated Braintree a planning delivery grant of £275,000 for 2003–04.
      We are very aware of trying to use land as effectively as possible. That is why we are introducing new measures to identify and restore more brownfield land and compiling a register of publicly owned surplus land for housing. Braintree has completed an urban capacity study, which has identified a large number of suitable brownfield sites for future development for housing. There is a real focus on helping local authorities, working with them and making sure that sustainable plans also become reality. The plan also announced greater focus on helping people into sustainable home ownership. We want to expand home ownership schemes that free up the supply of affordable housing.
      I have touched on just a few of the plans that we have for change. After decades in which the housing needs of this country have been neglected, our approach confronts the major challenges, and it will deliver. It is comprehensive and integrated, and I assure my hon. Friend that we will take into account the points that he has raised this evening. I congratulate him on raising this important issue tonight.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Adjourned accordingly at Eight o'clock.

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

Employment (North Wales)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Mr. Woolas.]
9.30 am
Mr. Martyn Jones: I am delighted to have the opportunity to debate employment in north Wales and to give the Chamber a chance to reflect on the Labour Government's positive achievements in the north Wales economy.
Labour Members have a great deal to be proud of in north Wales. However, I am sure that my Front-Bench colleagues will not allow that success to be usurped by any hint of complacency. It is essential that our employment successes in the region are sustained, and that can be done only in a vibrant economic environment—one that the Government have skilfully and successfully maintained since coming to power in 1997.
I am sure that many of my hon. Friends will want to speak this morning, so I intend to keep my remarks as short as possible. However, I am delighted to see at least some representatives here from other parties. One, a Conservative Member, is not from north Wales but he is none the less welcome. It is a refreshing change to see the Conservative party showing an interest in employment in the region; it did not seem to do so when it was in power and had Members in north Wales. I look forward to hearing about the party's support and praise for what Labour has done for the north Wales economy since 1997, and for the levels of job creation in the region.
I am delighted also to see a representative of the Welsh nationalist party here. Constituencies such as Meirionnydd Nant Conwy have benefited most from Labour's policies over the past six years, and they have experienced the largest falls in the number of jobless. Against that background, it is little wonder that the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Hywel Williams) should have come to pay tribute to the excellent work done by the Government not only by protecting jobs in those constituencies but by maintaining the right economic conditions to allow companies to expand and create more jobs for places such as Pwllheli and Blaenau Ffestiniog.
Finally, I am of course delighted to see here today so many of my hon. Friends from north Wales. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami) would have told us about the exciting work going on at Airbus.
Chris Ruane: He is in Northern Ireland.
Mr. Jones: Yes, he is on parliamentary business in Northern Ireland. It therefore falls to me to mention Airbus at Broughton. Recent investment has not only
2WH
protected jobs in that part of north Wales but ensured that hundreds of jobs in Welsh supplier companies throughout Wales will benefit. In that vein, I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane) will tell us about the huge success of the Optronics technology and incubation centre in St. Asaph.
I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Mon (Mr. Owen) will tell us about the exciting future that lies ahead for Holyhead, and about the plans for the ferry port and the possibilities for Royal Air Force Valley. That much-needed investment provides hope for a part of Wales that has lagged behind for too long.
I initiate this debate because it is worth reminding ourselves of exactly what Labour inherited when we took office in 1997. Opposition Members like to promote the myth that Labour inherited a very happy ship; if only that was the case. Nationally, 3 million people were unemployed, and 250,000 young people had been unemployed for over six months. One million jobs had disappeared during John Major's years as Prime Minister. The economic landscape in north Wales was equally bleak. People should remember the Tory legacy that we inherited: the national debt had doubled between 1992 and 1997; interest rates were above 15 per cent. for one year and above 10 per cent. for four years; and inflation was over 10 per cent.
Let us contrast that decline in economic achievements with what Labour has secured in the six short years since it came to office. North Wales is enjoying its lowest unemployment for 27 years, and youth unemployment has been cut by 76 per cent. We have the lowest inflation for 30 years—and the lowest in Europe—and the lowest long-term interest rates for 40 years. We also have the lowest mortgage rates for 50 years, which is saving home owners an average of £2,400 a year compared with 1979.
Wales is top of the UK league for business support grants. The rate of job creation is 10 times higher than the UK average, and 36,000 new jobs have been created since 1999. North Wales has built up Europe's highest concentration of food manufacturing and processing businesses. That is an incredible turnaround in the fortunes of the north Wales economy, and that is precisely why we re-elected the Labour Government in 2001.
Before Opposition Members jump up and down, I should add that there have been individual setbacks along the way, and none has been more serious than those in my own backyard, in Wrexham. As the Minister knows, there have been job losses in recent months. Most notably, 230 jobs were lost at Owens Corning before Christmas, and 300 jobs went at Sharp Electronics earlier last year. There were quite separate reasons and circumstances behind those job losses.
In Corning's case, the increase in global competition in recent years has affected the Wrexham plant's competitiveness. The message from that is that all companies must study their costs so that they stay competitive, retain market share and hold on to jobs. That is nothing new, and it will always be the case in the truly global economy that we have today. Sharp's reasons for job losses were based on the acute decline in demand for video recorders and the probable rise in demand for DVD players.

3WH
Both sets of job losses were a great blow to Wrexham and its prosperity, but the overall economic context in north Wales is one of stability and increasing prosperity and confidence. It is against that background that new jobs continue to be created across the region. The examples of job losses that I have given are extreme, and it is disappointing that we experienced them in north Wales. However, the day-to-day success of the economy provides a very different picture, and I will briefly tell hon. Members of the success stories from our region.
Last year, clothing retailer Matalan made a huge investment of £1.1 million in Rhyl, creating 100 new, non-tourism jobs for the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Clwyd. Local construction company Watkin Jones is expanding its operation at the Britannia park in Bangor. That will create 70 new jobs, taking the total at that site to 500 or more. Again in Bangor, the Book People—one of the UK's largest direct mail booksellers—has opened a new facility and created 180 permanent jobs. Interestingly, ETL Solutions will expand its work force in Blaenau Ffestiniog, in the constituency of the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd), to 25. That is the result of private finance and regional selective assistance from the National Assembly.
Those are not symptoms of an economy in decline; far from it, they are a testament to an economy that is confident, vibrant, attractive to investors and a good bet for prosperity and growth. In discussing the success stories, it is important to recognise Government support for the creation of such an environment. I congratulate the Welsh Assembly on backing north Wales entrepreneurs. Through such mechanisms as the Assembly investment grant and regional selective assistance, small and large companies have secured direct help from Cardiff.
The Assembly investment grant is discretionary and it is aimed at smaller businesses making capital investment in Wales. It helps companies to expand, to modernise or to restructure and assists with the setting up of new businesses, which are crucial in encouraging new ideas to flourish in north Wales. Regional selective assistance is a focused, discretionary grant scheme administered by the Assembly. It contributes towards the fixed cost of capital investment projects that will help to produce or safeguard jobs in the assisted areas.
I pay tribute to the work of the Welsh Development Agency in the whole of Wales, not just in the north. Labour's success has been not only in grabbing big headlines but in creating the right conditions for small and medium enterprises to start or expand in a way never before envisaged. On these Benches we recognise that small businesses are the backbone of the north Wales economy, and they make a massive contribution to the region's wealth and success.
Finally, I make a plea to the Minister. An improvement that will help north Wales greatly in the coming years is the introduction of broadband technology. The Welsh Affairs Committee, which I have the honour and pleasure of chairing, recently reported on broadband and made recommendations to the Government. The Committee fully supports the Assembly's aims and objectives, as set out in the
4WH
document "Cymru Ar Lein", or "Online for a Better Wales". However, many of the objectives will be realised only with the support of the United Kingdom Government.
Wales lags seriously behind regions of the UK in many aspects of the exploitation of information and communications technology, and there is a danger that areas in which services are slow to become established will suffer from a growing digital divide. Businesses, individuals, public services and the economy of north Wales can only benefit from investment in broadband services. I shall end there, so that my hon. Friends can have their say about their constituencies and the economy of north Wales, and about the success story and the opportunities that lie ahead.
9.42 am
Hywel Williams: I congratulate the hon. Member for Clwyd, South (Mr. Jones) on having secured the debate. It is timely, because employment, or lack of it, has been a central concern of Welsh politics, not least in north Wales, for many years. We must look at the long-term picture. I am happy to play a part in success stories, as is my party, and I shall refer later to a number that have been brought about in my constituency by objective 1 funding. My party welcomes the fall in long-term unemployment, particularly the scourge of youth unemployment, which has led to the problem of migration from north-west Wales. The problems associated with unemployment have affected north-west Wales over the life of many Governments. We have experienced the solutions proffered by successive Governments, including the big project, the instruction to "get on your bike" and the injunctions to be more enterprising which come with the—usually unspoken—condemnation that we Welsh people have some sort of congenital deficiency in the enterprise department. Those answers have never been more than partially successful. Projects such as building nuclear power stations mopped up medium and short-term unemployment to a degree, but some projects brought long-term costs with them.
Albert Owen: The hon. Gentleman mentioned nuclear power. Does he accept that Wylfa nuclear power station in my constituency, which is the only nuclear generator left in Wales, contributes a quarter of Anglesey's GDP? It is very significant as it is the largest employer; it has been there since the 1960s and could last another 10 years. Instead of dismissing it, will he agree that it makes a major contribution to the local economy?
Hywel Williams: That is an interesting intervention. There is a nuclear power station on Anglesey, and hon. Members will recall that nuclear power was put on the back burner by the announcement yesterday, so I am not sure that the Government share the hon. Gentleman's confidence in its long-term future. However, Anglesey's economy is certainly dependent—some might say over-dependent—on large-scale projects. That is the point that I am making.
Studies such as that done by Lovering on the building of Trawsfynydd nuclear power station show that big projects have often had a negative effect on local economies, depriving local enterprises of their best and

5WH
most skilled workers, who are drawn away by bigger pay packets. However, those may be available only during the construction phase and, in the long term, only for a minority of workers. I know of local workers employed on a succession of big projects who had to keep moving on; for example, once the Dinorwig pump station project was completed, they moved on to the channel tunnel. When that was completed, who knows where they went?
For those people at least, coming back to north Wales was not an option because the local economy was going through another big post-project slump. That is quite apart from the serious consequences for the local economy of the siphoning off, away from the area, of the profits of big enterprises. Small businesses spend locally. Big ones, on the whole, do not. McDonald's, of course, purchases and delivers everything from its centres, from the buildings to the ketchup on the tables.
Those considerations apply equally to the longstanding injunction to the people of north Wales to "get on your bike". Getting on their bike brought some relief to the more mobile and the more desperate, but it distorted local unemployment figures and denuded our economy of the very people whom we need to ensure long-term prosperity. Generation after generation has had to leave north Wales—and the valleys as well, for that matter—to work elsewhere and to contribute to the prosperity of other places. That is to say nothing of the negative effect of that migration on Welsh language and culture.
As to our supposed lack of entrepreneurial spirit, we might call that interpretation a classic case of blaming the victim. Economic activity is weak, and that is presented essentially as the fault of individual economic actors, rather than as being caused by more fundamental, long-term structural factors such as low investment, concentration of Government funding in the south-east and lack of venture capital. There is low investment in structural economic goods, such as railways, roads and, as the hon. Member for Clwyd, South mentioned, broadband.
I understand that the ludicrous suggestion has been made that the broadband map for Wales, instead of being Wales-based and following the objective 1 and non-objective 1 areas, as the National Assembly has argued, should be based on a division of Wales, linking north Wales with the north-west of England, mid and south Wales with the midlands of England, and Cardiff with Bristol in a putative Severnside. That is reminiscent of the discredited economic thinking of the 1950s, with its wilful disregard for the unity of our country. It pays no heed to the business reality of working in the context of economic planning by a Government for Wales at a Cardiff-based National Assembly. I ask the Minister to assure the Chamber that the proposals are to be dumped.
Mr. Nigel Evans: The hon. Gentleman seems to be ignoring the economic reality too. He will know that the people of north Wales tend to look towards the north-west of England to do business, and that there is great interaction between the two areas. The same applies to south Wales and Bristol. That is a two-
6WH
way street, but the hon. Gentleman seems to want it to be completely cut off, instead of wanting proper interaction between England and Wales.
Hywel Williams: On the contrary. Conservative and Labour Governments devolved power to Cardiff, and the structure for economic planning in Wales is the Assembly. That is why the objective 1 map is cut into east and west, and why broadband should be planned on a Wales basis. That is the context within which businesses, large and small, must work. They do not look to the north-west for economic development; they look to Cardiff, to the WDA.
There is an over-concentration of Government investment in south-east Wales, and especially in southeast England and the Thames valley. Wales, and north Wales in particular, gets nothing like its fair share of Government research and development spending per head of population. We would receive a great deal more if we had a regional policy that actively directed Government investment and jobs away from the golden triangles of south-east Wales and south-east England.
North Wales suffers from a lack of venture capital, and the Venture Capital Association showed in its recent reports that venture capital is overwhelmingly invested in the south-east of England—48 per cent. is invested there. Those are private investment decisions, but they take place under a Government who are obsessed with developing south-east England rather than the English regions or Scotland or, for heaven's sake, Wales.
Chris Ruane: The hon. Gentleman is right to point out past mistakes, but will he give no credit for action that has been taken, such as the establishment of Finance Wales, by a Labour Administration in Cardiff to make venture capital more accessible in Wales? Will he give credit for the research and development centres in St. Asaph in my constituency, the Optronics project and the centre at Parc Menai in Bangor?
Hywel Williams: Indeed, I began my remarks with a welcome for the growth in certain types of employment. Per head of population, however, north Wales has not had its fair share of investment. I hope that the hon. Gentleman accepts that. He and I should be working to increase the proportion of research and development spending.
The north Wales economy is weak and less able to sustain growth from inside—the Chancellor's famous "endogenous growth." The economy has many very small enterprises of one or two persons. In other circumstances those could be the engine of economic renewal and growth, but they struggle to prosper in a hostile climate without the capital backing to weather storms and to expand. When a business in my constituency catches a cold it can prove fatal.
Not for nothing are north and west Wales an EU objective I area; they are defined as such by their low GDP, which is the result of low investment and low levels of economic activity. The Catalyst report of December 2002, "The Challenge of a Longer Life—Economic Burden or Social Opportunity?", illustrates the regional element clearly. It shows that between March and May 2000, the activity rate for men aged 50

7WH
to 64 and women aged 50 to 59 were 61.3 per cent. in Wales, compared with 76.8 per cent. in south-east England. We have an under-employed work force, and that is a long-term structural problem.
That is also, however, an opportunity, as I am sure hon. Members will agree. We have the work force; we have people with the life and work experience to take jobs, if there were jobs available. Unemployment in north Wales is higher than in many other parts of the country. Last month, at 4.8 per cent., unemployment in my constituency was the sixth highest in Wales. I will not argue now about how we arrive at those figures, but the broad point is that unemployment in north Wales, and in north-west Wales in particular, is higher than elsewhere.[Interruption.] Indeed, as I have already said twice, we have a seen a welcome drop in unemployment. However, I am concerned that in my part of north Wales unemployment remains higher than elsewhere. Why does that disparity exist?
I see the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen) busily working on his speech. Perhaps he would like to include the following statistic: although unemployment in my constituency is the sixth highest in Wales, unemployment in Ynys Môn is the second highest at 5.9 per cent. That compares with 2.9 per cent. for Wales as a whole.
There are hopeful developments, and I pay tribute to Government agencies and those entrepreneurs—in small and large businesses—who are making sterling efforts. I note briefly the small business sector in my constituency, which is overwhelmingly important. Small businesses form the major part of Gwynedd's economy and are the potential engine for growth. It is a truism, but if every small business employed one extra person, we would be out of the mess that we are in. However, there are hopeful developments, such as Gwynedd council's objective 1 scheme, the business development grant, which is funded with European money. Extra money will come from London eventually.
Chris Ruane: Delivered by Labour.
Hywel Williams: Eventually. That cost someone his job in Cardiff. He is now doing penance by taking the Hunting Bill through the House.
Chris Ruane: Very skilfully.
Hywel Williams: Indeed. We all extend our sympathies to him.
The business development grant to fund new jobs in the small business sector in Gwynedd has been hugely popular and tremendously oversubscribed. The capital set aside for two years has been exhausted in only a few months. That is an excellent example of the local public sector priming and supporting organic economic growth, with support from the Assembly, the Government and the European Union. Before hon. Members point it out, Gwynedd has so far received approval for objective 1 grants to the tune of £12 million, which is very useful indeed.
8WH
Another example of potential job creation is in a sector that sometimes sets people's pulse racing: call centres. I say "potential", because on the WDA's list of 164 call centres in Wales, which employ more than 20,000 people, only one is in Caernarfon. That is the Manweb centre, which employed some 25 people when I visited it some time ago. Those are valuable jobs, but there are only 25 of them. There is another call centre that, as far as I can see, does not feature on the WDA list, which is the Galw centre in Porthmadog. That is a rural project supported by the Cymad rural development agency, but it employs only six people. That, with the 25 jobs in Caernarfon, is the sum total of call centre employment in my constituency.
There are some interesting points in the WDA's brochure for call centres. The WDA points out that Cardiff has half of call centre employment and one third of the centres. Newport has 20 per cent. of the jobs and 10 per cent. of the centres. Swansea has 20 per cent. of the jobs and 13 per cent. of the centres. There is room for growth. Some 1.1 per cent. of the people employed in call centres in the UK are in Wales.
Mr. Martyn Jones: Is it not the case that call centres tend to be based in areas where the accent is recognised as being understandable? Consequently, there may be a problem in Caernarfon.
Hywel Williams: I doubt that my constituents would agree that their accent is not understandable. With such matters it all depends on where one starts. After all, London is a long way from everywhere. However, the hon. Gentleman raises an interesting point, and I shall refer to language skills.
The vast majority of call centres are located in Cardiff, Swansea and Newport. Some 75 of the 164 call centres listed by the WDA are in the south-east-42 are in Cardiff—yet only 12 of those listed are in north Wales, and only one is in Caernarfon. On the hon. Gentleman's point, one would assume, perhaps naively, that in a bilingual county some call centres would be located in areas where there is an unemployed work force that includes older people with life skills to help them in their work, or that they would be located in areas where there are linguistic skills, so that the service can be provided in both the languages used in the country. There is no reason why call centre work cannot be remote from the main centres in, say, Cardiff or London—that is the blessing of the new technology.
What does the WDA tell us about linguistic skills? It is quite instructive. Of course, the WDA works in the private sector, but its pitch is that 14 per cent. of staff speak major European languages and 16,000 foreign nationals live in Wales. There is not a single mention of the Welsh language, but given that Government call centres deal with the local population, rather than foreign businesses and exports, there is a strong case for considering the issue.
Albert Owen: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of a call centre in my constituency which deals with travel information? It provides a full bilingual service and employs disabled people, giving them an opportunity to come into the workplace. Unfortunately, private sector funding is wanting, but the centre is a huge success, and I agree with the hon. Gentleman that others are too.

9WH
They do not have to be in Cardiff; the centre in my constituency serves the whole of Wales by providing Wales-wide integrated bus and train information.
Hywel Williams: The hon. Gentleman makes a valuable point; indeed, it makes itself. However, there must be the political will to site centres, particularly those that provide Government services, away from the golden triangle in the south-east. We are looking for that political will from the Government, and I ask the Minister to give us an assurance that proper consideration will be given to locating the new Jobcentre Plus call centre in north Wales and, if possible, in northwest Wales. The centre will create 250 long-term, rather than fly-by-night, jobs, which will be well paid by local standards. If we have a call centre in Swansea, we also need one in the north-west, for the reasons that I outlined earlier.
The nature of unemployment and employment in north Wales is instructive for developments in the UK, where the not-so-hidden hand of Government favour has made the south-east of England massively rich, while making it increasingly difficult for people on average incomes to live there. The Minister will no doubt note that help is available, but RSA grants, for example, are falling, as the Financial Times noted yesterday. We need a proper interventionist regional policy for Wales and the UK. Investing in the poorer regions in the north and the west is a political choice, and it is a question of priorities.
10.2 am
Ian Lucas: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, South (Mr. Jones) on securing a debate on the essential issue of employment in north Wales. It is particularly important in the Wrexham area, which is often described—particularly by me—as the economic powerhouse of north Wales.
Wrexham is commonly associated with manufacturing employment, and 28.5 per cent. of employees in Wrexham are in the manufacturing industry. Interestingly, that is more than twice the UK average, which shows that manufacturing in Wrexham is strong, vibrant and continuing.
However, Wrexham also has an intensely successful service sector. When I first moved there 16 years ago, the town centre was in the process of redevelopment. Locally, it was called a bombsite, and it remained in that condition for seven or eight years. My hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, South is nodding sagely; he clearly remembers the situation well. I am delighted to say, however, that hon. Members who visit the town now will see how vibrant and strong a cultural centre it is. Its cinemas, shops and pubs regularly attract people from poorer climes such as Chester. Friday nights are a delight to behold and are often very busy.
The service sector is attracting finance and good jobs, which we should not decry, because they play an important part in our economy. They are often flexible jobs, and we should encourage rather than criticise the creation of such jobs when we discuss unemployment. It is telling that so far in the debate we have heard little about the service sector.
I shall concentrate on modern manufacturing because it is especially important in my constituency, as I mentioned. I do not want to talk about the past and the
10WH
traditions of mining at Llay, Gresford and Bersham in Wrexham, and steel making in Brymbo in my hon. Friend's constituency. With due respect to the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans), a tradition of inward investment has developed over the past 20 years, especially in Wrexham. Two substantial companies from Japan—Sharp Manufacturing, as already mentioned, and Hoya Lens, a Japanese company—have invested heavily in Wrexham and have been very successful for many years.
Sharp Manufacturing is an interesting case in point. It has developed worldwide expertise in renewable energy, especially in photovoltaics, which, given the publication of the energy White Paper yesterday, are very much in the news. The development of that new technology in Britain is not as advanced as in other parts of the world. The successful 100,000 roofs programme in Germany has led to the domestic introduction of photovoltaics, so that renewable energy is used in households much more widely than it is here. That is also the case in Japan.
Sharp knows what an excellent work force it has in Wrexham in north-east Wales, and I hope that the energy White Paper will also show that Sharp is a worldwide investor and that Wrexham, and Wales, are great places for the future development of renewable energy and investment in photovoltaics. I hope that the chairman of Sharp Manufacturing, whom I shall meet later today, will understand how strongly members of the Government believe that renewables must have a future and that there should be investment in photovoltaics in Wrexham and Wales.
Hoya Lens is a very interesting company that benefited from inward investment—before 1997, to give the then Conservative Government their due. Last autumn, it secured a visit from the lord lieutenant and received the Queen's award for export—a tremendous achievement for the company, and the result of the hard work of its management and employees. It has become clear in my dealings with the company and on my constituency visits that one of the reasons for Wrexham's success in manufacturing is the close working relationship between management and trade unions. They talk to each other, deal with difficult times together, and share the spoils of success. Any business must succeed on that basis. It is sensible to adopt that approach, and to work together especially when times are difficult. The best example of that, of which we are all aware, is the excellent work done by the AEEU and the Airbus company in the immediate aftermath of 11 September and the flexible, sensible and long-term way in which the company and the work force responded to that crisis.
We must not forget that not only Airbus in north Wales provides employment to workers in our area. Only last week, I visited Mayflower Aerospace in Llay in my constituency, which works closely with Airbus and supplies components to it. A huge and developing aircraft sector is developing in north-east Wales that we must cultivate, strengthen and develop.
Wrexham is in one sense a victim of its own success, because for many years it had grant-aided status. I have said that there was substantial inward investment in the past. Because of that success and the fact that Wrexham's unemployment rate is now 3.2 per cent., compared with over 20 per cent. 20 years ago, it no longer has grant-aided status. That means that the town

11WH
and the economy must compete with objective 1 areas to the west and east, which obviously has its difficulties. Benefits that were offered in the past cannot now be offered to certain companies to bring them to Wrexham. We must therefore do all that we can within the local economy to ensure that there is the right infrastructure for development.
At times, there are disappointments. My hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, South referred to the jobs lost at Owens Corning last autumn. We face intense competition. It is clear whenever I talk to representatives of industry in my constituency that that is the one thing that is constant. There is competition from other objective 1 areas, as we have heard. There is also competition from abroad, including from the developing countries in central Europe—the accession countries—which can often offer lower wages and sometimes cheaper jobs. They may not be able to offer the same skill levels as our area, but they are certainly real competitors. Companies often move to such areas if there are setbacks in our economy.
There is also developing competition from the far east. We are all aware of the intensity of the competition in a worldwide market and a worldwide economy. Therefore, we must create a strong infrastructure. By infrastructure, I mean two things—a strong physical infrastructure and a strong education and training infrastructure.
I shall deal first with the physical infrastructure. The Wrexham industrial estate in my constituency is huge. It has employers such as Kellogg's, Tetrapak and JCB Transmissions, which employ large numbers of workers with a high skill level in excellent jobs. The estate has been very successful in competing with the different areas of the country and the other parts of the globe to which I have referred.
The one thing that the estate lacks, as I often hear from managing directors and trade union representatives on the estate, is a decent road connection. The current road connection is along Hugmore lane, and is precisely that—a lane. It is not good enough that such a developed and intensely successful industrial estate should have a road connection of that nature. That has been discussed for the past 20 years, so it was a matter of grave concern when the Welsh Assembly Government recently decided that a proposal for a link road to the industrial estate should be rejected. I should like my hon. Friend the Minister to pass on in his discussions with the Welsh Assembly my concern that the necessary road infrastructure is not being provided. That disadvantage for the local economy needs to be addressed.
The second type of infrastructure that is necessary in a high-skill economy such as north-east Wales is the one that will create the strongest and best work force. That involves close links between education and industry. I am very happy with the work to develop close links with local industry that is being done by the North East Wales institute and Yale college, which are in Wrexham, and by Deeside college, which is outside my constituency. One reason why north-east Wales in general and Wrexham in particular have been able to develop as they have is that they have a good, loyal work force and a strong culture of learning, developing and
12WH
extending skills. The nature of the work force that we need means that that has to be done with major universities and learning institutions, and I welcome that great work. We need to extend it, but we are seeing real benefits and the prospect of improving our work force and making them even more competitive.
One area that needs development in my constituency is the culture of entrepreneurship, which is lacking generally in north-east Wales. In Wrexham, there are 2.24 registrations for VAT for every 1,000 adults compared with a UK average of 3.41. That is a consequence of there being no great tradition of entrepreneurship in our area, and we have often looked to larger employers to provide work. That is beginning to change, partly because of the good work done by the Welsh Assembly Government with European funding for projects that aim to provide skills to villages that have a mining or steel background.
In places in my constituency, such as Llay and Gwersyllt, work is being done with the local council to develop an entrepreneurial culture and improve employment prospects in those areas. That is a long-term goal, and it will not happen overnight, but progress is being made. If we are to have a strong economy in the long term, we need a society in which individuals start their own businesses and eventually take on employees themselves. That has not been common in the past in our area, but there is no reason why it should not be in the future.
The view from Wrexham is positive. We have a strong manufacturing economy, but we need to do things better and cultivate an atmosphere of entrepreneurship for smaller companies. Unemployment has fallen substantially in my constituency since 1997, and we must continue to work to reduce it further. I am confident that with low interest rates, a strong economy and a loyal work force, that will be done.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Two hon. Members have indicated that they want to contribute, and I remind them that there are three Front-Bench spokesmen and the winding-up speeches must start at 10.30.
10.18 am
Chris Ruane: I shall keep my comments as short as possible. I am aware that some Members have taken 20 minutes for their speeches, but I hope to give my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen) at least half the time left.
The economic success in north Wales has not been an accident or a legacy of the Conservative party. It has been the result of deliberate actions of the Labour Government since we came to power in 1997, and I can give examples. Labour has secured objective 1 funding for Wales, especially for Denbighshire and Conwy, which were left out initially. Labour has utilised grants in Wales to develop parks such as the St. Asaph business park, which was developed under the Tories 11 years ago but created only 100 jobs in seven years. Under Labour, some 1,500 jobs have been created since 1997, and an extra 1,000 are expected. There will be as much development in the next eight months as there has been during the past eight years.

13WH
We should also consider the heritage lottery, which under the Conservatives was used for the playing fields of Eton and to spend £12 million on the Churchill diaries. Labour's philosophy is to use the heritage lottery funding for places where there is heritage, architecture and poverty and to benefit towns such as Denbigh and Rhyl, which between them will receive a £12 million package. We have also had social justice, with the minimum wage, which has helped the poorest in our society. The Conservatives said that that would cost hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of jobs, but that has not occurred. In my constituency, unemployment has decreased by almost 50 per cent.
When the Conservatives were in power, there were no further education colleges in my constituency, but under the Labour Government two have been established, in Rhyl and Denbigh, giving access to education for 4,000 local people. The Labour Government have provided the infrastructure, but the extra jobs have been provided by the hard work of local business people in my constituency. Those business people include John Sutherland from Vanguard, Mike and Shaun Walsh from Anglia Building and Tony Palframan from Phoenix Glass, ably supported by Steve Pender. They are local lads, some of whom grew up on the same council estate as I did. They are contemporaries of mine who have prospered through their hard work and have provided employment opportunities for hundreds of people.
Under the Conservative Government, there was no foreign inward investment in my constituency, but under this Government two key investments have been made—by TRB, a Japanese automobile component manufacturer, and Pachem, an Austrian company, providing work for more than 200 people. There are large employers in my constituency such as Thales and Hotpoint, which between them employ more than 1,500 people. Some of those jobs, especially at Thales, are highly skilled—50 per cent. of satellite glass that circulates the globe is made in Bod St. Asaph.
There are also successful small employers in my constituency, such as H & D Fitzgerald. Heather and Dennis Fitzgerald employ only 10 people, but their company is the chief density calibrationist in the world, and exports to 70 countries. CMG Payroll is involved in intermediate labour force, which is key to getting longterm unemployed people back to work. Clogau Gold, one of the foremost jewellery brands in the whole of the country, is in my constituency, as is Tweedmill, a retail and tourism development that is one of the top 10 tourist attractions in north Wales. Tweedmill had growth of £900,000 in 1996 and £7 million this year. I could mention many other companies—Buckle Insurance, Craig Bragdy pottery and Caradon, for example. There is, therefore, a good tale to be told about my constituency. The Government have provided the infrastructure, but the people in my constituency have created the wealth, jobs and opportunity.
Looking to the future, we will need to look after the traditional sectors—retail, agriculture, tourism and energy—which have all been hit hard over the past 10 to 20 years. However, we must also diversify and create specialisms. In an earlier intervention, I mentioned that the speciality in my constituency was opto-electronics—the optic project based in the St. Asaph business park. That project has a £50 million investment objective,
14WH
which will create 22 new companies every two years, and an estimated 900 highly skilled jobs. That will make north Wales, and St. Asaph, one of the top opto-electronic centres in the world. That is what we should be aiming for. We do not want crumbs from the table—we want the best for Wales.
We should concentrate on specialisms, whether it be software in Bangor, opto-electronics in St. Asaph or aerospace in the Deeside area, and should train our young work force in those areas. Education and training are key to such development. Our universities—I hope that Wrexham will obtain university status—and our further education colleges should be tied into local training for local needs, not only to support the companies that are currently in the area, but to attract new companies in future.
We have a bright future. Will the Minister consider the issue of structural funds, which will come to an end in 2006? We have done great things with structural funds. My constituency, and the wider county of Denbighshire, have the highest draw-down in Wales—£140 for every man, woman and child, and those funds have been put to good use. Will the Minister ensure that we get a good deal after 2006 and that there is justice both for my constituency and for Wales?
10.24 am
Albert Owen: I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, South (Mr. Jones) on securing this important debate.
Unemployment has affected my constituency rather more than other constituencies in Wales. Throughout the 1980s and the early 1990s the levels equated with those experienced in the 1930s. It is said that during the period of boom and bust in the 1980s, Anglesey just got the bust. That is a little unkind, but the period resulted in mass depopulation which had a profound effect not only on the economy, but on the social and cultural fabric of north-west Wales and Anglesey in particular. Our young people were haemorrhaging away as a result of the lack of job opportunities.
There has been good news since 1997. According to the House of Commons research department, unemployment in my constituency, based on residence base rate, stood at 2,451 in December 1997. That fell to 1,855 in December 2002, which represents a drop of 36 per cent. in that period. Equally impressive is the fact that in the last 12 months unemployment fell by 15.4 per cent. However, that rate is still too high at 5.6 per cent. compared with the Welsh average of 3.5 per cent. However, male unemployment was over 18 per cent. for the whole of the 1980s. Before I was elected to the House I was a manager of a centre for the unemployed. I saw at first hand the blight that high unemployment is on communities and individuals.
I support the thesis that the Government set out that low unemployment and low inflation can co-exist through sensible macro-economic policies and planning. The impact of Government policies such as the minimum wage has also been profound in my area. It has benefited more than 2,000 low-income families. Indeed, of those 2,000 families almost half saw their wages double from £1.80 an hour to £3.60 an hour. Instead of the downturn forecast by the Opposition, jobs have been created since the introduction of the minimum wage.

15WH
I mentioned the macro-economics of the Labour Government but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane) said, it is down to the businesses themselves. We must create the confidence. The policies that the Government have introduced have helped, but we need the infrastructure. Roads are a basic form of infrastructure that was sadly lacking during the 1980s. The dualling of the A55—the road to opportunity—stopped at Llanfair PG under the Conservatives. It was meant to link Chester and Holyhead on the way to Dublin. I can recall lobbying the Wales Office when this Government were elected. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales was the Under-Secretary of State at the Welsh Office at the time and he gave the go-ahead for that road-building project so that we got that basic infrastructure.
I do not accept that north Wales, north-west Wales or Anglesey are on the periphery. That is just a London-centric, Cardiff-centric view. Anglesey is at the heart of the British Isles, bang in the middle between mainland Wales and the island of Ireland. We need to look westwards. That is what happened when the port of Holyhead submitted a major bid for objective 1 status so that it could attract trade from Ireland. I was happy to lead a delegation to the Under-Secretary of State for Wales, my hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Mr. Touhig), and to the Secretary of State for Transport after I had met with the Minister for Economic Development from the Welsh Assembly and Members of the European Parliament.
It was a real partnership of Westminster, the Assembly and Europe working together that secured that £3.4 million bid. In addition to that sum there was £9 million of private investment, making Holyhead the principal port on the western seaboard. It enjoys the benefits of the Celtic tiger economy. The fastest growing economy in the last 20 years has been in Ireland. The Irish tiger merges at Holyhead with the Welsh dragon. The claw and the paw meet. It gives a real Celtic lead to economic revival.
As there is not much time, I will concentrate on another major job boost in addition to the port of Holyhead, which is RAF Valley. At a time when jobs have been contracting in military bases throughout the United Kingdom, last year 100 additional jobs were announced at RAF Valley in the private sector working with the military establishment. This is a huge boost to the area; 90 of those jobs will be highly skilled civilian jobs. The employees will learn their trade and work and live in the area rather than having to leave the area after training as was the case during the 1980s and 1990s.
My campaign is to get civil aircraft landing at RAF Valley. It has huge potential and it has been underused for many years. The only people who use it now are rich individuals who fly in on chartered flights. I want to see a people's airport there that can bring business people to the area, who can link up with the rest of the United Kingdom. That is important. I hope that the Minister will continue to help; I know that the Wales Office has been proactive.
Confidence is growing in my area because the Government have invested in its infrastructure. It is wanting on new technology such as broadband, as my
16WH
hon. Friend the Member for Clywd, South and the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Hywel Williams) said. We must work together to achieve a proper infrastructure in new technologies. Yesterday's White Paper will be of great assistance to us. We should run with that and say that north Wales is the place for renewable energy. Let us be proactive. In the port of Holyhead we are talking about constructing windmills that can be put out to sea anywhere. Let north Wales have those skills and develop in a positive way.
10.31 am
Mr. Roger Williams: I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Clwyd, South (Mr. Jones) on obtaining the debate. He welcomed all hon. Members to the debate this morning, including some hon. Members who were not actually present, but he neglected to welcome me. I am concerned as to why I was left out.
Two hon. Members here are refugees from the Standing Committee on the Hunting Bill. It must be a great relief to them to have the opportunity to debate the serious issue of employment in north Wales. We have had a good debate. The one aspect that I expected to be given more prominence but has been left out is the public sector, which is very important in Wales and, of course, in north Wales. Not only does it provide employment, job opportunities and a promotions system and job progression that are sometimes unavailable in smaller companies that are active in the Welsh economy but it contributes hugely to the quality of life that people enjoy in north Wales.
I supported the increased investment in public services. One of the problems will be providing training and education for people in social services and the health sector, from care workers to consultants. We desperately need more opportunities for training so that those skills can be made available. The same applies to education. There is a shortage of teachers in many disciplines in schools in Wales.
I would like to make one point in particular to the Minister about public sector employment. The two-tier system in public services that have been put out to tender is a scandal. For instance, in a number of local authorities in Wales where residential homes have been externalised, employees who transferred over were protected by the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 and are now protected by contracts of employment. However, people employed after that time often have much worse terms and conditions, with much less pay and holiday entitlement. It is a scandal, and I am pleased that the Government have announced that they will do something about it. I urge the Minister and the Wales Office to play a full part in ensuring that the situation changes as soon as possible.
Manufacturing has been mentioned. Other speakers have demonstrated a huge swell of optimism, but things are not so rosy everywhere. I think particularly of KTH Wales Limited, the aluminium forging company in Llanidloes, which has experienced great difficulties. It has lost almost 250 jobs, which is a huge burden for a small community—in terms of the proportion of the population in employment, it is the equivalent of 25,000 jobs lost in Cardiff. I am pleased that both the Secretary

17WH
of State for Wales and the Assembly's First Minister have shown a great interest in the matter and are working well with the action committee on Llanidloes.
However, there are lessons to be learned. The first is that problems can arise if a small community depends on one employer who gets into difficulties. Secondly, Wales has previously been sold as a country that can bring to inward investors the benefit of low unit costs based on low pay rates. However, with the enlargement of the European Union, there is a danger that such businesses will move to other areas with low wages. The Government have not merely to reduce unemployment but to improve the quality of the employment that is available to people in Wales, so that Wales can compete on the basis of more and better skills rather than by turning out low-value products that are dependent on a low-wage economy.
My final concern is the transport system in Wales. The hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) has mentioned that Cardiff is involved in the economy of Bristol and the west country. Cardiff and south-east Wales could be involved with the economy in north Wales as well if there were better transport between south and north Wales. That would make for very large improvements, not only in north Wales but in mid-Wales. There seems to be no real determination to put that right. I hope that the Minister will address the issue, because it is key to improving the economy of Wales—especially in the north.
Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: I agree with what the hon. Gentleman has just said. I urge, through him, that Ministers intervene in the question of the proposed cut in franchisees' costs by the Strategic Rail Authority. The all-Wales franchise will inevitably mean further cuts in railway services.
Mr. Williams: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. I hope that the Minister will address that issue as well. The hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen) made an important point about improving RAF Valley so that air transport could he spread throughout Wales. A hub and spoke system based in Cardiff would ensure that air transport, which is so necessary for the development of modern industries, would be available to the whole of Wales.
The challenge to the Government is not to reduce unemployment, although there are unemployment blackspots where particular effort is needed, but to improve the quality of employment in Wales so that young Welsh people have the opportunity to stay in Wales and have a full career based in the businesses there.
10.39 am
Mr. Nigel Evans: I congratulate the hon. Member for Clwyd, South (Mr. Jones) on securing this debate. I hope that it will not replace the St. David's day debate, which was to be held tomorrow but has, for understandable reasons, been moved. I hope that there will be an announcement shortly as to when it will be rescheduled.
If this debate has proved anything, it is that there will not be a referendum on the euro during this Parliament. Not one Member has mentioned the importance of joining the euro to the vitality or economy of Wales. That is important, and I noticed it.
18WH
The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Williams) mentioned the importance of the public sector—heck, we know that. It has grown dramatically since 1997, not only in Wales but throughout the country. I was interested, though not surprised, to read the Government's plans for the Welsh Assembly. It is proposed to scrap the post of Secretary of State for Wales and to reduce the number of Westminster MPs who would be able take part in debates such as this, but to increase the number of Assembly Members in Cardiff by eight. That is another example of growth in the public sector created by the party to which the hon. Member for Clwyd, South belongs. That is not the way to create a vital economy in Wales, and certainly not in north Wales.
I think that it was the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Hywel Williams) who said that London was a long way from north Wales. In many respects, Cardiff is also a long way from north Wales. It seems that north Wales is losing out, and we need to refocus to ensure that all parts of Wales benefit from any upturns or increased economic vitality in the United Kingdom.
From travelling around Wales, I must say that Ynys Môn is one of the most attractive parts of the United Kingdom, never mind Wales, and I am very fond of it. The hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen) mentioned RAF Valley. He did not have enough time to go on at length about it, but I agree with him completely. It is important that something is done about the regional airports in Wales, and to consider how commercial traffic can be facilitated in getting to Ynys Môn and north Wales generally, to open up the area. It is important that business people do not think, "Goodness me, Ynys Môn is five hours away by road from many parts of Wales, never mind England." If we can open the region to commercial traffic and show that business people can get from parts of England into north Wales very quickly, it would boost employment prospects.
Albert Owen: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that RAF Valley is not only easily reached from England but is only eight minutes from Dublin airport?
Mr. Evans: The hon. Gentleman mentioned looking westwards. Swansea is also looking to get a hub in Ireland and then in the huge markets of the United States of America. There is no reason why RAF Valley ought not be looking ambitiously at such potential.
The hon. Member for Clwyd, South mentioned broadband, which is important. We do not want Wales to be left behind in the information technology revolution; nor do we want rural areas to be left behind in comparison with urban areas. He also mentioned call centres, and there is no reason why north Wales ought not to get its fair share of them. He was skating on thin ice when he said that callers could not understand what people in north Wales were saying. Many call centres are located in Scotland, and people there might be accused of suffering from the same disadvantage.
Mr. Martyn Jones: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way during such a short speech. The people who establish call centres reckon that the accent in southern

19WH
Scotland is considered trustworthy, and therefore useful. I am sure that that is also true of Caernarfon, but at the moment that is not certain.
Mr. Evans: The ice is getting thinner every time the hon. Gentleman speaks.
I want to concentrate on agriculture, a sector in which there are real problems in respect of incomes in north Wales. The incidence of suicides among depressed farmers is much higher than for the rest of the population and we must try to tackle that. Manufacturing has been mentioned and is also vital. The DTI manufacturing advisory service, Cymru, has produced a glossy supplement. It is the first edition, but unless it helps manufacturers throughout Wales, I hope that it will be the last. We want real help and the best way to accomplish it for businesses and for services is to listen to what they are saying.
A list was produced of factory units facing closure over recent months. Eastern Europe and the greater attractiveness of EU accession countries has been a problem, and we must do all that we can to retain our employment. Hon. Members will recall the survey of Welsh businesses conducted by the Federation of Small Businesses, which highlighted as a major problem the volume, complexity, rate of change, interpretation and implementation of EU legislation. That helps to explain why businesses are not expanding as they should be. Red tape is a real problem.
The front page of today'sFinancial Times states:
"The Better Regulation Taskforce will report Whitehall officials to the National Audit Office claiming that they are producing `poor quality' assessments of the burden of new red tape. The British Chambers of Commerce estimates the cost of regulation to business has climbed by £20 billion since 1998."
Something must be done about that, and we need to reflect more on the burden of red tape. We have all received in the post the "Have You Heard? By Law" leaflet outlining all the health and safety rules and regulations that businesses have to comply with. It specifies a host of rules and regulations that people have to abide by and it is estimated that it would cost 100 for the entire pack to be displayed in offices.
Is it not time that we talked to businesses and offered a commonsense reduction—perhaps a bonfire of unnecessary regulations as well as the bonfire of quangos that we were promised a long time ago? Our businesses—particularly small businesses, which have always been the engines of employment growth in local areas—must be given every opportunity to expand. The hon. Member for Caernarfon was right to refer to small businesses, rather than the bigger boys, sourcing and networking locally. We should therefore give small businesses in north Wales as much support as possible.
I have noticed a touch of complacency in the debate. I fully understand what Government Members are doing, but we must be more realistic about the problems of north Wales. Transport infrastructure is one key problem that requires attention. The perceived remoteness should be completely eradicated. North Wales people have the skills and a good quality of life, which means that businesses would be welcome to start up there.
20WH
Sadly, in Ynys Mön, unemployment stands at 5.9 per cent., substantially higher than in areas such as Montgomeryshire and north Cardiff where unemployment is 1.7 and 1.9 per cent. The disparity between areas of the lowest and the highest unemployment in Wales is considerable. I am not the greatest enthusiast for the National Assembly of Wales, but we should encourage it to redirect its attention to the problems that I have mentioned. I recall that during the halcyon days of 18 years of Conservative Government the Welsh Development Agency commanded great respect as an institution and secured a good deal of inward investment. Now it is competing against several development agencies throughout the United Kingdom, so the competition is stiffer.
I hope that the Minister will start to address some of the problems that I have mentioned today. There is no reason why we should not work together to try to lift the burdens of taxation and national insurance contributions—a tax that will start on I April—and all the other rules and regulations that hamper businesses in Wales. We should let those businesses grow. We will be looking carefully to see whether, in the Budget, the Government will start to pay a little more respect to the hard work, energy and commitment that our businesses give to the people of Wales.
10.50 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Don Touhig): In the short time available to me, I shall try to respond to all the points raised this morning.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, South (Mr. Jones) on securing this debate. It has been an important debate and we have heard many interesting contributions. Unemployment has fallen in every region of the United Kingdom since the 1997 general election, and it has fallen also in every constituency in Wales. In particular, since 1997, north Wales has seen unemployment fall by 40 per cent., youth unemployment by 84 per cent., and long-term unemployment by 61 per cent. Furthermore, Wales has seen the biggest increase in employment of any part of the UK and the biggest fall in the inactivity rate.
I think that all hon. Members accept that a major factor in that change has been the new deal programme. New deal is working hard in Wales; it has delivered substantial reductions in long-term unemployment and long-term youth unemployment. The better Wales target is to help 30,000 people under 25 years of age to leave unemployment and move into work or training by April 2003. That target is being achieved; by September 2002 more than 27,000 young people had already secured jobs.
That is a significant achievement, and I pay tribute to the staff of the employment service, Jobcentre Plus. There has been a sea change in the way in which the service focuses on getting people into work and on making sure that people can move from benefits into work. There are now 61,000 more jobs in Wales than there were last year. Despite the hits caused by the job losses that hon. Members mentioned, Wales continues to attract new job opportunities. That large increase in the number of jobs in Wales represents a high proportion of the total job increase in the UK as a

21WH
whole; it is real evidence that the employment gap between Wales and the rest of the UK is closing. We are moving towards full employment.
In his pre-Budget report, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer confirmed an extra £2.3 billion of planned public investment in Wales over the next three years. We should contrast that with the 20 per cent. cuts proposed by the Opposition. That investment will put Wales on the road to becoming a high-quality, world-class economy. That is vital to our future prosperity. For instance, the £427 million of objective 1 funding committed to 759 projects in Wales is expected to create more than 6,000 jobs.
To create jobs, we need more businesses with enterprise and innovation, and with a commitment to invest and develop. In recent weeks, I have seen for myself that we have such business in Wales. I visited Airbus with my hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami). What a company that is; it has a huge commitment to investment and to modern apprenticeships. That is the way forward for such companies. I also visited rural Wales, and saw Rachel's Dairy near Aberystwyth. That small business, started by one person, has now expanded to provide quality jobs producing and marketing good Welsh products, which is so important.
I went with my hon. Friend the Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Mrs. Lawrence) to visit Petroplus at Milford Haven; that is an exciting development. I visited also a small industry, Llanboidy cheese, which works hard and is developing a market for Welsh products. That is to be encouraged. Wales has people with the vision, ambition and enterprise necessary to make businesses grow, and we need to encourage them.
The pre-Budget report contains good news for business in Wales. Business success means rising employment, and a stable tax base means that we can fund our public sector investment. Corporation tax has fallen for 5,900 companies in Wales, which is also to be welcomed. The first half of 2002 saw more than 2,000 new businesses created in Wales—a 60 per cent. increase over the same period in 2001. On top of that—it is a startling figure—the number of self-employed jobs in Wales is rising. About 165,000 people now run their own businesses in Wales—that is 13.3 per cent. of the work force, compared to 11.9 per cent. in the United Kingdom. That is encouraging, as it shows that we have the confidence to go out and start businesses and help our economy to grow.
As a result of the Government's measures, the unemployment rate in Wales is now lower than the average of the European Union average, the United States and Canada. It is now at the same level as that of the United Kingdom. Such achievements are possible only in a stable economy, with low inflation, low interest rates and low unemployment. We have succeeded at quite a lot in the past few years, but there is still a great deal to do. Colleagues have mentioned that there is no room for complacency, and that is right.
I want briefly to respond to comments made during the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, South insisted that there should not be complacency, and there will be none. Working in partnership with the Labour-led National Assembly we shall push forward
22WH
our agenda for investment and the growth of the Welsh economy. We certainly remember, as he reminded us, the legacy left by the Conservative Government.
My hon. Friend also raised the important issue of broadband. The Government have responded to the Select Committee's report—which highlighted good practices in the NHS in Wales—and we are working closely with colleagues in the Assembly to deliver broadband across Wales as quickly as possible. That is our objective.
The hon. Member for Caernarfon (Hywel Williams) welcomed several measures that have reduced unemployment. He highlighted difficulties in his constituency, but unemployment has fallen by 60 per cent., which I am sure he welcomes as much as we do. I found it hard to follow some of his arguments. He seemed to suggest that there was a major conflict between large and small employers in an area. I understand that some difficulties can exist, but I think that the mix is essential for the expansion and growth of the economy.
I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman developed an idea that was somewhat isolationist with respect to broadband. The broadband provision that is planned will provide economically viable geographical parcels throughout the United Kingdom. Public consultation led by the Department of Trade and Industry has shown that the restriction of the parcels to Welsh national boundaries is not what business wants; that is not what is required. My colleagues in the Assembly have agreed to be bound by the outcome of the public consultation. The DTI and Assembly officials are working closely together to secure the maxium broadband coverage across Wales.
The hon. Gentleman made an important point about the Jobcentre Plus call centre. I take every opportunity to encourage the development of such projects, and always, like my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, bring to the attention of colleagues in Government the need to think of Wales as somewhere to locate. Shortly I shall be in Swansea to open the Pensions Agency. That shows that the Government are investing by moving Government facilities and jobs where appropriate.
The hon. Member for Caernarfon mentioned the drop in regional selective assistance grants and referred to aFinancial Times article, of which I have a copy. The DTI has made it clear that regional selective assistance is demand led. Companies are required to bid for the funding. If bids have fallen back, that is the reason for a reduction in RSA.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas) made some important points about the strength of the manufacturing industry and the service sector in his constituency. We certainly want to encourage that. My hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane) also spoke about the importance of public investment in his constituency. He talked about structural funds post-2006, and the Government are currently considering their response to the cohesion report. Discussions will take place between our Department and other Departments, and our Assembly colleagues.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen) expressed his appreciation of the investment that has been made in his area to reduce unemployment. I

23WH
know how hard he has worked to bring about investment in the port of Holyhead in particular, and that is very welcome.
The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Williams) raised the issue of the two-tier system in the public sector. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I will play a full part in developing the Government's views and policies. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman welcomes the recent initiative that we announced. He made particular mention of KTH at Llanidloes. I know what a blow the news was to the community. The First Minister in the National Assembly has asked Team Wales to investigate how we can respond and help there.
I can reassure the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) that the St. David's day debate will be rescheduled and will take place shortly. He touched on regulation and the problems that it may cause to business. The Government are committed to ensuring that regulation is fair and effective. We are trying to provide as much protection as possible to business and industry in that context. The Government have listened; they listened and responded accordingly when business and industry suggested that they could reduce the administrative burdens of the national minimum wage.
Last week I was in Belgium. I was struck by the fact that unemployment levels are higher there. I met Ministers and officials who were impressed by our efforts to reduce unemployment. In particular, they were pleased to hear about our new deal initiatives. In spite of the worst global slowdown for nearly 30 years, Wales is achieving great things—more jobs, more opportunity and more investment. Every constituency in Wales is benefiting. We have achieved much and we must be confident. It is important to show the confident face of the new Wales. We may be on the edge of Europe geographically, but there is no reason why we should not be at the heart of Europe economically. The first step is to have confidence in ourselves and Welsh business and industry. If we all work together and show that confidence, Wales will have a good future. We will build on the strong economy and develop prosperity for all our people.

Credit Card Industry
11 am
Mr. Barry Gardiner: Even though he is my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, South (Nigel Griffiths), I trust that, as a good son of Hawick, the Minister will not object if I ask him to take a mental journey with me to the other side of Scotland, to where I grew up in Glasgow. Whenever yer mither wantid a pint o'milk, we bairns would be sent doon the street tae Cuthbertson's dairy. The milk would be there in the crates, but there'd be nae wifie tae tak yer thruppenny piece, so ye'd leave it in the honesty box.
It is many a long year since I have seen an honesty box—some would say, "What do you expect when you move down to live among the English?"—but lo and behold, I walked into the Terrace Cafeteria yesterday and found, by the coffee machine, a brand new honesty box. I considered that a tremendous omen for the debate, because I am calling for an honesty box in the credit card industry, albeit one of a slightly different nature.
Last week, the Office of Fair Trading reached a preliminary conclusion that MasterCard was charging an unjustifiable fee to retailers' banks for every transaction processed. The effect of that 1.1 per cent. charge on the value of every transaction is, of course, passed on to consumers in higher prices. The regulator announced that
"these fees act like a tax on retail transactions that is paid by all consumers in shops that accept credit cards".
Given that there are about £84 billion worth of transactions each year, that amounts to £924 million.
Charges and fees in the credit card industry are therefore topical, but I wish to focus the Minister's attention on the other side of the industry—the card companies' relationship not with the retailer but with the consumer. Last year, the deputy director of the Isaac Newton Institute for Mathematical Sciences, Dr. R.E. Hunt, submitted a memorandum to the Treasury Committee's inquiry into interest rates in which he stated:
"Despite 'assiduous research', there are still some obscure aspects of the charging regime which it has been impossible to deduce even from the small print."
Dr. Hunt is a lecturer at the university of Cambridge department of applied mathematics and theoretical physics, so if that is impossible for him, it is almost certainly as clear as mud to the average consumer. As he says,
"The need to read the small print significantly increases the difficulty of the calculation. Various vital facts are buried there."
In this debate I have one aim. Quite simply I want to make the small print bigger. I want to dig up the hidden charges and make them explicit, so that every consumer can know up front what they are getting when they decide on a particular credit card.
About a year ago, the Department of Trade and Industry asked APACS—the Association for Payment Clearing Services—to participate in its consultation process on the workings of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. Its submission, which I am confident that my hon. Friend the Minister will acknowledge, was extremely detailed and helpful. It focused on credit card annual

25WH
percentage rates, how they should be presented to the consumer and how they should be calculated. Let me explain the problem. The APR represents the total charge for credit. Indeed, it is defined as such in the Consumer Credit (Total Charge for Credit) Regulations 1980. However, there are different ways of calculating the total charge. The assumed length of repayment, and the impact of such things as annual fees and minimum monthly repayments can be varied, so perverse results occur. In some circumstances, a card that would charge £4,040 to repay just £2,500 has an APR of 14.9 per cent., whereas a card that would charge a more modest £3,127 to repay the same £2,500 has a higher APR of 16.4 per cent.
The consumer tends to imagine that the APR is simply the annualised interest rate applied to the outstanding balance after the credit-free period has elapsed in any month. It is not. The APR is, at best, a one-dimensional view of the cost of credit on any card, and the number of customers for whom it is directly relevant is small. The APR is of no relevance to the 34 per cent. of credit card users who recently claimed in a Mintel study to pay off their balance in full each month. Of far greater relevance to such people is the size of any annual fee or the length of any interest-free period before repayments must be made.
The credit card companies have, over the past few years, begun to introduce other, hidden costs, such as late payment fees, which are usually about £20, one-off fees on foreign transactions, which are usually around 2.75 per cent. per transaction, and fees for going over one's credit limit, which are, again, about £20.
Another hidden cost is the transaction fee and interest chargeable on cash advances. Many issuers charge 2 or 3 per cent. of the transaction on any cash advance, subject to a minimum of £5. On a relatively small cash advance of £50, for example, the transaction fee is a whopping 10 per cent. of the transaction. Indeed, using a credit card to obtain cash is one of the most expensive ways to borrow money. Many issuers charge higher interest rates on cash advances than on purchases, despite already levying a cash advance handling fee, so the eventual cost to consumers who do not pay their balance off in full can be enormous.
Unsurprisingly, such matters are generally not in the promotional material that credit card companies send out. Even those things that may be heavily promoted as benefits of the card can have hidden costs. Many cardholders believe that if a 50-day interest-free period is provided, all new purchases will accrue no interest charges until that 50-day period has elapsed. In fact, that will normally be the case only when there is no unpaid balance left over from the previous bill and the new purchases during the current month are paid in full before the due date. If an unpaid balance is hanging over, the new purchases will attract interest from the date of purchase, and the grace period will not apply. Once again, the small print will catch the consumer out.
Fundamentally, the Minister can approach this consumer problem in two ways. First, he can impose standardisation of product on the industry, which is to say that each credit card company can calculate its key financial indicators in exactly the same way, and offer essentially the same interest on the same intervals, with
26WH
the same interest-free periods and the same fees and handling charges. Secondly, he can ensure that there is absolute transparency about the fees and charges that each company levies, and impose standardisation of presentation of costs and benefits, so that the consumer can easily compare one card against the other. If the Minister chooses the first route, he diminishes consumer choice; if he chooses the second route, he increases it and educates.
The honesty box is a way of achieving the second option. It obliges every credit card company to standardise the presentation of all the relevant information about its credit card in a grid format, so that a customer can see, just by looking at the honesty box, how that product compares with another. I would dearly love to claim that the idea is original, but in speaking of the honesty box, I must at least be honest. It was first thought of by Senator Charles Schumer, who led the passage of a Bill to that effect through the US Congress in 1988. The honesty box is part of the United States' Truth in Lending Act, and it requires the disclosure in a tabular box format of all financial information that it considers the consumer will need when evaluating a credit card offer.
In this country, the honesty box has already been adopted by the Nationwide, but although this is welcome, we should remember that the benefits of the honesty box flow from comparability, not from virtuous unilateralism. The benefit of honesty and humility here is that I can claim something much better than originality; I can claim that it works. In the United States, the Schumer box, as it is known, is regarded as an integral element in the drive for greater consumer transparency. It empowers people to make the correct decision about which credit card may be most appropriate to their needs. It does this, not by forcing companies to provide information that is not already available in the small print, but by drawing together all the disclosures spread throughout the text into one readily understandable and easily comparable matrix.
I was delighted to learn that the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, South was to respond to the debate, as I know that he is passionately committed to consumer protection and just as passionately committed to consumer choice. I am confident that he, like me, wants to see not a standardised product but genuine competition with different products offering different benefits at different prices to the consumer. It is essential that we bear it in mind that consumers' needs vary; some may require a credit card that charges a low rate of interest because they choose not to pay off their balance in full each month. For them, other benefits such as cashback or air miles are minor considerations when choosing a card. For those who usually pay all their balance but who travel as part of their work, it may be extremely important to know what penalty charges are incurred for late payment and what handling fees are levied on foreign transactions. Those who always pay in full by direct debit will have little regard for the APR or for late payment penalties; however, they may find it useful to compare cashback or gift incentive schemes.
The honesty box should include all the indicators. A full list would include an introductory interest rate on promotions; balance transfer interest rate; purchase interest rate; cash advance interest rate; cash advance

27WH
handling fee; annual card fee; credit limit; minimum repayment; date from which interest commences; interest-free period; order in which payments are applied—that is chronologically or to higher interest-attracting transactions first; a tariff of charges and penalties for breaking conditions of the agreement; insurance on goods purchased, travel insurance and other insurances; cashback; reward schemes; and affinity schemes.
With so many variables, it is scarcely surprising that consumers can make substantial savings on the cost of using their credit card by choosing one that suits their needs. It is equally unsurprising that most consumers cannot find out which card best matches their needs when the information is hidden away in the small print of the 1,300 credit card brands available in the UK. It has been calculated that if all the consumers who pay off their balance in full each month switched to a cashback card, they would save a total of £125 million per annum. Lack of transparency is one of the main hindrances to consumers capturing that benefit.
However, if the honesty box is to be effective, it must cover all methods that companies use to market to consumers. It will not be enough for card companies to place the box solely on their printed promotional material. They must also supply information when they advertise their products on the internet or via multimedia text messaging, and even over the telephone. In short, we need to be comprehensively prescriptive, and prepare for all the emerging media of modern marketing. Consumer choice does not end when the customer has signed their credit card agreement. Card companies must send a revised honesty box each time that they change any of the fees listed. In that way, the consumer will be guaranteed simple financial information on which to base their financial decisions.
I welcome the Department of Trade and Industry review of consumer credit, but the Minister knows as well as I do that that review and any legislation that arises from it is unlikely to manifest itself in the immediate parliamentary future. Equally, I welcome the Government's submission this month to the EU draft consumer credit directive, which stated that
"information should be clear and comprehensible, and key information should be presented as a whole".
That is exactly what the honesty box ensures. I urge the Minister to do whatever is in his power to implement it now.
11.15 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Nigel Griffiths): My hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Mr. Gardiner) has done Parliament a great service in raising an important issue that touches on the lives of so many people. Like my hon. Friend and, I believe, all hon. Members, I recognise that consumer credit and debt are important to us all. My hon. Friend has developed considerable expertise in an area that I take equally seriously and that the Government are taking steps to address. He gave us some shocking examples of misrepresentation of facts and lack of clarity. At a time when personal debt is increasing, it is important that the public fully understand what is involved in credit card transactions.
28WH
I am grateful to the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux for supplying me with its latest figures on indebtedness, which show a dramatic increase in the number of debt inquiries that it handled between 1996–97 and 2001–02, from 789,000 to more than 1 million. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor will take some comfort from the fact that the numbers of tax debt and utilities debt inquiries have dropped, and the number of housing debt inquiries is also down; however, the NACAB inquiry figures show that the number of consumer debt inquiries has increased the most, from 406,000 to 647,000. That is why the debate is so timely.
We need to be especially vigilant about the information available to consumers. Of course I want all consumers to be able to master their finances: I firmly believe that people need to be able to take appropriate decisions about their finances, and to understand the choices that are open to them and the implications of those choices. That lies at the heart of the issue raised by my hon. Friend. We in Government need to be able to create the right regulatory framework to facilitate a competitive market environment and to ensure appropriate consumer protection. Transparency of credit agreements is vital—we must look at the amount of small print in agreements, and identify ways in which lenders can minimise the risks and agreements can be made easier to understand. That is critical to a successful market in credit, in which there is fairness on both sides.
We are taking two key actions. Having set up the taskforce on over-indebtedness—I will come to its workings and findings in a moment—we have also undertaken a review of the provisions of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. The taskforce on over-indebtedness has considered the question of transparency in consumer credit agreements in some detail. It recommended that all lenders should be required to provide certain key financial information to potential borrowers in a clear and understandable format. It has reviewed existing cancellation rights, examined the content and form of credit agreements and considered how small print could best focus on the main rights and responsibilities of consumers, explain the key terms and, most importantly, use plain language.
The working group has been firmly backed by the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Miss Johnson), who is responsible for consumer affairs. She endorsed demands on the part of consumers for sufficient information to enable them to answer the three key questions: how much will it cost me as a consumer, how much will it cost me if it goes wrong—my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North mentioned the £20 charge, which is not widely known about—and can I afford it? That means that consumers need information about whether or not the loan is secured, whether the interest rate is fixed or variable, the term and total cost of the loan, and the total amount payable.
APRs can be helpful when comparing different credit deals, provided that the level of advice to which my hon. Friend referred is adhered to, but the frequency, number and amount of repayments are also important. Consumers should know whether a deposit is required and whether there are any additional charges, cancellation rights or early settlement terms. The taskforce on over-indebtedness indicated that the information is already required under consumer credit

29WH
legislation; the purpose of today's debate is to highlight the failings in the enactment of that legislation in the handling of consumer credit and credit deals. As my hon. Friend said, the key is how the information is presented to consumers. It must be presented in a way that is clear and easy to identify and understand. We are examining the statutory requirements on pre-contract information and the format and content of credit agreements.
My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary is consulting on revised regulations and inviting suggestions on improvements for consumers as part of the current review of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. She is well aware of the need to take action on greater transparency, alerting people to the effects of reducing the minimum payments on credit card balances, and the need for clear guidance to consumers on how credit card cheques work. She spelled out those details in her response to the over-indebtedness taskforce's work. The Act is now almost 30 years old. It was enacted to regulate consumer credit at a time when the market was far smaller and less sophisticated than it is today. We need to update the regulatory regime and ensure that it is relevant to the modern credit environment.
We are determined to implement our 2001 election manifesto commitment to tackle loan sharks—another subject that my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North is particularly interested in and concerned about on behalf of his constituents and all consumers. The consultation document published by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary entitled "Tackling loan sharks—and more!" has elicited many helpful responses, and she will publish the response to that consultation next month. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North and other hon. Members will take a keen interest in that.
My hon. Friend discussed in some detail the merits of what he called honesty boxes—illustrative tables in credit advertising and literature that set out in a clear, standard format the key rates, charges and benefits. He advocated that they be adopted as an industry standard to allow consumers to make informed and accurate comparisons between the terms and conditions offered by different lenders. I entirely agree with that approach. Consumers must be able to shop around and make clear comparisons between the offers made by different credit card companies.
The Department of Trade and Industry has met the OFT, APACS—the card issuers trade association—and consumer groups to discuss a standard format for advertising interest rates. As my hon. Friend said, it is difficult for consumers to compare different credit card offers. Lenders make different assumptions about usage, so a 6.9 per cent. APR on one credit card is not the same as a 6.9 per cent. APR on another. That was not
30WH
Parliament's intention when it ensured that APR information would be made available to the public, and such a situation does not help consumers—indeed, it can lead them to make the wrong decision.
I am pleased to tell hon. Members that agreement has been reached on the need for a standard format. There is enthusiasm for adopting the type of honesty box that my hon. Friend described. As he said, it is already a legal requirement in the United States of America, where it is called the Schumer box, after the senator who championed it. My hon. Friend will be pleased to know that we are also giving active consideration to the merits of taking such an approach to other credit products. In that way, consumers may in time become familiar with the format in which key information is provided.
Our Government are pursuing the most radical overhaul of consumer credit legislation for a generation. It is being presided over by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary and shows our commitment to ensuring that consumers are informed and protected. The changes are long overdue, and the speed of change in the credit market over the past decade, particularly in relation to credit cards, has highlighted the need for up-to-date, flexible legislation that provides the appropriate levels of consumer protection.
Like hon. Members, we recognise that it is ultimately for individuals to reach decisions about the commitments that they make, and that is as it should be. However, those should be informed decisions, and people must have information that allows them to compare different offers. They must be allowed to see what interest rates will be charged and be able to work out what they will end up paying for credit. Most important, they must be able to compare one company's offer with another's. That is why the Schumer box in the United States has so much to commend it. It is also why the Gardiner box—I hope that it will be known by that name, because my hon. Friend has championed the issue—is such a viable option in this country and it should be given active consideration.
There is no doubt that we have a mature and valued consumer credit market, and we are well ahead of countries such as Germany in terms of the possession of credit cards by individuals. People can therefore make purchases remotely and do not have to carry around large amounts of cash. All hon. Members greatly respect and value the industry, and we welcome its fullest cooperation in ensuring that it adopts the best practices. My hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North has outlined one of them, and he commands widespread support.
11.29 am
Sitting suspended until Two o'clock.

Urban Post Offices
2 pm
Mrs. Annette L. Brooke: I am pleased to introduce this important debate at such an apposite time. Against a background of 3,500 post offices being closed between 1979 and 1997 and the closure of a further 1,700 up to the end of last year, the first post office closures under the urban reinvention programme are being confirmed. Furthermore, 1 April looms, when the phasing-in of all benefits to be paid through the banking system will begin.
My constituency is made up of both rural and urban areas, and I emphasise that I am concerned for the future of all post offices, but it seems sensible at present to concentrate on urban post offices. There is the question of how an urban post office is defined: in principle, that should be straightforward, but I am aware of at least one dispute over a post office which has been designated as urban, but which currently serves a small community surrounded by a green belt.
I come to this debate having heard confirmation of the first closure in my constituency under the reinvention programme: Hillbourne post office, which is 10 minutes from my constituency office. In addition, local media are reporting proposed closures in Poole and nearby Christchurch. I am sure that the number of hon. Members supporting this debate reflects the level of concern across the country.
There have been many debates on the future of post offices. We all accept that post offices form a vital part of the social fabric of our country. In the suburbs of my constituency, there are many distinct communities of which the local post office is the focal point. The people most dependent on those post offices are the elderly, the disabled, single parents and the less well-off.
The local post office is often the last retail or cash outlet in the community. I have heard stories of elderly people making a trip to the post office every day, sometimes just to buy a single stamp. The visit performs the vital function of keeping them physically active and providing social contact with others. In addition, a post office being located within a shop carries spillover benefits through the provision of goods for customers and extra spending in the overall business. The closure of a local post office can have adverse effects on many people's lives, and it is important not to focus merely on commercial viability.
The performance and innovation unit report on the Post Office published in June 2000 made 24 recommendations, including shutting some urban branches to improve the prospects of those remaining, and investing in the remaining branches to make them more attractive. The proposals announced last October identified £180 million to fund the closure of urban post offices, with grants for updating individual post offices limited to £10,000. It is to be welcomed that the special fund for deprived urban areas has, at long last, been announced.
I am going to quote the Minister, I am afraid. He said that a rational case could be made for changes in the post office structure and that
"a properly planned, properly managed process, which will protect access to the post office network in every urban area" —[Official Report, 15 October 2002; Vol. 390, c. 229.]
32WH
was desirable. It is very difficult to disagree with that statement. However, today we have an opportunity to evaluate the progress made so far. It is difficult to argue that there should be no closures, but I cannot accept that 3,000 post offices one third of all urban post offices—should be shut.
Post office business has been declining for several years. Until recently, dealing with benefit payments still accounted for about 40 per cent. of post office income, but the rush to introduce automated credit transfer in April 2003 has really been the final straw for many postmasters. There may well be efficiency arguments for the change, but consumer wants are important.
The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry wrote to all MPs in October 2002. He said:
"We have been keen to listen to the concerns of all our customers. They told us that two of the most important things to them were still to be able to collect their money from the Post Office and to be able to collect it weekly. Both of these options will be available."
Letters outlining the options for benefit recipients who currently collect their benefits at the post office are being sent out on a phased basis to a total of 16 million people. The options are the ordinary current account in a bank or building society, the new basic bank account and the Post Office card account. By 10 January this year, 103,000 customers had opted for payments to be made to bank or building society accounts, but only 26,000 had opted for a Post Office card account. Only the Post Office card account will allow cash to be collected from post offices. It is therefore important that the post office competes with the other options on a level playing field. If our post offices are to survive and if the Government are determined not to defer the changes, it is essential that the process be handled well.
Sandra Gidley: Does my hon. Friend not agree that there are alarming reports suggesting that the Post Office card account has not been adequately promoted and that most people are unaware of the advantages of having such an account? That is especially true for those whose current accounts are in deficit, because their benefits will be funding their overdraft. Many people do not realise that a Post Office card account would give them access to the cash.
Mrs. Brooke: My hon. Friend makes some important points. For example, applying for a card account seems much more complex than applying for other accounts. Is it necessary to refer potential customers to a call centre? It seems that recipients are being actively discouraged from using Post Office card accounts, and the agencies do not seem to be promoting them as strongly as the other options. The National Federation of Sub-Postmasters is concerned that the Department for Work and Pensions is planning to encourage existing customers to open a basic bank account rather than a Post Office card account.
Many are concerned about the start date of April 2003. For example, there seems not to be a significant gap between the trial for the Post Office card account and its widespread implementation. The timing of the dispatch of personal identification documents to eligible benefit recipients is another matter for concern. The pilot scheme in Tyne and Wear showed that many people were not prepared to have their benefits paid into

33WH
bank accounts or card accounts. They refused to choose any of the options, but I have yet to hear a full explanation of what will happen after 2004 to those who continue to refuse. An exceptions service is due to be introduced, but when will full details be published? Will the Inland Revenue, the Veterans Agency and the Department for Work and Pensions all use the same exceptions service? With only 34 days to go, many questions remain.
I am particularly concerned about how the new system will operate for the blind and partially sighted. Indeed, I tabled an early-day motion on the subject, and I hope that many hon. Members will sign it. The cash machines already installed in nearly all post offices present a problem for many blind and partially sighted people. In a letter of 21 January to the Dorset County Association for the Blind, a local benefits manager wrote:
"I have spoken to our head office, who tell me that before the machines were installed there was extensive consultation with the RNIB, who did approve the final design."
That misinformation is alarming. The Royal National Institute of the Blind is asking the Post Office to introduce a new PIN pad, and in the meantime to offer an alternative to those who cannot use the existing PIN pad. The current pad has a small display with little contrast, its small keys are very close together and people have a particular problem finding the number 5.
I understand that the RNIB's initial recommendations were ignored. I was pleased to hear today that the problem is at long last being acknowledged. A spokesperson for the Post Office has admitted that mistakes were made in the development process and that
"we have not acted upon the representations from the RNIB and other disability groups."
Will the Minister tell us today exactly what will happen? How much precious money will have been wasted? More importantly, what provisions will be made for blind and partially sighted people and when will such provisions come into effect? I hope that a specially designed PIN pad will be available at every post office along the lines of the big button phone. Those suffering from arthritis, for example, will also require suitable equipment.
Age Concern is worried about elderly people being required to remember a personal identification number, a concern with which I have every sympathy. Exceptions will have to be made for those unable to cope with such a system. I have real anxieties that people who forget their number or who lose it will be unable to access cash for a few days. Some of those who receive benefits and pensions are among the most vulnerable in our society, and confusion and hardship must be avoided. In addition, anything that makes the collection of cash from post offices more difficult will affect the income of the whole operation and will deal a body blow to the whole network. There is a case for deferring the implementation of the programme for direct credit payment for the time being.
The other side of the coin is that there should be support for initiatives to increase footfall into post office branches to generate more income. Sadly, the Government announced the end of the "Your Guide" initiative, which was designed to turn post offices into
34WH
information centres. Perhaps the Minister will outline what plans the Government have to support initiatives to generate more income from post office branches. Failing to protect current income on one hand while failing to support other replacement income streams on the other will mean maximum cuts in the network not minimum ones.
Simon Hughes: Does my hon. Friend agree that the case that she makes is often entirely undermined because the Post Office, when asked what the contract would be, is very unclear, and those who want to make a financial contribution do not know the score? Does she remember that several times I raised with the Minister's predecessor and with others a case in the Elephant and Castle? There, someone wants to run a post office and is willing to make it income generating with other business. This person has tried to get goalposts for setting up a business from the Post Office, but they can never get any that do not move. That must change if post offices in my hon. Friend's constituency and in mine are to continue.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is rather a long intervention.
Mrs. Brooke: I thank my hon. Friend and agree with all that he says, which fits in well with what I intend to say about the closure of the post office in my constituency. There, the postmaster was happy to accept the proposed package. His business had been declining for a long time, and he had already given up on the shop in his business as it was not even worth his while to employ staff. He did not want to stay around to watch his business decline still further with the introduction of ACT—indeed, he was pretty demoralised several years ago, after the Government made their first announcement, when he realised what would befall post offices in 2003. Perhaps that had already taken the heart out of his incentive to run his business and contributed to its decline.
The agreed procedures were adhered to: posters were put in the window, local councillors and the local MP were contacted. I visited local post offices to see how the customers were reacting. They were upset, but they understood the postmaster's position, as they were aware that it had been a long time since they had queued at that particular post office. There was no petition and no general outcry against the closure of the post office. It was regrettable and a nuisance, but customers knew that a well-respected postmaster was making the best business decision, given the pay-off. There were several post offices within the required distances, and details of alternative provision were clearly set out.
Mr. Christopher Chope: Does the hon. Lady accept that it does not make any difference if there is a local outcry or a petition? There was a petition with 1,000 signatures and an enormous local outcry about the Stanpit post office in Christchurch, and Postwatch objected. Despite all that, the decision to close the post office was rubber-stamped.
Mrs. Brooke: That is precisely my fear. Let me make it clear to the Minister that I do not object to all post office

35WH
closures. I am aware of one that is quite sensible. What frightens me is mass closure and the fact that individual circumstances are not considered.
I made representations, in my view, thoughtfully and not confrontationally. I asked about the post office that was likely to pick up customers. What parking arrangements would there be for disabled people? Was there sufficient capacity to provide a good service at peak times? The letter that I received from Post Office Ltd. confirming the closure told me that parking for the disabled was a matter for the local authority—thus pushing the problem on to someone else—and that the postmaster had indicated that he could cope with the expected extra customers. There was no mention of any investment of £10,000 or even £1,000 to improve the facilities. Where were the proposals for the brighter, better surviving post offices? I was very disappointed with the reply, because some good changes could have been made to ensure that that post office would survive.
How many post offices whose proposed closure prompts an outcry, as described by the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope), will be reprieved? One feels that once the poster goes up, the result is a foregone conclusion. There is a case for some closures, but we are on a slippery slope in assuming that so many urban post offices should be closed. I fear that the Government are helping us towards the slippery slope by insisting on rushing ahead with ACT.
I should like to see the evidence of investment in surviving post offices and a real attempt to change the business management culture in the Post Office. I should like to see details of the Government's plans for supporting initiatives to promote extra business in surviving branches. If we cannot have "Your Guide", which many of us thought was rather good, what can we have? We all have a part to play in encouraging people to use their local post office before they lose it.
2.17 pm
Mr. Tony Lloyd: The Government deserve congratulations on one part of the post office closure programme: the decision about post offices in some of the most deprived urban areas. I have a vested interest—you have a similar one, Mr. Deputy Speaker—in that every ward in my constituency is in the bottom 10 per cent. according to the measures of deprivation used by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. The Government negotiated with the Post Office an agreement that in those areas no post office should close if there was not another one in a half mile radius—as opposed to the mile radius used as the standard in closures nationwide. The problem is that although the Government have put up the money, the Post Office is not honouring its agreement.
After a Westminster Hall debate on 5 November—a bonfire of Post Office vanities, so to speak—David Mills, the chief executive of the Post Office, wrote to me about my remarks. He said:
"I refer to your comments alleging a closure programme by `deception' and 'subterfuge' and your accusation about 'deception and lying on the part of the Post Office's most senior management'."
No doubt he was very upset, but the accuracy of my comments has been borne out by the actions of the Post Office even since he wrote to me.
36WH
I want to draw the Minister's attention to some post office closures in my constituency. The closure of the Rusholme sub-post office predates the present closure programme. For a long time, the Post Office insisted to me that it was actively seeking new premises to which to relocate the sub-post office. When Mr. Mills wrote to me in November, however, he already seemed to have given up the ghost. He said:
"It is regrettable that the Rusholme branch had to close in the first place but at least there is now a better prospect of Post Office services in the area being maintained in the longer term."
That was the first official notification that I had received that the Post Office had given up looking for new premises. The local community and I are entitled to object strongly to the closure programme that the Post Office has implemented by deception.
The situation got worse, however. One local subpostmaster—hon. Members will see in a moment why I do not give his name—told me about a meeting that he and other sub-postmasters had with Post Office middle management. One manager told them, "Of course, the closure of Rusholme is a matter of interest to only one or two Members of Parliament," by which he meant me and my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman). It is unacceptable for managers to say that the issue is trivial when many of my constituents have been extremely inconvenienced and are deeply aggrieved by the Post Office's programme of closure by subterfuge.
In his letter, the chief executive referred to the decision to close the Lower Oldham Road post office. The Post Office said that it was closable because it was within 0.4 miles of the next nearest post office, at Newton street. That post office is in a very busy part of the city centre, but the closed Lower Oldham Road branch lies in an area of enormous deprivation, and many elderly people depended on it. That aside, we have constantly disputed the distance given by the Post Office, and one local community activist, Richy Carrothers, walked from the Newton Street branch to the Lower Oldham Road post office with a measuring wheel. He discovered what we had always maintained—that the distance is more than half a mile. The Post Office is wrong, and I have to accuse it of cheating; that is what its actions amount to. It is not difficult to measure the distances involved, and if Richy Carrothers can do it, the Post Office can. I am still waiting for it to rescind its decision, because it is in breach of the spirit and the letter of the closure programme.
The result is that people are nervous about the future of post offices in the whole of my constituency. The Clarendon Road post office in Whalley Range is up for sale, but the rumour is that it will be summarily closed and that the Post Office will allow it to disappear from the system. That is the concern among local people, such as Chris Paul, who are campaigning to keep it open. The Post Office always says that it is not breaching the letter of its programme and that there are reasons for a closure, such as the lease running out. Of course, such things happen in business, but a Post Office that plans its affairs should understand how must time is left on a lease, and it should be able to say whether a lease needs renewing or whether alternative premises need to be found.
I appeal to my hon. Friend the Minister to talk seriously to the Post Office and to make it aware of my strong challenge to it. Specifically, it is carrying out a

37WH
programme of closure by deception, and the problem is being compounded by the unacceptable remarks of its staff in private meetings.
Mr. David Lepper: My hon. Friend has remarked several times on the veracity of comments made by the Post Office. Does he agree that its public reputation has suffered because of its handling of the consultation process? I have in mind the Havelock Road, Bates Road and Ditchling Road post offices in my constituency. The date for objections was set nine days before the Postwatch consultation meeting in the constituency. Members of the public who attended the meeting rightly expected their views to be taken into account, but the Post Office had no intention of listening to those views at the consultation meeting.
Mr. Lloyd: My hon. Friend makes a powerful point on which I wanted to conclude. I tell the Minister that in the end the Government will come under criticism if the Post Office mishandles the closure programme. The examples given by my hon. Friend, and those from my constituency, have led to great cynicism among the public.
I make a plea to the Minister to get a grip on the Post Office. Can he persuade it that the kindest way to describe its handling of matters so far is "clumsy and inelegant"? I prefer the words I used earlier—what has happened amounts to cheating and lying, although that is less elegant on my part. The issue matters enormously, because the Government accept that the Post Office is a vital link, especially in the most deprived inner urban areas, where it is often the only facility around which the community can base itself. Numerous other local small businesses depend on that facility. We want to fight to save our post offices, and we look to the Minister to help us to make the Post Office honour its responsibilities.
2.25 pm
Andrew Selous: Like the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mrs. Brooke), who commenced this debate, I should like to mention the fact that rural post offices in my constituency have closed down. I am sure that all hon. Members are equally concerned about post office closures, whether they be in towns or villages. For pensioners to have to travel miles by bus from their village to a neighbouring village or town to get a pension is as unacceptable as it is for those in towns to have great difficulty in accessing post office services.
I am especially concerned about the Downside post office in south-east Dunstable. The Post Office recently announced that it intends to close it on 19 March, in spite of the fact that it is the first post office closure in the whole country to which Postwatch, the consumer watchdog that works on behalf of all post office users, has formally objected. That raises the question of what the purpose of Postwatch is if, after having considered the cases of some 300 post offices in which it acted responsibly and did not formally object to closure, it is overruled by the Post Office the first time that it objects. Hon. Members are entitled to ask what is the point of the consultation exercise.
Mr. Andrew Robathan: I met the chairman of Postwatch today. Postwatch is incensed about the
38WH
closure that my hon. Friend mentions. Downside is the right post office to keep open in Dunstable, yet it is likely to be closed solely because that suits the Post Office, rather than because it suits the customers.
Andrew Selous: I am grateful for that intervention from my Front-Bench colleague. I look forward to his support and that of the Minister in our ongoing campaign to keep Downside post office open, or, failing that, to open a new one almost immediately next door to it.
I share the concerns expressed by the hon. Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd) about the consultation. My view of that process is that it is, frankly, a sham. I was given the great honour of being asked to chair the public meeting at which the closure of the Downside post office was discussed. A wide range of community organisations attended the meeting: officers from the town council and the district council, local councillors from all the different parties, the head teacher from the local lower school and many people from the local community. The meeting lasted well over an hour and a half. However, in the formal response that I received from Mr. George Hooper of the eastern area, there was not one reference to any of the concerns that had been raised. What is the point of consultation if concerns are not addressed by the Post Office at a public meeting? That leads to considerable cynicism among our constituents about the role of Postwatch and the consultation.
Mr. Chope: Does my hon. Friend accept that Postwatch also believes that the fact that it deals only with the customer relations side of the Post Office adds to the public's cynicism? It is concerned that people think that this is all a public relations exercise and that those in the Post Office who are involved in taking the decisions have already made up their minds and nothing will change them.
Andrew Selous: I wholeheartedly agree. That is the impression that my constituents and I have. We will appreciate anything that the Minister can do to change things; I know that he is as concerned as the rest of us.
Mr. Mike Hancock: It is interesting that in the case of the closure in my constituency, the Post Office agreed to come to a public meeting only yesterday, a week after the closure was announced, and not before.
Andrew Selous: Exactly the same thing happened in my constituency. Some of us were cynical when the Post Office said that it was extending the consultation process, and our cynicism has been borne out. The concerns raised at the meeting have not been addressed in the letter that I received from the Post Office.
The Post Office claims that there is a neighbouring post office less than half a mile away. The furthest part of the Downside estate is well over a mile and a half from any other post office. A large number of its elderly residents do not have cars and cannot access public transport easily, if at all. There are also many young families, who will have great difficulty travelling a mile and a half with children in pushchairs, through an estate

39WH
and up the busy A5 main trunk road to the next available post office. It is unacceptable for such people to have to do that.
I have already heard that many home helps, who collect pensions and other benefits for elderly residents in Downside, will be unwilling to go to the next nearest post office. Distance is not the only measure. What about topography? Dunstable is a hilly town; people will have to go up and down hills and endure the considerable traffic pollution along the main trunk road—with its danger for young children—to get to the nearest post office.
Despite the fact that Martins, a huge national business, with a branch some 20 yds from the threatened post office, has offered to run a post office from its premises, the Post Office has had what I can only call the arrogance to claim that there is not a business case for a post office in that location. Martins is already a successful, thriving business in that parade of shops. Surely the addition of post office services will bring extra revenue, so how can the Post Office claim that it is not a viable business? That is not a decision for it to take; the management of Martins and the local branch want to go ahead, but the Post Office is apparently unwilling to countenance the idea.
My second major concern is the reason that the Post Office picked that particular post office in Dunstable. No post office closure is ever popular; there are downsides to the closure of any public facility. However, there are several post offices close together in the centre of Dunstable. If one had to pick a branch to close—the Post Office lost £163 million last year, so I understand why it would want to make closures—it would not be that particular one.
I am also worried because the Post Office seems to have done no analysis. The only other post office on the south-west side of Dunstable is owned by a group of stores that has been bought by Tesco, which has publicly said that it does not intend to maintain the post offices in those shops. There is therefore a danger that the other post office on the south side of Dunstable, albeit not very convenient to get to from Downside, will also close. There is evidence that the Post Office has not considered the sustainability of neighbouring post offices.
Downside is situated in the Manshead ward, which is already in receipt of single regeneration budget funds. It is ridiculous that on the one hand the Government are pumping about £750,000 into that ward to sustain and revive the community, while on the other hand they are taking away a vital community facility. It looks amateurish; it is as if the left hand does not know what the right is doing. The good work that the SR B money will do will be undermined by the closure of this post office.
When Mr. Hooper of the Post Office came to the public meeting, he said that it would lose up to 41 per cent. of its income because of the transfer of benefits and pensions to automatic credit transfer. That is a huge loss of revenue for any business. The Government have to bear responsibility for taking that amount of income away from post offices. It is worrying. As a member of the Select Committee on Work and Pensions I visited the new Pension Service call centre in Burnley; the first
40WH
in the country. Mention of the Post Office and its card account is made only right at the end of the script that will be used by all the telephone operators when our constituents ring in to claim their pensions. It is an afterthought; all the other options are pressed on people first. Only if they fail to pick any of the other options are they offered the Post Office option—they almost have to hold out for it.
The Department for Work and Pensions seems to be working against the Post Office and our constituents' ability to access local post office services, in another example of unjoined-up Government. I implore the Minister to have words with his counterparts in the DWP to do something about this issue.
I raised the issue of the Downside post office with the Minister's office two weeks ago and I am grateful that he is here to respond to the debate. I look forward to his response with interest.
Several hon. Members rose
The Deputy Speaker (Mr. O'Hara): Order. Hon. Members present will note how many wish to contribute to the debate. The wind-ups must start on the hour.
2.37 pm
Linda Gilroy: I had not intended to make a contribution to the debate, so I shall be brief. I congratulate the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mrs. Brooke) on securing a debate on such an important topic. Post offices are very much part of the fabric of our society and it is important that we enable the future survival of their network.
The truth is that people are not using post offices as much as they used to. Whereas a few years ago 26 per cent. accessed their benefits and pensions payments via bank accounts, that figure has now gone up to 42 per cent. We know how that has happened: reference has been made to the number of Government agencies, from the Veterans Agency to the Inland Revenue, that are seeking to modernise their services, and to the payment of working families tax credit and pensions.
We have to try to balance the consequences for post offices against our duty to safeguard taxpayers' money. It is important that those various agencies are able to get the benefits they deliver to people at a minimum cost to the taxpayer. However, the Government are investing £1 billion in rural and urban post offices over the next few years to try to help them to make the transition through change that is happening in any event as people change the way in which they do business, using cash machines and the internet as well as making direct debit transactions through their bank accounts. The investment of £1 billion is not insignificant, but post offices are concerned about the changes none the less. The problem is as much the uncertainty as anything else—trying to work out what their cash flow and business will be, particularly in the next two years, is fraught with uncertainty.
I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for meeting a delegation of four sub-postmasters from the Plymouth district recently, and one reason why I wanted to make a contribution to the debate was to put on record some of the issues that we were able to explore with him. We discussed the way in which the forms do not give a level

41WH
playing field when people are considering whether to open a Post Office card or bank account, and the Minister has agreed to examine some aspects that were drawn to his attention. Post offices are keen to make the most of their new role in banking, but the sub-postmasters made the point that people do not see the Post Office as a bank. As the banking services are introduced, there is a huge job to do to change the public perception of what post offices can do with and for people.
We are talking about some 9,000 small businesses facing considerable uncertainty in the coming year or two. That is the number in urban areas, and I think that the number in rural areas is similar, if not greater. The post offices are small businesses run by enterprising people who are part of the fabric of the community, and one thing that came out of our discussions, to which I hope my hon. Friend the Minister will refer in his concluding remarks, was the positive way in which he greeted the point that the Royal Mail and Post Office will not give independent advice to those post offices as small businesses in their own right. That is for all the reasons referred to by hon. Members, not least because some of the best post offices are not necessarily the ones that the Post Office wants to survive.
Post offices are run by enterprising business people. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will comment on the work that he can do with the Small Business Service and the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, South (Nigel Griffiths). They should examine how the Small Business Service can help those post offices during the next two years by examining them as individual businesses, not as the Post Office views them.
What are the new opportunities for post office services? How can they make the most of them? What opportunities exist for them to diversify, especially locally? They should consider the work that they pick up everywhere, from local authorities to housing associations, and how to make the best of those opportunities. In cities such as Plymouth, after the urban reinvention programme and the emergence of the network through that, is there a case to set up some sort of co-operative that will help post offices to examine the opportunities for local business, as opposed to what they do with the Post Office nationally?
I conclude by thanking my hon. Friend the Minister for meeting the sub-postmasters, and I look forward to his response. I apologise in advance if I have to leave in the middle of his comments, because I have another delegation from Plymouth to meet. I do not get many from as far away as Plymouth, but they are up to see me about the local health service.
2.43 pm
John Barrett: Like other hon. Members who have spoken today, I have rural post offices in my constituency. There are three of them, but it is the urban post offices that we are here to talk about today. In my constituency, 18 post offices are classed as urban and, like the rural post offices, they are under threat because of the uncertainty surrounding the way in which benefits and pensions will be paid in future.
Urban post offices are threatened by the reinvention programme. Its title implies a positive development, but it is a closure programme. As Postwatch has said, the
42WH
estimate of approximately 3,000 closures is too high—such a large number of closures is unnecessary. We are seeing a plan that suits the Post Office. Some closures may be necessary, but there must be a co-ordinated approach with a comprehensive list for each area.
Hon. Members talked about distances, but it has been pointed out that distances can be arbitrary. They can cover hills, or areas that have a good bus service and are between neighbouring post offices. Often, the best alternative would be if two post offices merged, but the Post Office is picking off individual post offices, which may not be in the best interests of the community. I want a comprehensive approach to a service that many people, especially pensioners, disabled people and the elderly, find absolutely vital.
Constituents such as Val Murray, who came to my office, will have real problems if their local post office closes. The next post office might be within an acceptable distance, but the distance of a mile can be a real problem if there is no bus service and someone does not have a car. A mile will not be a great problem in other parts of my constituency where the vast majority of householders have cars, but it will be a problem in other areas.
Individual post offices have not yet been named, but I am concerned about the consultation process. Examples given by hon. Members show that process to be seriously flawed. The one-month consultation does not give many community groups, community organisations and individuals the opportunity to play their part, nor does it lead them to believe that the Post Office is likely to listen.
A third of urban postmasters expressed an interest in closing their branch, but most people are interested in a compensation package until they find out what it is, and who can blame them? Most people asked whether they would be interested in discussing compensation for early retirement or redundancy would want to know what the package was.
People are constantly given the reason that there are too many post offices too close together, but one only has to look in any city street and see Starbucks, Costa Coffee and Café Nero to know that it is not just the distance between similar businesses that makes them survive or not be viable. Individual small businesses are often part of a larger business, and in most areas—certainly in most cities—we would certainly be closer to having bigger, brighter and better post offices if they were regarded as vibrant small businesses that could be encouraged.
Some 8,000 people in my constituency have signed a petition to say that they are worried about the future and are concerned about the plans that are yet to unfold. Many people do not know what the impact of ACT will be. They also wonder where the universal banking services are. There is confusion ahead, and if we are to find a way forward, we should accept that post offices are parts of other businesses.
The closure programme will have the same effect on post office services that the Beeching cuts had on the railways. We will look back and say that it was definitely a mistake. Post offices are one of the best retail networks in the country and, I believe, the largest retail network in the United Kingdom. We should build on that, make use of it, and work in conjunction with local authorities,

43WH
banks and tourism agencies to develop those businesses. We should use information technology, whether in the form of cash dispensers or the web.
Some post offices may close, but they should not close just because they are too close to another post office. They should be allowed to close only if the service can still be delivered. Any idiot can close down the least profitable part of a company and then say that they are getting a better return on the capital invested, but if the urban reinvention programme means what it says, it is time to reinvent the Post Office. It should come up with something better than the current closure programme. Pensioners, the elderly, carers and those who use the service deserve that, and the Post Office will deserve a hard time in many communities if it does not listen to local concerns during a consultation period, which is often much too short.
2.49 pm
Mr. Robert Syms: First, I congratulate my neighbour, the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mrs. Brooke) on securing this important debate. Poole recently suffered a major blow with closures in Bourne Valley, Newtown, Hamworthy and Stert. The latest closure announced—it is out for consultation—is of the much loved Heatherlands post office just off Ashley road. I agree with what other hon. Members have said: the consultation is something of a sham. If we are at the start of a process that may end in the closure of many post offices, the consultation process should be far more robust and pay attention to the concerns of people on the ground.
I also agree with the comments about the morale of sub-postmasters. I think that most of them have concluded that there is not much of a future. There seems to be a lack of trust in the Post Office with regard to putting sub-postmasters' interests at the heart of things, so they are taking the package and running. One cannot criticise them for that, but it does mean a diminution in service for most of my constituents. I have many elderly constituents, and mobility is a very big issue. We receive all the standard letters, which talk about alternatives within 0.8 of a mile, 1 mile or 1.5 miles, but it is difficult for many of my constituents who are not mobile to get to local post offices. Post offices still provide important services for the community and are an important source of advice.
In Poole, many of my constituents are considering what is next and are very concerned about what the future will bring. The post office programme is happening at the same time as BT is closing many of its telephone boxes, so public services are tending to be substantially diminished. There is a general concern, and I hope that the Minister will be able to give us reassurances today.
I agree with the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole that there are concerns, particularly at the Dorset County Association for the Blind, in respect of cash machines in post offices. The hon. Lady explained the concerns well. If the Minister does not have an explanation today, I hope that he will at least go away and consider the matter, because the community is concerned.
2.51 pm
Mr. Mike Hancock: I apologise to the Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mrs. Brooke) for not being present at the beginning of the debate. Like the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Linda Gilroy), I was at a meeting with a delegation from my constituency.
I am delighted to be able to take part in the debate, because a number of post offices are under threat in my constituency. Since 1 January, two have closed—that is, one has physically closed and another will close in a couple of weeks. I shall focus on the process of consultation. The Post Office informed me on 31 December that the Langstone Road post office was to close. Despite the fact that it was a holiday period, we were told that the deadline for consultation was 3 February. However, even though there were barely three weeks, more than 1,500 people signed a petition and hundreds of letters were written. All three parties on Portsmouth city council supported a campaign to keep the post office open, and there was widespread support for the campaign led mainly by the Portsmouth pensioners association.
Despite all that, and despite four attempts to get representatives of the Post Office to come to a meeting, all offers were declined until after it had announced its decision to close the post office. If we are to have consultation, why do not people come clean and say that it is a sham and that people should not waste their time campaigning? If the example of Langstone Road post office is anything to go by, no one else could come to any other conclusion. Those events were mirrored in the decision to close Castle Road post office in Portsmouth. The process was exactly the same, although I believe that even more people objected to that closure. Again, no effort was made to find a compromise or alternative properties in which to locate the post office.
My mind goes back to the succession of debates that we have had in the House over the past year and a half in which Ministers have given assurances that they would promote the sub-post office network and that efforts would be made to give people a proper choice in how their pensions and so on were paid. However, we have heard about the experience of the hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) at the call centre in Burnley, where he was told that the Post Office was the last thing to be mentioned when people sought advice.
I am convinced that the urban post office has a part to play in our communities. The constituency I represent is probably one of the smallest, although it may be one of the half dozen most densely populated in the country. The people suggesting that in a city such as Portsmouth a journey of half a mile across pretty major roads is not difficult for elderly people to contemplate have obviously never tried that journey on foot.
I have read the explanation for the various alternatives offered to people after the most recent closure. One suggestion is that there is an alternative post office 0.6 miles away along busy roads—but on level terrain. There is no public transport available. The other alternative is 1.5 miles away along busy roads—although crossings are available and the terrain is level. I do not know where the people who write that sort of

45WH
letter come from, but they talk about elderly people or young mothers with their kids in a pushchair walking a mile and a half in a busy urban environment like the centre of Portsmouth. People who write such letters are completely out of touch with what the Post Office suggested it would have, which was an urban network of post offices that related to communities.
The two closures that have taken place in Portsmouth since the beginning of the year are the tip of the iceberg. Like other hon. Members I believe that the closure of urban post offices will accelerate. but in whose long-term interest is that? One group who will be sadly disadvantaged are the communities who want post offices to flourish. People will not use the post office unless the services it provides are services that they want. The Post Office does not do enough to attract customers into its urban sub-post office network. That is apparent to anyone who has seen how difficult it is for any sub-postmaster or sub-postmistress to get new attractions into their post office. There is resistance across the board to what they want to happen.
I am bitterly disappointed that we have had to have this debate again today. I believed the Government when they said that they would do all they could to sustain the urban post office network, but that has not been borne out by any of the evidence that they have provided. Again, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole on securing the debate. I hope that the Minister will show slightly more commitment and that he will say that enough is enough—that the Government will do more to protect those post offices that are left and that we will not have any more sham consultations. He should not ignore 1,500 people, a unanimous city council decision or the groups that actively serve the community when they ask for positive consultation. Let no Post Office official ever again write to say that he will not come to a meeting until after he has made a decision to close a post office, but that he will come to explain to people where they can go in future. That is wholly unacceptable.
2.57 pm
Mr. Christopher Chope: The hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock) and all those present for this debate and our constituents feel collectively that we are the victims of a Government confidence trick. The PIU report before the last general election made 24 recommendations, and in accepting them the Prime Minister said he would work positively to ensure that all sub-post offices were able to become government general practitioners. That is what he said before the general election. I raised the matter with him at Prime Minister's Question Time before I knew of the threatened closure of the Stanpit branch post office in my constituency. I accused him of
"bribing sub-postmasters with £180 million of taxpayers' money to close down their services".
His response was:
"we are putting in a lot of extra investment so that those sub-post offices that can survive and that have a viable future are given one."—[Official Report, 6 November 2002; Vol. 392, c. 281.]
The Stanpit post office had a viable future, but Ministers and Government policies have taken it away. When the Prime Minister referred to investment he really meant redundancy money. At £180 million, that works out at an average pay-off of £60,000 for each sub-postmaster.
46WH
This is a cruel confidence trick and the involvement of Postwatch merely increases the cynicism. What is the point in having a consumer protection body with no power to prevent the closures? It involves itself in consultation, but in the few cases in which it objects to the closure, such as the one referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Bedfordshire, and the case of the Stanpit post office—nothing happens. It is just an expensive process in which the poor consumer is the loser.
It is no wonder that the Prime Minister finds it difficult to sell his Iraq policy to the British people when on something as straightforward as the future of urban post offices, he is proved to be someone who uses words that are open to different interpretations. He has now lost the confidence of the people.
2.59 pm
Dr. Vincent Cable: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mrs. Brooke), who has performed a useful service in giving local colour and flavour to a big national problem. What we are witnessing is a collision in slow motion, and we are beginning to see the casualties. Last week, I visited a local postmaster who is being paid up under the programme. He is being compensated for his business, but he is in his early 50s and has no prospect of an alternative livelihood. He has given up his life and holidays to serving the local community, yet he is embittered and feels a lack of support. There are many like him.
I shall focus on several specific issues. The first is the nature of the mass closure movement. As my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West (John Barrett) said, the concept of urban reinvention is a bit of a joke. Those who have some memory of how the story evolved will remember that, four or five years ago, a series of parliamentary questions were tabled by the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell), myself and others about what ACT might mean to individual parliamentary constituencies. They were days when the Government and the Post Office were more open, and we received a helpful answer. We were told that the implications of losing the £450 million income were a 40 per cent. cut in the network of post offices and a closure rate of 70 or 80 per cent. in densely populated urban areas with low-income customers, such as inner-city Manchester and south Portsmouth.
The Government have now packaged those effects in what they call an urban reinvention programme, but we are seeing the direct logical consequence of that loss of income. We are supposed to be protected by provisions that ensure that post offices will be rationalised but remain open, and that 95 per cent. of people will have access to a post office within half a mile. However, the contributions of the hon. Members for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) and for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) and of my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock) explained the problems. There are problems of logistics, as half a mile up a steep hill is not the same as half a mile on the flat, and half a mile across dual carriageway is not the same as half a mile across a park. People could be switched to a post office that has different opening hours, is congested or does not offer a full range of services. There

47WH
will be many other problems, such as people with walking difficulties being directed to a post office without a car park.
There must be a proper mechanism to ensure that when such difficulties become apparent, there will be a legitimate system of appeal and discussion with the authorities. For reasons that have been given, particularly by the hon. Member for Christchurch, the Postwatch mechanism is not strong enough—indeed, the situation is worse than that, because a deliberate attempt is being made to conceal information. For the past few months, I have been trying to get the Post Office to give me a list of the post offices that will be closed. There is no reason why it should not give me such a list. If we had it, rather than simply deal with problems case-by-case as they arise, we could map a picture of how our areas will be affected and make rational judgments about which closures to support and oppose.
The Post Office has refused to give me the information, but it is available. It has been given to Postwatch, but it will not pass it on to us. I have asked the Post Office the reason for that, and it said that it is obliged by a code of conduct to give Postwatch the information, but it is not obliged to give it to us. At some inconvenience to itself, Postwatch has agreed to give me and other hon. Members the information, but why is the Post Office—in effect, a Government operation that is funded by £400 million of taxpayers' money—operating in such a high-handed, arrogant and unco-operative way? I have written a rude letter to Mr. David Mills about that, but the Minister should take the point to heart. The Government are paying for the programme, and the Post Office is a public service. They should insist on more transparency.
Mr. Robathan: I have similar problems. I have been trying to find out from the Post Office which post offices have closed in each of the past few years. It said that it does not know and that it does not hold such details centrally. That must be nonsense—every organisation must know what outlets it has.
Dr. Cable: The answer is that the Post Office does know, but providing the information would be too inconvenient. There is no more to it than that.
Eighteen million consumers face a major social change. The Minister, for whom I have a great deal of respect and who usually handles his brief extremely well, managed to insult most of our constituents by responding to a question on consumer impact by saying that this was merely getting rid of ration book technology and that people should get up to date. People have positive reasons for choosing to use the Post Office system, but at present there is an enormous disconnection between people's clearly expressed preferences and what is happening.
The National Federation of Sub-Postmasters recently commissioned a very professional survey through MORI to ascertain what consumers wanted. The results were clear: only 6 per cent. of pension and benefits recipients who have a current account said that they would prefer to get their benefits by ACT. It also found that more than 93 per cent. of people who have a bank
48WH
account and 83 per cent of those who do not said that they would prefer to continue to receive their pensions and benefits in cash rather than by ACT. That is an 80 or 90 per cent. preference. However, that preference is not being responded to. I received a letter this morning from the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Croydon, North (Malcolm Wicks), giving me the latest figures on the take-up of the Post Office card account. Of 215, 000 replies, only 16, 940 requested a Post Office card account. That is only 5 per cent. What happened to the 80 or 90 per cent. who wanted to have this system but who have not requested it? That is odd.
Thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole, we had part of the explanation. First, the process of getting the cards is extremely complex and difficult—requesting the personal invitation documents, presenting them, and going through the application process. We also know that people have been actively discouraged. Whatever tactful words Ministers may use at the centre, we know that junior officials further down the departmental food chain have been told that they must get the numbers down—that that is their job. Some of them have been quite abrasive in going about it. People have told me that they have been threatened—"Get into the bank or you will lose your benefits or suffer delays in your payments." Little sensitivity is shown at that level.
People have been discouraged in other ways. Department for Work and Pensions promotional literature makes it clear that there is a preference for a bank account. The Inland Revenue, when talking about tax credits, does not even give people the option of having a Post Office card account. Of course, it is clear that the Treasury is driving that blatant and cynical attempt to discourage people from using post offices.
Linda Gilroy: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that it is incumbent on us to ensure that our services are delivered at the lowest possible cost to the taxpayer?
Dr. Cable: Yes. In her contribution, the hon. Lady acknowledged that there has been discouragement in Plymouth. She is correct to say that a more efficient system of electronic transfer would create savings. That is why we cannot simply make appeals to keep the old system going. We must find new sources of income for the post office network.
Several hon. Members asked about what had happened to the Government's promise to introduce a general practitioner system. We know that "Your Guide" was trialled and that it was a success. However, the Government decided not to back it. However, we were left with the thought that the Government saw merit in providing a general practitioner information service through the post office network. Perhaps the Minister will tell us what happened, as such a service would help to make the network more viable. Can the Minister tell us what is being done to make more use of the post office network to encourage electronic commerce? That could generate additional income. There is enormous potential synergy between large numbers of people coming into their post offices to use technology to order goods and to use post offices for delivery. The Post Office offers a good logistics system, but little is being done by the Government to promote it.

49WH
The hon. Lady is right to say that the future of the post office network must have a sound economic foundation. We are not asking for indefinite subsidies, but there are other ways to achieve that. However, since the PIU report was published, the Government's approach to alternative sources of income has been wholly passive.
Finally, I wonder about the readiness of the system. I understand that the electronic payments system that underpins the Post Office card account was to have been trialled three months ago, but that the trials are still taking place and are not due to finish until a mere five days before the new system comes into effect. That is contrary to all good practice with complex IT systems. We know that the IT systems used in Government Departments have been chaotic and unsuccessful. I want some assurance from the Government that the electronic underpinning of the Post Office card account system is properly organised and fully ready for D-day.
3.10 pm
Mr. Andrew Robathan: Mine is the 10th speech in this debate, and I suspect that none of the speeches have given the Minister much comfort. I congratulate the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mrs. Brooke) on initiating the debate. It is probable that almost everybody will have agreed with everything said in all nine speeches—and probably in the 10th—because we all come to the subject from the same position.
We are talking about a sustainable future for all post offices, whether Crown, rural or urban. We have heard how communities value post offices. However, they face a crisis. The world is changing and more people will use ACT, but the crisis is happening now. At least 40 per cent.—it was suggested a moment ago that it is 45 per cent.—of post office network revenue comes from the payment of benefit transactions. That will be scrapped over the next two years from April. The question is what will happen then.
The urban deprived post office fund will do a little to help. Hon. Members may recall that the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister expected the fund to become operational in the summer of 2002, but it was finally announced on 30 December. Another £150 million a year for the next three years will be available for rural post offices. That will have an impact, of course, but what then? The cynics will say that those three years will take us neatly past the next general election.
What is the sustainable future for the post office? The hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole spoke about the bias against the Post Office card account. Some may not know that there has been a spat between the DTI, which looks after the Post Office, and the DWP, which provides the money to pay the post office network—backed, of course, by the Treasury. The DTI lost the argument, because the purpose of changing benefit payments is simply—and understandably; I do not knock it—to save public money. It will save between
50WH
£400 and £430 million a year. If that money is taken from the post offices—ACT will cost the DWP next to nothing—what will the post office network do for income?
I reiterate briefly the journey made by the Post Office card account customer. It is about how people can be deterred from asking for a card account. The first stop is that the customer gets a letter asking him to supply some account details; no further action is required. However, those who do not supply account details have a further 18 further steps to take before being given a Post Office card account. The form is designed specifically to ensure that people can receive their payment anywhere so long as they choose ACT.
Documents from the DWP make no mention of a Post Office card account, nor do those from the Inland Revenue. They have no box to tick, and do not include a question asking whether people want a Post Office card account. Sub-postmasters have been forbidden to advertise them, and they are not allowed to market them. The Post Office card account is third on the list of options that will soon start appearing in post offices.
A parliamentary question was answered yesterday by the Department for Work and Pensions about housebound pensioners accessing Post Office card accounts. It said that some housebound pensioners might find that a bank account may be better to meet their personal needs. Yet again we are being pushed in that direction. I would say that they should be allowed to choose. A letter from the Veterans Agency, which is part of the Ministry of Defence, states:
"Additionally, we have had so many requests for this option"—
that is the Post Office card account—
"that it may take us time to respond to all the requests…please rest assured that this does not mean we have not actioned your request, it simply means that due to the high demand, it will take some time to take the required action of 23,000+ requests."
So, people do want Post Office card accounts. I say to the Minister that he should let them choose.
Child benefit was one of the first benefits to be transferred to universal banking. Will the Minister tell us what concerns have been expressed to him about the money that is intended to benefit children going into joint bank accounts? He and I are of an age, and he might recall the debate some 30 years ago, when there was a concern that feckless and possibly drunken husbands or partners might get their hands on the money and waste it. That is the main reason why it is always paid to the mother. Has the Minister any such concerns? Perhaps society is so much better now that there are no deprived or excluded mothers who might suffer.
I was glad to hear the four Liberals who have spoken so well, especially the Minister for Twickenham—I am sorry, the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable); that was not a Freudian slip. I disagreed with very little that he said. I was glad to hear of his support for the Post Office. The Liberals are good at campaigning and we all know their campaign pack, which says:
"The last post? Start campaigning now and just keep going!"

51WH
It is a cracker and received a massive response. The pack continues:
"'Our…post office is…vital,' say the residents of Bloggstown. …There has been a massive response to the Lib Dem campaign to save local Post Offices".—
although it has yet to start—
"'Both locally and nationwide the Liberal Democrats are getting a very positive response to our campaign,' said Joe Bloggs".
John Barrett: Will the hon. Gentleman comment on how that fits in with the Conservative campaign in Dumfries and Galloway, which is being run on almost the same lines?
Mr. Robathan: I am sure that that is an excellent campaign, but it does not contain junk like this:
"We have had an excellent response to our campaign, with hundreds of local residents signing the petition…Post Office campaign heads for Downing Street."
That is the stuff. And then, wonder of wonders, it is
"designed to be printed as a double sided A5 election day leaflet. It should be delivered to supporters (and those we are squeezing)".
I should like to tell the hon. Gentlemen and Ladies of the Liberal Democrats that that was designed for last May's local elections when we won a seat from them in Gilmorton, notwithstanding all that junk.
Nevertheless, Liberal Democrats have made many good points. The issue is the future of the Post Office. The PIU report of some 32 months ago was welcomed by the Prime Minister with the words,
"I welcome this report which the Government fully accepts."—[Official Report, 15 October 2002; Vol. 390, c. 240.]
The problem is that it has not been enforced. There is no e-commerce, there are no one-stop shops, there is no internet learning and access. Loyalty to the post offices around the country, of which we have heard today, is remarkable. They are valued by people in all communities, even though they might not always go into them. I went to Lutterworth post office last week during constituency week and the sub-postmaster told me now concerned he was about his future. That is a big post office in a big town. I heard, also, that people who had applied for Post Office card accounts, although they had given no telephone number, were being telephoned by the Department for Work and Pensions to ask them whether they really wanted them.
What is the future? Everybody wants to know. The Government should come clean. What are the long-term plans? After the next election, and after £450 million has been spent, what then? Will the Minister tell us about the discussions between the National Federation of Sub-Postmasters and the Post Office that are going on now? I understand that they are completely bogged down because there can be no agreement yet about how much money can be awarded for each benefit transaction, or financial transaction, for a card account. He will say that it is not his responsibility, but I fear that it is. We know that the problems of the post office network are huge. However, it is a great asset, with over 17,000 outlets, reducing under the urban network reinvention Programme to 14,000 or 15,000. It offers a great opportunity for a dynamic retailer and we all wish to see
52WH
the post office network continue. Sub-postmasters, the public, towns, villages, pensioners, mothers and everyone else who ever uses a post office want to know what the long-term policy is. What is the sustainable future? We are talking about a publicly-owned asset, funded by public money. We want to know whether the post offices in question will still be here in 10, 20 or 30 years.
3.19 pm
The Minister for E-Commerce and Competitiveness (Mr. Stephen Timms): I too start by congratulating the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mrs. Brooke) on securing the debate. It has been an excellent, useful discussion and, as she said, very timely. The issues raised are relevant to almost every Member of the House. There are very few who will not be affected to some degree by the unfolding of the programme.
The hon. Lady was helpful in providing an example of how the process is supposed to work. She agreed that the Hillbourne post office in her constituency should close, and she described the process, which worked well. I think that her one disappointment was that she did not see evidence of the improvement in the remaining post offices that should be an important part of the process. Applications for funding under the investment grant scheme are now being made, and we shall begin to see the benefit of those investments. Whether any are progressing yet in her area I do not know, but the opportunity exists. As a result, improvements will be made leading to the bigger, brighter, better post offices that everyone agrees are the right way forward for the network.
I do not accept the charges of deception made by my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd). I am sorry that he used that term. He might be right about the inelegance, another of the terms that he used, and I shall certainly look into the points that he—and, indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Lepper) and the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock)—raised about the process. The examples that those hon. Members gave do not sound to me like instances of the process working as it should. Nevertheless, I am grateful for the example provided by the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole of the process working properly. Both the Government and the Post Office intend that her experience, rather than the one recounted by some hon. Members who have spoken, should be the common one.
Central to our policy is the need to maintain a viable nationwide network of post offices, accessible in every part of the country. The process of rationalisation and modernisation in the urban network will involve some hard choices and some disappointments, but the process is essential, if we are to achieve our objective and strengthen the viability of the urban network in the changed business conditions in which it operates.
I welcome the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Linda Gilroy). We had a useful discussion with the sub-postmasters from her constituency who came to see me. My hon. Friend made several helpful suggestions, including the one about the Small Business Service, which she has, I know, raised with the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, South (Nigel Griffiths), who has responsibility for small businesses. That approach may well be very useful.

53WH
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) for his kind remarks about the way in which I discharge my duties. I should like to reciprocate with a compliment to him, but I do not apologise for what I said about moving beyond ration book technology. The successful network of post offices that we all want will have to be based on good technology and modern services provided in ways that meet today's needs, not on simply continuing to use systems that were invented in the second world war, when ration books were in use.
I do not agree with the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole that we should delay change. It is essential to proceed. I expect the card account to be available in April as has always been planned. We shall over a two-year period transfer benefit recipients on to the new arrangements in a carefully planned way. That will certainly be a case of very good practice in implementing an IT system, drawing on the lessons learned from the past. My hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton gave some figures showing that if the Post Office tried to continue by simply carrying on doing things as it has always done them, especially in its benefit business, but in other respects as well, it would dwindle and its turnover would decline. Instead, it needs to use new technology. We have invested £500 million in technology for the Post Office to ensure that it has a viable and attractive future by offering services, especially banking-based services, which the new technology will allow.
The hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) spoke about the case of the Downside post office in his constituency. He raised some persuasive points in his contribution, and he has, as he said, already raised the matter with me. I am not in a position to comment on the circumstances in his constituency, but I tell him that it is essential that the observations of Postwatch are weighed very seriously indeed in the process. That is not only my view, but that of Post Office management as well. The hon. Gentleman made an interesting point about the possibility of the post office moving into the newsagents next door. I shall pursue the points that he made.
The hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) was rather less thoughtful and constructive in his contribution. Unlike him, we take the view that when sub-postmasters choose to leave the network because they can see that their business is dwindling, it is right that they receive a payment in compensation. The hon. Gentleman suggested that the payment in question was rather large, and he talked about it as a bribe. However, that payment is what the postmaster would have expected to get if he sold his business two or three years ago. That is a fair payment for people who are leaving the Post Office, and who, as the hon. Member for Twickenham said, have served their communities for a long time. However, in addition to the funding that we have provided for that, we have also made available up
54WH
to £30 million for investment in improving the post offices that remain. Applications to that fund have now started to come in.
Mr. Chope: Does the Minister accept that that must be matched funding? In the case of Stanpit post office, the Purewell alternative was told that its facilities were adequate already, so it would not qualify for any additional funding. Furthermore, if the objective is to encourage people to visit post offices, why are the Government discouraging people from using the Post Office card account?
Mr. Timms: The hon. Gentleman is wrong on the second point, but on the first point, there does need to be matched funding from the postmaster. That is absolutely right. The real boost to the post offices that are left is that they will gain additional customers from the post offices that are closing. Given the prospect of more business and the offer of a grant, it is reasonable that postmasters should be asked to make a contribution towards the cost of that expansion. I expect that offer to be widely taken up.
On the hon. Gentleman's second point, we have been clear right from the start of the process that everybody who wishes to continue to receive their benefits in cash at the local post office every week will be able to do so, either through an ordinary current account or through one of the new basic bank accounts that are becoming available, which can be fully accessed at any local post office, or through the Post Office card account. People can choose the option that suits them best.
A number of hon. Members talked about the PIU report, which started the debate and which the Government entirely accepted. It is important to recognise why the urban post office needs restructuring and why the income of the Post Office network has declined. The reasons date back over a long period. Past under-investment is certainly one factor, but greater mobility and changes in shopping and financial habits have also sharply reduced customer numbers.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (John Barrett) said that the Post Office had the biggest retail network in the country. Actually, the Post Office has the biggest retail network in Europe. The network is very large indeed and is highly trusted, which is one of the Post Office's great assets and a reason why I am very optimistic about its future commercial prospects. Other networks, such as those of the retail banks, have also been scaled back, and post office networks in other countries have been through similar changes. I understand that in Germany, consistent profitability of the post office network has been achieved by reducing the number of post office branches from 30,000 to 13,000. That reduction goes a great deal further than is proposed in the UK. Other countries have also embarked on a similar process—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Time is up.

Carers
3.30 pm
Mr. John Bercow: I welcome the opportunity to highlight the issue of alleged fairer charging for the receipt of home care services. The starting point for this debate, to which I welcome the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Lammy), is the issue in November 2001 by the Department of Health of guidance to local authorities entitled "Fairer Charging Policies for Home Care and other non-residential Social Services". In practice, that has effectively entailed the extension of means-testing for the provision of and payment for such services, despite the pledge made by the right hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) when shadow Chancellor in 1995 to ensure that means-testing for elderly people would be brought to an end under a Labour Government.
Let us be fair and clear. There is what might be considered a positive side to such a policy: the very poorest and most vulnerable people in our community pay nothing for the receipt of services on which they depend. The negative side of the policy, which it is my business to highlight, is not merely that rich people end up having to pay substantially more for their home care services, but that a great many people who can in no sense be considered rich will face exponential rises in their costs. Even when they are not paying the maximum, which they do if they have savings over £19,000, they inevitably have to pay an enormous amount more. If they have substantial savings under £19,000, they still face big increases.
What is the effect of the policy in Buckinghamshire? Previously, the maximum charge was £38.50 per week. Bucks county council social services department estimates that 52 per cent. of adult social care clients now pay nothing towards their care because any charge would take their net income below the trigger for charges of £122.69 per week. Many who paid the old county council maximum of £38.50 now face astronomical rises of three, four, five, six or even seven times the level that they previously paid. The maximum in Buckinghamshire is £280 a week. It can readily be seen that people who previously paid under £40 per week now face a massive increase in bills.
Consequently, it is scarcely a surprise that I have been besieged with scores of letters from constituents from Lillingstone Lovell, Luggershall, Buckingham, Aston Clinton, Chearsley, Haddenham, Fairford Leys, Winslow, Ford, Lower Hartwell, Quainton, Long Crendon, Waddesdon, Stewkley, Drayton Parslow, Wing, Cublington and other areas besides. All are aggrieved about their increased costs, but I will highlight three cases.
First, a 92-year-old lady living in Buckingham who previously paid £38.50 a week is now confronted with a bill for £81 a week. For the benefit of the Chamber, I shall quote her:
"Needless to say, I have never received a high wage, but despite this I have endeavoured to be careful with my money and saved as much as I have been able. I now find that I am being penalised for my thrift, as I now have to pay the maximum charge for my home care services, whilst many, who have not taken care of their money, have their care provided free of charge. That seems to be anything but fair and would be totally unnecessary if only the Government would increase the county's grant."
56WH
Secondly, a constituent in Stewkley informs me that her husband, having previously enjoyed relatively good circumstances, had a stroke 16 months ago. She says that it has affected his right hand side
"and he is confined to a wheelchair. He now has a cancerous ear which has to be dressed every two days as grafts were not successful. He can only stand with support and cannot get to the lavatory unaided. He sleeps with a urine bottle between his legs at night which he manages to change with his left hand when full, hopefully not spilling the contents. Everything now depends on me. I am older than he is (80 on January 3), have an extremely painful hip which I am waiting to have replaced any time now and I am not in very good general health. I cannot sleep due to the pain."
Previously, she and her husband paid £88 every four weeks for magnificent service from carers, whom we all admire. The cost is now to rise to £840 every four weeks which, not surprisingly, is beyond her means.
Thirdly, I highlight the case of Sally Davis, MBE, from Quainton, which has been publicised in my local media and has become something of a cause celebre in the community. She suffers from multiple sclerosis and, as she has savings of more than £19,000, is eligible for the highest charge of all. Previously, she paid £38.50 a week. Initially, Buckinghamshire county council thought that she would have to pay £176 per week. Now it has been assessed that she is likely to face a bill of £264 per week for her home care services. She is wheelchair-bound. In order to enjoy the independence and dignity in her home that she is entitled to expect, she needs those services.
I appeal to the Under-Secretary to recognise the nature of the existence of people such as Sally Davis who suffer from serious disabilities. Everything costs. There is a cost for gardening, a cost for shopping, a cost for cleaning, a cost for the maintenance of a car, and a cost for a driver to take her in that car to the places where she needs to go. She has been consistently aided and supported by a neighbour, David Leeming, who on the strength of his experience has founded the Really Caring Group.
I stress that Mr. Leeming has legitimate concerns about, and criticisms of, Buckinghamshire county council and the way in which it has applied the policy. I am open-minded about those criticisms. It is vital not just that there should be an appeal system but that the county council should ensure maximum awareness of the opportunities that that system offers. In addition, there is a powerful argument for a very thorough—perhaps more thorough and exacting than hitherto—assessment of disability-related expenditures that such clients necessarily incur and which have to be factored into the equation when determining the costs that they should pay. Even taking account of those criticisms of the county council, we must recognise the fact that for it to cut the maximum charge from its present level of £280 per week to £100 per week would cost it £700,000 a year.
I want to put the essence of the problem to the Under-Secretary as fairly and concretely as I can. In order to maintain what is customarily described and readily understood as a standstill budget, in order to cover inflation, the Government's national insurance increases, rises in demand for services and some Government-imposed additional responsibilities, Buckinghamshire county council would have to impose a council tax rise of 4.1 per cent. In order to pursue the

57WH
anti-waste policy of spend to save, of which the Government approve, the county has to incur further expenditure amounting to an additional 0.3 per cent. rise in council tax. Resource equalisation—shifting money from the shire counties to the Government's friends in the north—involves a massive increase of 7.5 per cent. in Buckinghamshire's council tax. As a result of largely inspector-driven improvements in social services—Buckinghamshire county council already spends significantly above its standard spending assessment—the council is required to increase council tax on a phased basis by 1.5 per cent. per year for some time. Furthermore, a 1.4 per cent. rise in council tax is required for the increase in expenditure on education from the council's chosen figure of £201 million to Ministers' preferred figure of £206 million. Buckinghamshire is spending 27 per cent. above its SSA, but has the second lowest allocation in respect of social services of any authority in the country. The reality of £126 per head contrasts with the shire county average of £149 per head—£23 below that average—and the national average figure of £180 per head.
The Government—both the Minister for Local Government and the Regions and the Minister of State, Department of Health, the hon. Member for Redditch (Jacqui Smith) take this view—have argued that Buckinghamshire should have implemented the policy in two stages. The council's view is that that would imperil its finances, which are already under pressure as a result of its discriminatory and unfair treatment by the Government.
The royal commission on long-term care, which reported under the auspices of Sir Stewart Sutherland in 1999, recommended the provision of free personal care. I do not necessarily cavil at such a policy, which would certainly be widely popular with our constituents and would avoid means testing and the inevitable injustices that flow from it, but Buckinghamshire estimates that it would cost £4.5 million a year. The difficulty is that the Government want to pursue a policy whereby payment s based on needs, but people cannot afford these exorbitant and astronomical rises.
The Aylesbury Vale carers association drew attention to the real danger that people, fearful of being unable to cope, will opt for a short cut and, because they are worried sick about being plunged into debt—when an anti-debt culture defines their very being—will decide instead to reduce the care. I should like to refer, in all sincerity, to the moving and important letter that I received from Isobel Houlston, a carer support worker at the association, who highlights that very anxiety:
"Some people receiving domiciliary care services are so concerned"—
she is referring to the alleged fairer charging policy—
"that they are planning to reduce their care packages. One anxious carer says that her father may cut his homecare by half, but as he is totally dependent upon this care she will feel obliged to step in and fill the gap. As a result she will risk losing her job. It seems that the Social Services are unable to prevent people from reducing their care packages, even if this places them at risk of neglect or harm, or places unmanageable pressures on already overstretched caring relatives and friends."
I do not doubt for a moment the good intentions behind the Government's policy. I have even gone so far as to concede—the world is not made up of all right on one side and all wrong on the other—a beneficial side to
58WH
an aspect of the Government's policy. Those who pay nothing will gain: in many cases they pay nothing on account of their low incomes, which are nothing to do with fecklessness or improvidence. Such people are in low paid work and cannot afford the high costs, so they deserve to receive care for nothing—and I say that to the Under-Secretary without qualification or hesitation. However, I appeal to him to see the other side of the argument. People may suddenly face massive increases in their costs as a result of the local application of a nationally driven policy.
The Under-Secretary may say simply—although I hope that he does not—"Well, it's up to the county to do it differently. It should phase the policy, make concessions, show compassion, and recognise the need to support people better." He should recognise that it is difficult for a council to do that if it does not receive adequate monetary support from the Government.
Let there be a partnership between the Government who are seeking, perfectly legitimately, to implement their policy at national level, and the councils that are expected to give effect to that policy at local level. If councils are to do so in a way that is fair and effective, they need the resources and the wherewithal. I appeal to the Under-Secretary for those resources, and I await his reply with interest.
3.45 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. David Lammy): I congratulate the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) on securing a debate on an issue that is of great concern to his constituents, and that has aroused much interest in Buckinghamshire. I also congratulate him on the manner in which he opened the debate.
I will explain some of the reasons why we needed to introduce the guidance on charging for home care. When we came to power, there were considerable variations in charging policies between councils. The Audit Commission's report, "Charging with Care", published in May 2000, exposed the full extent of those variations. Many issues needed to be addressed.
Councils' policies were inconsistent across the board. That meant, for example, that a person in Birmingham might have to pay nothing for their home care, whereas someone in the same circumstances in a neighbouring council—say, Wolverhampton—might have to pay the full charge. Councils' policies were not transparent: users and carers often did not have an understanding of how charges were calculated. In some places, the systems and procedures that councils adopted were obscure. The policies had the effect, in many cases, of reducing income to unacceptably low levels.
The hon. Gentleman concentrated on the concerns of those with limited savings. It should however be emphasised that for many people in the previous system such unacceptably low levels of income were par for the course. Councils could charge people on low incomes or benefits, with the result that those people could be living on an income that was below basic income support levels.
The policies could also be a disincentive to work. If a council decided to take a user's earnings fully into account, there was little incentive for that person to seek

59WH
or remain in work. Moreover, disability benefits could be taken in charges, without taking into account any disability-related expenditure.
Against that backdrop, and in the light of those problems, it was right for the Government to act. In November 2001, we issued guidance to councils entitled "Fairer Charging Policies for Home Care and other non-residential Social Services". It is worth mentioning that councils, users and others had been asking for guidance for some time. The context was that the councils asked and the Government responded, and it is right that that should be put on the record.
The new guidance will have a number of benefits. A user's net income will not be reduced below basic levels of income support, plus a 25 per cent. buffer. I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman mentioned that. Users will not be charged a flat rate without taking account of their resources. Councils must take into account ability to pay and disregard earnings, thus removing a barrier to work for disabled people. The overall approach of the guidance is that local councils will retain real responsibilities and some discretion in charging policies. For example, it will still be open to councils not to charge, and some across the country will decide not to do so. It is right that I place that on the record too.
If councils charge, they must decide what proportion of costs to recover through charges. The guidance sets out essential requirements to ensure fairness in assessing a person's ability to pay a charge and to ensure consistency with the Government's overall social care objectives and policy on social exclusion.
Mr. Bercow: The Minister is right to highlight the 25 per cent. point, which I do not dispute. Does he however accept that it is intolerable that Mrs. Sally Davis, to whom I referred a few moments ago, should face a bill that is both £10,000 more than the previous bill and £10,000 more than her income?
Mr. Lammy: The hon. Gentleman may not like my saying this, but a key determinant of what Mrs. Sally Davis faces are the conclusions reached by the local authority. In Buckinghamshire in the past, a flat rate was charged regardless of income—whether one was very poor, moderately well-off or very well-off. The authority then implemented the current system over a short period, which I shall come to. Mrs. Sally Davis finds herself where she is largely because of the way in which the system has been implemented.
I turn to the funding that the Government have made available to Buckinghamshire, which was a key part of the hon. Gentleman's remarks. Because councils retain substantial responsibilities, it is vital that they give proper priority to the key processes, including consultation, communication with users and reviews. The guidance includes advice on those issues and obliges councils to undertake effective consultation.
The hon. Gentleman referred to savings. The guidance states that councils may take account of a user's savings, but are not obliged to do so. Savings may be taken into account to calculate tariff income on the same basis as set out in charges for residential accommodation guidance. Currently, tariff income is
60WH
assessed if the user has savings of between £11,750 and £19,000. Users with more than £19,000 may be asked to pay the full charge for the services. That is more generous than some previous policies, when a quarter of councils had saving limits as low as £3,000.
Providing incentives to work is an important issue. I want to make it clear that our policy is to encourage and enable people, including disabled people who wish to work, to do so. Charging policies should avoid creating disincentives to work. That remains our objective. Our intention in the draft guidance was to propose that councils treat earnings more generously than other income in order to ensure incentives for disabled people to work. The argument advanced during consultation for more generous treatment of earnings was convincing.
The guidance on disability benefits requires that they may be taken into account as income only if councils also assess a user's disability-related expenditure. That means a more sensitive test of the ability to pay a charge where a council wants to take benefits such as the disability living allowance and attendance allowance into account. That would ensure that charges do not reduce a user's net income to below basic levels of income support, plus a 25 per cent. buffer. That approach will allow disability-related expenditure at levels higher than the benefit concerned to be taken into account. The outcome would be that many users with high care needs would not pay a charge, or would pay a lower charge. Many users commenting on the draft guidance regard the proposals as a positive advance, although I acknowledge that some want us to go further.
I must say to the hon. Gentleman that it is a balancing act, and one acknowledges that some people may be dependent on the policy objective of a particular local authority. Nevertheless, we were right to issue that guidance; indeed, local authorities asked us to do so. It was right that we included safeguards for people, especially those on low incomes. It was also right that we had that 25 per cent. buffer and that it is up to the local authority to decide whether those that can afford to pay do so. How that should take shape clearly pertains to the implementation of the guidance.
We said that the guidance should be implemented in two phases: from 1 October 2002, users receiving income-related benefits will have their net incomes protected from charging, as already described. Users whose disability benefit is taken into account and who receive more than 10 hours' home care weekly will have their disability-related expenditure individually assessed. The guidance specifically states that councils should not introduce new policies to charge against disability benefits without also assessing their disability-related expenditure.
Mr. Bercow: I understand what the Minister says about phasing, but whether the policy is phased in over two, five or 25 years does not matter to my constituent who has to pay £840 every four weeks rather than £88 every four weeks, or to Mrs. Sally Davis who faces a 400 per cent. increase. Those constituents cannot, and will not, afford to pay it.
Mr. Lammy: There are three issues. First, Buckinghamshire council was on a flat rate. Secondly,

61WH
phasing is important. Had Buckinghamshire council followed the guidance, it is likely that the hon. Gentleman's constituent would not be in the situation that he describes until April 2003. Thirdly, I was about to explain the consultation process that needed to take place to ensure that proper benefits and assessments had been made that might also pertain to the eventual outcome of that constituent's costs.
From 1 April all other parts of the guidance will be implemented. That includes any users whose disability benefits are taken into account—including those who receive 10 hours or less home care weekly—having an assessment of their disability-related expenditure. Those parts of the guidance that provide for a minimum-required treatment of savings will also be implemented. All users who receive a charge assessment should also receive expert benefits advice.
Several practical difficulties have arisen from Buckinghamshire county council's decision not to implement the guidance in two planned phases. The approach is not mandatory, but there were very good reasons for proceeding in such a way. Any council that decides to implement the guidance more quickly than suggested needs to take care not to underestimate the amount of work that implementation will involve. The council would also need to take sufficient time to ensure that it anticipated and resolved any unforeseen problems of implementation. To that extent, I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to what the guidance says at paragraph 20 or thereabouts. As seems to have happened in Buckinghamshire, a failure to consult properly could lead to inappropriate decisions and could be detrimental to users. The county council's decision—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Financial Flows (NHS)
4 pm
Ms Julia Drown: The national health service plan sets out a vision of prompt, convenient and high-quality services that treat patients as partners, and the Government have worked hard to make significant progress towards that end. There has been major investment in the NHS as well as huge reform, and that is ongoing. However, I am sceptical about the proposed reform in "Reforming NHS Financial Flows", and I am pleased to have the opportunity to raise some of the potential problems.
My first concern is that Members of Parliament have not been properly informed of this major change in the way in which NHS institutions are financed—a change that could ultimately have a huge impact on patient services. MPs did not receive the discussion document, and this is the first parliamentary debate about it. That is surprising, given that the proposals have the potential to recreate the Tories' disastrous internal market. The proposals will have significant political ramifications and should be subject to adequate parliamentary scrutiny.
Part of the background to the document is the principle of supporting patient choice. No one wants to say no to choice, and I certainly support the Government's use of choice for patients who have been waiting a long time and who can be referred to other units. However, making it a Government priority to provide choice for all patients at all times may lead to distortions in the NHS that overall will not produce the best patient care. Creating a system in which people who have to wait less than a month for treatment are given a choice between two hospitals should not be a priority over getting down longer waits in the health service. For example, 102 patients are waiting between 10 and 12 months for orthopaedic operations at Swindon's hospital, and 1,070 are waiting up to 10 months. Focusing on reducing those waiting times is the priority for my constituents.
The truth is that, to create choice, surplus capacity is needed, and despite the huge increase in health service resources, few parts of the health service have surplus capacity. I would not support creating surplus capacity in some parts of the country if the funds could instead go to meet the real shortfall in resources elsewhere.
The document says that patients will benefit from the ability to choose between providers, knowing that funding will not be an obstacle. However, that cannot happen. To keep control over the budgets, commissioners will have to set limits—cost and volume contracts—so when the contract is complete or ahead of schedule, funding will be an obstacle to the ability of patients to exercise choice.
At the centre of the new proposals is the move towards a nationally agreed set of prices in an attempt to make commissioners focus on the quality and volume of service provided, thereby minimising the transaction costs and conflict involved in local price negotiations—getting hospitals to manage costs efficiently, and creating greater transparency and planning certainty in the system.

63WH
However, the national tariff will not be a national tariff. The Government have said that each hospital will have the national tariff altered to reflect the local market cost factor, so they themselves are saying that there will be different prices in different areas. The Government's document also makes it clear that commissioners will have to cap the number of operations that they can buy, because they have to manage their budgets. If a hospital says to a commissioner, "We'll give you a cost and volume contract and offer 10 per cent. more procedures free above the cap," their price per patient will not be at the national tariff. The hospital might gain from that, but such deals would in effect bring back price competition to the NHS. Will the Government outlaw hospitals making such offers?
The system in Victoria, Australia that is cited allows bonuses when waiting list targets are hit—again moving prices away from the tariff. Will that be allowed here? Using a national tariff seems to ignore the way in which costs are built up in the NHS. There will always be cheap hospitals and expensive hospitals. Some cost differences can be categorised crudely and summed up by a market forces factor, but others cannot be categorised so simply. High land costs or building costs could mean that a procedure at one hospital is more expensive, while the same procedure at an asset-poor hospital will necessarily have lower costs. That can happen within primary care trust areas, but it is at PCT level that the market forces factor applies.
Is it right that the hospital on land of a higher value makes a loss on each operation that it does, even if it is at least as good as other NHS providers? If a hospital finds itself in that position, will it be allowed to sink into deficit, ultimately seeming unviable, even if it provides excellent services? How would the Government react if a PCT were following all the Government guidelines and achieving the targets, but because of the costs in local hospitals could do so only by massively overspending? Would commissioners have to send their patients further afield? Is it right that a hospital on cheap land necessarily makes a profit on each operation because of that? Will the system definitely lead to the best use of NHS moneys and the best patient care for our constituents? Where is the incentive for efficient hospitals to stay efficient if they get more than they need for their procedures?
The cost of any procedure depends on what else is happening in a particular trust. It is good practice in busy hospitals to have an operating theatre reserved for emergency work only, so that other operations do not have to be cancelled. However, if that theatre is used only 50 per cent. of the time, theatre costs in the hospital would be spread over fewer operations than in a hospital that uses its resources 100 per cent. of the time. The national tariff will be calculated from averages across the NHS, which would probably imply a funding level at nearer the 100 per cent. usage of theatres rather than the ideal emergency theatre capacity level. The hospital that runs a quality service will make a loss on that aspect of its service. Is it right that it is penalised for running that quality service?
Many complex details affect the cost of treatment at each individual hospital. Those are best understood by the individual managers at a local level, and
64WH
negotiations on price for clinical services should remain in the hands of those best suited to judging value for money—those commissioning the services. However, as I shall explain later, it is wasteful to draft each year's contracts at such a level of detail.
I have shown how we will not have a national tariff, and how hospital and commissioners may start talking about prices, but even if prices were not altered by hospitals doing deals with commissioners, commissioners would not necessarily ignore the difference in prices between different hospitals in the way that the Government intend. Prices will be different because of the different market-led factors that are reflected in prices, so it would be tempting for commissioners, if they could, to send their patients to areas where the market costs happened to be lower.
Let us consider a procedure costing £2,000 on the national tariff. That procedure will cost £2,029 in Swindon, £2,060 in Oxford and £1,968 in Bath. That is £100 cheaper in Bath than in Oxford. That could be a hip operation, of which our PCT in Swindon buys 400 per year, mostly from Swindon. If they could be bought from Oxford, and the PCT had the choice, it could be worth it trying to move 100 operations from Oxford to Bath, freeing up money to treat an additional nine patients. That looks like an efficiency improvement and a patient gain of 9 per cent., but the tariff price may not reflect the reality of NHS resources. In the example, Bath may employ expensive agency nurses to see the extra patients while Oxford nurses are underemployed. That would not be a good use of NHS resources.
I described earlier how hospitals would be able to offer deals to give PCTs different prices from the Government's set tariff. Even if the Government outlaw such deals, how can they stop commissioners and hospitals having effectively the same conversations as happened on prices in the internal market, and still happen to an extent today? Commissioners will be interested in how the prices they pay compare with actual costs in hospitals, so the talk will be about profits and losses made in each hospital on each procedure. If I were a commissioner and knew my local hospital was getting more money than it needed for a particular operation, I would say that the excess funding should go towards the first stage of its next investment plan. There is danger of the same complex internal market discussions on price occurring but in a different format.
That points to my major concern: the proposed financial flows will reintroduce competition and an internal market into the NHS. The Tories' internal market was a disaster. It promised money following the patient but did not deliver it. It used clinicians, managers, accountants and administrators in wasteful exercises of questionable benefit to patients. The costs of hospitals were divided into the individual procedure level to become prices, which were then added back together again with volumes to create a contract sum to argue about with each commissioner. That destroyed valuable co-operation in the NHS. The administration was like digging a hole and filling it up again—not the sort of job creation needed in the NHS.
A recent research study from Bristol showed that the internal market was, if anything, detrimental to health. It suggested that between 2,000 and 4,000 more people died from acute heart attacks in hospitals subject to competition between 1991 and 1999 than would have

65WH
been the case without competition. How are the Government going to avoid a repeat of the wasteful Tory internal market?
Commissioners will have to negotiate their contract and look at the data for each service, so management time will be wasted number-crunching, rather than about examining particular services where changes can deliver better health for communities. The time of clinicians, accountants and administrators will be diverted into bureaucracy and away from analysing resources in the NHS. As with the internal market, that is likely to cause huge frustration for NHS staff.
Given that procedure costs are different in different hospitals, why are the Government proposing to pay hospitals the same procedure price? Does the evidence suggest health benefits from the new proposal? To take the Swindon example, our acute trust is looking forward to the new regime because its costs are below the national average, so it will be well rewarded by the new system. Conversely, the PCT is likely to be in an extremely difficult position because when the trust's prices are increased in line with the national tariff, it will have to pay more for the same level of activity that it currently buys at the cheaper local rates. The PCT had a serious deficit to start off with; the last thing that it needs is to have to pay more money for the same level of activity with no promised increase in quality of services. More funds will go into acute services when the real pressure is to develop mental health and community services. How will Ministers respond to such difficulties arising from Swindon and elsewhere?
Even if hospitals are not in competition with each other over prices, will they not compete over activity? If a clinician knows that 10 more patients can be squeezed in at £2,000 each, and fixed costs have already been covered, that will make a big impact on the budget. Similarly, a department losing those 10 patients will have a major hole in its budget, perhaps leading to cuts in its services. Once again, I ask whether that is the best use of resources.
To reduce transaction costs and disputes, the Government should adapt the block allocations that were used in the 1980s, which are partially in use now. The current system is too bureaucratic and needs to be simplified. That would mean not individually pricing everything, but concentrating commissioner and provider discussions on where changes could be made to services in order to focus money where it is needed most, which would encourage co-operation between providers who would not be in competition at all except at annual budget rounds. Having worked in the NHS when the system was like that, and having seen the difference between it and the internal market, I can testify that the advantages of co-operation are real and tangible. The Government are missing an opportunity by failing to develop such a system now.
Part of a new approach should be to encourage—or perhaps even insist on—more benchmarking exercises that provide a genuine comparison between similar services in different hospitals, in respect of staffing levels, clinical outcomes and patient satisfaction. That would help to achieve best practice across the NHS.
I agree with some parts of the plans for 2003–04, which are basically a sophisticated waiting list initiative. The proposals dictate the price at which additional
66WH
waiting list cases will be paid for and, similarly, the sums that will be taken away if the initiative is not met. Given that that is above the standard block contract agreed for the previous year's activity, it should not lead to any long-term instability or unfairness in hospitals. It could mean some commissioners paying more than they need to for waiting list initiatives, which I regret, but it has the advantage of simplicity for a small portion of NHS budgets and will not create massive competition.
However, the price will also be used as the sum to take away at the full cost level if the normal level of activity has not been achieved, which could create real difficulties for hospitals. If a shortfall in activity has been caused because a hospital, despite doing all it could, was unable to recruit, and covered by using more expensive agency nursing, could we justify taking fixed costs, which represent far more than it costs to treat patients, away from that hospital? I imagine that the Government would describe that as penalising poor performance. However, if all reasonable attempts had been made to treat patients, would it be justified to penalise a hospital that was already under great pressure? A true partnership, which the Government want to develop, would understand such circumstances and negotiate a way forward with that hospital. The policy could lead to serious instability in hospitals.
Finally, the system again seems questionable when the national tariff is to be used with private sector providers. Many private hospitals are already doing well, and should be able to perform operations at not much more than marginal cost. To pay the full cost would give additional and unnecessary profit to the private sector, at the expense of public sector providers that would be able to put the extra funds to better use.
I have outlined only some of the potential problems. The Government know of the experience of Victoria, Australia, where a system led to what is called DRG creep—the coding of diagnosis-related groups of procedures to more expensive bands. That is a further worry for Swindon's PCT, and additional administrative audits would be required to counter it. Is that the best use of NHS resources?
I hope that the Government will look again at their plans for 2004–05, to encourage more co-operation between hospitals and commissioners. Commissioners should be allowed to concentrate on the few areas that they can change in a year, rather than trying to consider every service all the time. Administrators, accountants and managers should not be used on number-crunching exercises or on trying to come up with clever deals; instead they should be considering whether the real resources of the NHS make the best use of funds in the interests of the health of the community.
The proposals set out in "Reforming NHS Financial Flows" need to be revisited and revised. I am not convinced that a national tariff would work; it fails to take account of the various complexities that I have laid out. It could work if it were used to fund only out-of-area flows of patients. However, used for all activities, the plans are bureaucratic and likely to introduce competition between hospitals.
The Government may point to countries that have developed similar systems, and say that the system led to a better use of hospitals, but our starting points are not the same. Fixed costs for a procedure would of course be

67WH
a better replacement for the US system of specified feefor-service agreements. However, there is no evidence to show that that system has been tried or that it has improved English health services.
The proposals are too close to the failed Tory internal market to give the public confidence that they will work in the interests of patients. I hope to see a parliamentary and NHS-wide debate on the proposals, and a consideration of alternative systems of funding hospitals—systems that encourage co-operation, not competition.
4.17 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. David Lammy): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon (Ms Drown) on securing a debate that is important to all our constituents. My hon. Friend mentioned a great deal and it is unlikely that I will be able to respond in full. I therefore undertake to write to her to follow up points that I cannot answer now.
The way that money moves around health care systems has always been and still is an important area of policy, both in this country and elsewhere, which is why the debate is so important. In the NHS of tomorrow, patients will have greater choice. That is fundamental to the debate. There will be a greater plurality and diversity of services, and NHS organisations will have greater freedom. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State put it, we cannot run the NHS solely from Whitehall.
The NHS has received and will continue to receive a substantial growth in funding. The budget in 2002 set out an annual average increase of funding for the NHS in England of 7.4 per cent. in real terms over the five years 2003–04 to 2007–08. To get the best out of those extra NHS resources, we are establishing a system of payment by results. My hon. Friend knows that in April we increased taxes, in large part to fund the reform that we want in the NHS. Those tax increases must bear results.
I want to consider how things work now and why we need to change the way in which money moves around the NHS. The current system has no inbuilt direct financial incentives to improve access, deliver efficiency or reduce costs. In fact, areas that are not meeting targets are often given additional funding to help meet those targets. There are no financial mechanisms to support the movement of patients between providers. In fact, hospitals that are doing well are often prevented from using spare capacity by budget ceilings. We want to create a system that facilitates sustainable reductions in waiting times and helps to match capacity to demand. We need to be able to support patient choice by ensuring that funding can follow patients. We want to reward providers who provide services efficiently, and above all we want a new system that is both fair and transparent to all. I make it clear that financial flows in themselves will not achieve that, but all hon. Members know about a plethora of Government policies aimed especially at national standards that also go along that path.
Ms Drown: My hon. Friend says that there are no incentives and currently no way in which money can
68WH
follow the movement of patients, but will he confirm that it is in the hands of commissioners to reward that performance, to place contracts with the more efficient hospitals and to give incentives to organisations to change health practice if that is what the commissioners want to achieve? There is nothing to stop them from doing that, and some very good commissioners do so.
Mr. Lammy: My hon. Friend makes a good point, but that has not been the case—it is not the everyday, every week or every month practice of the overwhelming majority of commissioners currently in the NHS.
My hon. Friend made some very valid statements about the previous regime and the purchaser-provider split. That split occurred not only in this country, but in other western democracies such as New Zealand and the United States of America. However, we now need to go one step further, embed that, and see that choice and access as a key part of the NHS, so that my hon. Friend's constituents, if they cannot get an operation in a particular trust, have the choice to go somewhere else, and so that financial flows assist that process.
Our commitments from this year are to introduce a regime under which all providers are contracted for a minimum volume of cases to achieve waiting time reductions for key waiting list procedures. Providers will lose money on a cost-per-case basis for failure to deliver the volume of services they are commissioned to provide, and they will earn extra resources on a cost-percase basis for additional patients that move to them. In the medium term, we will move to a system in which all activity that takes place in acute hospitals is commissioned against a standard tariff, using either health care resource groups or other appropriate measures.
Those changes will mean that instead of providers being paid according to block agreements, as sometimes happens now, they will all be paid for the activity that they actually deliver according to a national tariff. My hon. Friend expresses concern that the tariff is not truly national. I want to assure her that there is a national tariff, but that it rightly reflects the differences in purchasing power across the country. In time, the national tariff will apply to all providers of NHS treatment. Local commissioning will focus on volume and quality, not price. That is vital—not price. Through the market forces factor, it will take into account unavoidable cost differences across the country, including variations in the cost of land and wages.
Ms Drown: Is my hon. Friend saying that the Government will outlaw the sort of deals that I referred to, whereby a hospital could offer a local commissioner 10 per cent. more operations for free?
Mr. Lammy: My hon. Friend makes a specific point. However, I cannot stand here today and outlaw all the various scenarios that could arise. It is important that the policy beds down. This is a complex matter that has preoccupied the minds of great health economists throughout the world. It is likely that as the national tariff develops it will need adjustments and tweaking. Providers who operate more efficiently will be able to retain most or all of the surplus that they generate for deployment in their trusts for the benefit of patients and

69WH
staff. However, we will support less efficient providers to help them to improve, and, where necessary, we will bring in new management through franchising.
We recognise that the transition to the new system may be challenging for some parts of the NHS. My hon. Friend and others expressed concerns at the implications in the changes for trusts with particularly high or low costs. To facilitate this, we will introduce the standard tariff in a very limited way from this year. In the first year, it will not apply to baseline levels of activity; thus it accounts for only 0.5 per cent. of hospital spending. This first stage will allow the service time to learn to use the new tools effectively and will incentivise additional activity in key areas without causing financial destabilisation. That is one reason that I do not want to get into the business of giving undertakings at this point. We will handle the transition path for trusts by introducing the national tariff carefully. We are developing proposals to ensure that primary care trusts and other health care trusts can manage the transition without causing significant financial instability.
In the three minutes available to me, I want to emphasise that this is not a return to the internal market. The new financial system sets out to avoid the mistakes of the old internal market, under which, as the Secretary of State pointed out, purchasers dictated through administrative contracts where patients could be treated and the NHS undertook prolonged negotiations over the price of each service provided by each hospital. Every purchaser had to keep and update a complex list
70WH
of all the prices for every hospital with which they dealt. The internal market was unfair; it had a two-tier system of GP fundholders and others, and it lacked openness and co-operation. The new system of payment by results will be different. Patients will, in time, be able to choose the hospital in which they wish to be treated and the time of their referral.
That choice is important. I witnessed the exercise of that choice last week, in St. Anne's hospital in my constituency. Patients from all over north-east London and parts of Essex are exercising the choice to have their cataract operation done at St. Anne's if there is a waiting list at their local hospital, and ambulance transport to St. Anne's is available to them. Patient choice will be vital to future developments. PCTs and other commissioners will know precisely what the cost of treatment will be and that it will be the same treatment wherever the patient is treated. Prices will be set and regulated nationally. Hospitals will not be able to offer special deals or prices to attract work or to keep it; they will compete on quality, access, waiting times and standards.
Those changes are not happening in isolation—payment by result is just one tool available to PCTs—nor are they just about acute elective work and sucking activity into secondary care. We will continue to develop and to refine the system as we progress.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes past Four o'clock.

TREASURY

  Gibraltar
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what studies his Department has assessed of the possible effect on the(a) industry and (b) economy of Gibraltar if the UK were to enter the eurozone. [98913]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Government have made clear that a comprehensive and rigorous assessment of the five economic tests will be made within two years of the start of this Parliament.

  Working Tax Credit
  Mr. Steve Webb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate how many(a) couples with children, (b) couples with no children and (c) single childless people will be entitled to the new working tax credit. [94024]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Working Tax Credit is expected to benefit 1.35m families with and without children.

  Asbestos
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the annual cost(a) in each year since its introduction and (b) over the next five years of tax relief on work done to remove asbestos; and if he will make a statement. [98656]

  John Healey
  The legislation is intended to aid the regeneration of sites that are contaminated by harmful substances, not just asbestos. Estimates of the cost for cleaning sites contaminated with asbestos are therefore not available. However, the full cost of the Finance Act 2001 relief for regeneration of sites contaminated by harmful substances was estimated at £50 million in 2001–02, £85 million in 2002–03 and £75 million in 2003–04. Figures for the remaining two years are not available.

  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the(a) verification and (b) auditing arrangements for claims for tax relief on work done to remove asbestos. [98657]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Claims for land remediation relief under the Finance Act 2001 provisions are subject to the same verification and auditing arrangements as any other entry in a Corporation Tax return.

  Child Tax Credit
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate how many couples are ineligible for children's tax credit because the income of the highest 382W
  earner is too high, but would be eligible for child tax credit because their joint income is below the upper limit. [94048]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 28 January 2003]: Without FRS data for 2002–03 it is not possible to provide reliable estimates.

  Climate Change Levy
  Mr. Prisk
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimates his Department has made of the annual cost to British industry of the climate change levy(a) overall and (b) per sector. [98712]

  John Healey
  The climate change levy is expected to raise about £0.9 billion from business and the public sector in 2002–03. This has been recycled back to these sectors through a 0.3 percentage point cut in employers'national insurance contributions, support for enhanced capital allowances for investments in energy efficiency measures, and spending on renewable energy and energy efficiency, principally through the Carbon Trust.

  The levy package is expected to be broadly revenue neutral between industry and the service sector. It is not possible to determine the impact on individual sectors as this depends on the extent to which they are eligible for discounts for energy-intensive users, their use of levy-exempt renewable energy and combined heat and power, and their take-up of the enhanced capital allowances and support from the Carbon Trust.

  Mr. Prisk
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what measures have been taken to assist sectors that are unable to comply with the Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control Directive, and are ineligible for a rebate on the climate change levy, with the cost of the climate change levy; [98714]

  (2) what measures his Department has taken to assist small businesses to meet the cost of the climate change levy. [98713]

  John Healey
  The climate change levy (CCL) was introduced in a package which involves reductions to employer national insurance contributions and support for energy efficiency, which is broadly revenue neutral to business as a whole. As part of the package, the Government supports businesses investing in approved energy-saving technologies through enhanced capital allowances. All businesses can take advantage of the help available from the CCL funded Carbon Trust which supports energy efficiency improvements by business and the development of low carbon technologies. Some of the Carbon Trust schemes, for example their small firms loan scheme, are intended specifically to benefit small firms. In addition, many of the smallest businesses'energy use will be below that at which levy becomes payable, so will not pay any levy at all.

  In recognition of the need to protect the competitiveness of energy-intensive industries subject to international competition, the Government allows an 80 per cent. discount from the levy for businesses in energy-intensive sectors covered by the Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control (IPPC) regime, providing they have entered into climate change agreements with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

  383W
  (DEFRA) to meet two-yearly energy efficiency targets. The Government targets relief from the levy on those sectors covered by the IPPC as it covers the main energy-intensive sectors subject to international competition.

  Finally, in order to give all businesses an incentive to agree to emissions targets, the Government have also launched the UK emissions trading scheme, with an incentive worth £150 million after tax over five years.

  Departmental Staff (Northern Ireland)
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the(a) numerical and (b) percentage breakdown by perceived community origin are of (i) Inland Revenue and (ii) Customs and Excise staff employed in Northern Ireland. [97791]

  John Healey
  The information is as follows:HM Customs and Excise

  Out of the total number of 631 the numerical (a) and percentage (b) breakdown by perceived community origin of HM Customs and Excise staff employed in Northern Ireland as at 1 January 2003 is:

  Number

  Percentage

  Protestant

  229

  36

  Roman Catholic

  355

  57

  It has not been possible to determine the community origin of 7 per cent. of staff.

  Inland Revenue

  Out of the total number of 1,703 the numerical (a) and percentage (b) breakdown by perceived community origin of Inland Revenue staff employed in Northern Ireland as at 1 January 2003 is:

  Number

  Percentage

  Protestant

  745

  44

  Roman Catholic

  838

  49

  It has not been possible to determine the community origin of 7 per cent. of staff.

  Liquefied Petroleum Gas
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what financial aid is available for those petrol stations which wish to supply liquefied petroleum gas. [98899]

  John Healey
  Government policy on encouraging the use of liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) has centred on encouraging the use of vehicles through lower rates of excise duty and grants to convert cars to LPG through the powershift programme. This policy has been very successful with over 1,100 stations now selling LPG across the country compared to 150 in 1998.

  Meetings
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) whether meetings between officials of his Department and representatives of Guernsey are held on Jersey; [98912]
  384W
  (2) how often meetings are held between his Department's officials and representatives from the Isle of Man; and whether meetings are held purely when necessary; [98911]

  (3) what his Department's policy is regarding consultation with representatives of Jersey on economic decisions that could affect Jersey. [98910]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 11 February 2002,Official Report, columns 114–15W.

  Metallgesellschaft Case (Compensation)
  Denzil Davies
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much compensation has been paid to claimants by the Inland Revenue following the decision of the ECJ in the case of Metallgesellschaft (C-397/98); and what his estimate is of the total amount that will be paid. [98548]

  Dawn Primarolo
  To date, the Inland Revenue has paid a total of £32,489,711.

  Other claims made on the basis of this decision are still subject to legal proceedings. It is impossible, at this time, to estimate the total amount that might be paid in the future.

  North Sea Tax Regime
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made as to the effect tax changes on North Sea oil and gas companies announced in the Budget statement 2002 are having on the competitiveness of the industry. [99025]

  John Healey
  The Budget 2002 changes to the North Sea taxation regime make new investment in the North Sea more economic for oil and gas companies while extracting a fairer share of revenue for the taxpayer. The reforms are too recent for a comprehensive assessment of their overall economic impact, but the Government are encouraged by early evidence from the UKOOA report of November 2002, which found that
  "total capital expenditure for the period 2001–2010 is forecast to increase by around £1 billion, compared with last year's forecast."

  Tax and Benefits
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many(a) families and (b) individuals have gained from tax and benefit changes since 1997; and on average by how much. [98256]

  Dawn Primarolo
  As a result of tax and benefit changes introduced since 1997, by 2003–04 households with children will be, on average, £1,200 per year better off. Some 6.4 million households with children will be better off.

  By 2003–04, all households will be £740 per year better off on average as a result of measures introduced since 1997. Each adult will be £440 per year better off on average. There are nearly 35 million adults in households that will be better off as a result of measures introduced since 1997.

  Tax Credit Helpline
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what performance targets have been set for the tax credit helpline; and what have been the monthly performance levels against those targets since the helpline was established. [94237]

  Dawn Primarolo
  A helpline was set up in August 2002 to handle detailed inquiries about the two new tax credits—Child Tax Credit and Working Tax Credit. The introduction of these two new tax credits in April 2003 represents a large one-off piece of work for the Inland Revenue. That work includes handling telephone enquiries and processing claims. The helpline has not been set stand-alone performance targets because, as a one-off exercise, call handling and claims processing are effectively being managed as a single stream of work—allowing resources to be allocated across the two in the light of changing workload priorities.

  The underlying aim at the helpline is to ensure that people can get through when they need to. That is monitored in a number of ways, including looking at the volume of calls received and handled. The best available evidence on calls made and calls received indicates that, in each month since August 2002, a high proportion—certainly more than 90 per cent.—of callers have got through on the same day.

  Taxation
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he will estimate the number of families where the principal earner has a gross income above the higher rate threshold and the gross household income is below £58,175; [93061]

  (2) if he will estimate the number of families entitled to the children's tax credit where the recipient has a gross income of between £34,515 and £42,450 and the gross household income is between £50,000 and £58,175; [93060]

  (3) if he will estimate the number of families entitled to the children's tax credit where the recipient has a gross income of less than £34,515 and the gross household income exceeds £50,000; [93058]

  (4) if he will estimate the number of families entitled to the children's tax credit where the recipient has a gross income of less than £42,450 and the gross household income exceeds £58,175; [93057]

  (5) if he will estimate the number of families entitled to the children's tax credit where the recipient has a gross income of less than £34,515 and the gross household income exceeds £58,175; [93059]

  (6) if he will estimate the number of married or cohabiting couples with children whose combined taxable income exceeds £34,515 but is less than £50,000 in 2003–04; [93063]

  (7) if he will estimate the number of married or cohabiting couples with children whose combined taxable income exceeds £34,515 but is less than £58,175 in 2003–04; [93065]
  386W
  (8) if he will estimate the number of married or cohabiting couples with children whose combined taxable income exceeds £42,450 but is less than £58,175 in 2003–04; [93064]

  (9) if he will estimate the number of married or cohabiting couples with children whose combined taxable income exceeds £42,450 but is less than £50,000 in 2003–04. [93062]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 23 January 2003]: No reliable estimates exist.

  Thermal Insulation
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer further to his answer of 22 January 2003,Official Report, column 42W, on thermal insulation, what the implications are of the European Union Court Case 416/85, EC Commission v. United Kingdom for the possibilities of VAT reduction on the sales and installation of energy saving materials; and if he will make a statement. [98563]

  John Healey
  European Court of Justice case 416/85 concerned the scope of the UK's zero rates. The Court held that zero-rating could only be justified for clearly defined social reasons and for the benefit of the final consumer.

  The long-standing formal agreements with our European partners make entirely separate provision for reduced rates (of no lower than 5 per cent.) and allow relief for the 'supply, construction, renovation and alteration of housing provided as part of a social policy'. Under this provision, the UK has been able to introduce a reduced rate for installations of certain energy-saving materials in homes. Our current policy is to restrict the relief to the installation of materials whose primary purpose is to save energy, and the European Court case has no bearing on this limitation.

  As I explained in my answer of 22 January, we are not able to introduce a reduced rate of VAT for energy-efficient or energy-saving materials sold direct to the public. This is not because of the European Court case, but rather that the reduced rate provision makes clear that goods and materials can only have a reduced rate when they are supplied as part of an overall service.

  UK Listing Authority
  Mr. Colman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what the principal regulatory risks are that the UK Listing Authority is responsible for managing; [99159]

  (2) what progress the UK Listing Authority has made in reviewing the monitoring of continuing compliance with the Listing Rules and in recommending improvements; and if he will place in the Library a copy of the review's results and recommendations; [99161]

  (3) what progress the UK Listing Authority has made in reviewing the requirements for approval and vetting of listing and other documentation, and in making recommendations; and if he will place in the Library a copy of the review's results and recommendations; [99158]
  387W
  (4) what the outcome was of the UK Listing Authority's risk-based review of the sponsor system and recommendations for improvements; and if he will make a statement on his policy towards including such an objective in the authority's objectives for 2002–03. [99160]

  Ruth Kelly
  The United Kingdom Listing Authority (UKLA) is part of the Financial Services Authority, which is independent of the Government. The duties of the FSA in its capacity as the UKLA are set out in section 73 of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000. Following on from these duties, the UKLA formulates and enforces Listing Rules that:
  provide an appropriate level of protection for investors in listed securities;facilitate access to listed markets for a broad range of enterprises;seek to maintain the integrity and competitiveness of UK markets for listed securities.
  The UKLA also has operational objectives, that are more task-specific, which are discussed each year with the Treasury. These objectives can be found on the UKLA section of the FSA website.

  Issues relating to the UKLA's review of the Listings Rules are a matter for the UKLA.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Burma
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what is the(a) value of imports the UK received from Burma and (b) the nature of these imports in 2002. [88773]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 8 January 2003]: I have been asked to reply.

  According to figures published by HM Customs and Excise, UK imports of goods from Burma in 2002 were as follows:

  £000

  Product

  Value

  Fish, (not marine mammals), crustaceans, molluscs and aquatic invertebrates and preparations thereof

  8,310

  Vegetables and fruit

  485

  Coffee, tea, cocoa, spices, and manufactures thereof

  7

  Oil seeds and oleaginous fruit

  10

  Cork and wood

  979

  Pulp and waste paper

  121

  Cork and wood manufactures (excluding furniture)

  1,302

  Textile yarn, fabrics, made-up articles, nes and related products

  49

  Manufactures of metals, nes

  14

  Power generating machinery and equipment

  1,225

  Machinery specialised for particular industries

  1

  General industrial machinery and equipment, nes and machine parts, nes

  2

  Office machines and automatic data processing machines

  1

  Electrical machinery, apparatus and appliances, nes and electrical parts thereof (including non-electrical counterparts, nes, of electrical household type equipment)

  2

  Transport equipment other than road vehicles

  29

  388W

  £000

  Product

  Value

  Prefabricated buildings; sanitary, plumbing and lighting fixtures and fittings, nes

  6

  Furniture and parts thereof; bedding, mattresses, supports, cushions and similar stuffed furnishings

  1,437

  Articles of apparel and clothing accessories

  50,177

  Footwear

  20

  Professional, scientific and controlling instruments and apparatus, nes

  1

  Miscellaneous manufactured articles, nes

  94

  Commodities and transactions not elsewhere classified

  66

  Total

  64,337

  nes = not elsewhere specified

  Note:

  Products are classified according to the Standard International Trade Classification (revision 3).

  Work Placements
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how many university students her Department and associated agencies has supported or sponsored with a work placement in the last year; what her policy is on work placements; what plans she has to develop such schemes; and what her policy is on paying their university fees. [98549]

  Clare Short
  My Department has extensive contacts with UK Universities and supports work placements for students on an ad hoc basis.

  DFID is also a corporate sponsor of the Windsor Fellowship. The Windsor Fellowship is a charity whose aim is to identify high achievers from Black and Asian communities and to offer them a development programme. We have provided six Fellows with eight-week placements. DFID also provides up to four placements a year under the Cabinet Office Summer Development Programme for potential applicants to the fast stream from within the ethnic minorities. Attachments last between six to eight weeks.

  It is not our practice to pay university fees of those whose placements we sponsor.

  We do not operate a formal scheme for the placement of university students and have no plans to do so.

  HOUSE OF COMMONS COMMISSION

    E-mails
    Mr. Liddell-Grainger
    To ask the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, representing the House of Commons Commission what type of software is used to filter e-mails in the House. [98279]

    Sir Archy Kirkwood
    A commercially available software package is used to detect and block incoming messages containing viruses and to filter incoming e-mails containing inappropriate material.

    Internet Monitoring
    Mr Liddell-Grainger
    To ask the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, representing the House of Commons Commission whether use of the internet within the parliamentary estate is monitored. [98278]
    389W
    Sir Archy Kirkwood
    The Parliamentary Communications Directorate monitors the amount and type of internet traffic in order to manage the network and to inform planning decisions. For staff of the House of Commons, the House Authorities reserve the right to monitor individual use of the internet upon a written request from a departmental establishments officer.

  HOME DEPARTMENT

    Criminal Records Checks
    David Davis
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people applying for positions within residential care and nursing homes are awaiting clearance from the Criminal Records Bureau in(a) the East Riding of Yorkshire, (b) Hull and (c) England.[Transferred] [97721]

    Hilary Benn
    Data on outstanding applications for specific job types or the areas requested are not available because there are no IT procedures at present to extract this data from the Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) database. This functionality is expected to be available during subsequent system releases.

    Disclosures are currently taking an average of five weeks to complete. Many of the outstanding applications at any time will be the subject of requests to applicants or Registered bodies for future information. There are 62,327 cases over three weeks old (less than two weeks output), plus a further 82,204 such cases awaiting information from customers.

    Mr. Burstow
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether civil offences are recorded in disclosures issued as a result of criminal records bureaux checks. [97675]

    Hilary Benn
    At present, the Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) is issuing Standard and Enhanced Disclosures. These show spent and unspent convictions, cautions, reprimands and warnings recorded on the Police National Computer. In appropriate cases, the CRB searches a list kept by the Department for Education and Skills of people who are considered unsuitable to work with children. An Enhanced Disclosure would also include other information held in local police records which, in the chief officer's opinion, is relevant to the matter in hand and ought to be included in the Disclosure. It is possible that a Disclosure might include information about a civil offence as a result of such other enquiries.

    Anti-trafficking Budgets
    Mrs. Brooke
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much the budgets of the(a) police, (b) Customs and (c) intelligence services were to combat (i) drug, (ii) firearm and (iii) people trafficking in (A) 2001, (B) 2002 and (C) 2003. [96907]

    Mr. Bob Ainsworth
    The information is as follows:

    (a) Police Authorities and Chief Officers are responsible for setting budgets and making operational decisions within them. The information sought is not available centrally.

    390W

    (b) Her Majesty's Customs and Excise spent as follows on detecting and deterring the smuggling of illegal drugs and other prohibited and restricted goods: £229 million in 2000/01; and £229.6 million in 2001/02. (source: HMCE Annual Reports)

    (c) It has been the policy of successive Governments not to disclose information concerning the breakdown in the allocation of resources of the Intelligence Agencies or provide information about their activities. However, in April 2001 it was exceptionally announced that the Security and Intelligence Agencies had been awarded additional funding to aid the fight against crime in the areas of drug trafficking and people smuggling. The amounts allocated were:

    £

    2001/02

    2002/03

    2003/04

    (i). drugs trafficking

    5.9m

    6.6m

    7.7m

    (iii). people smuggling

    0.6m

    0.5m

    0.6m

    Anti-war Protest
    Dr. Julian Lewis
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what mechanisms he will use to ensure that the numbers of anti-Gulf War protesters marching to Hyde Park on 15 February 2003 are accurately counted. [97956]

    Mr. Denham
    [holding answer 24 February 2003]: The Government do not calculate the number of people participating in marches and demonstrations. The Metropolitan Police Service (MPS), as well as other police forces, use a range of techniques for estimating the numbers involved.

    British Detainees (Switzerland)
    Patrick Mercer
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what information he has received from Swiss authorities regarding two Britons detained in Switzerland last year on suspicion of terrorist activities at the Gösgen nuclear power station in Switzerland [98852]

    Mr. Blunkett
    Due to the confidential nature of cases received in respect of Mutual Legal Assistance, I can neither confirm nor deny the existence of letters of request. In any event, we would discuss operational cases where criminal investigations may be on-going.

    Correspondence
    Mr. Kaufman
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he intends to reply to the letter to him dated 4 November from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton with regard to Ms Mansoureli Bozorovia. [97086]

    Mr. Blunkett
    I wrote to my right hon. Friend on 24 February 2003.

    Crime (Humberside)
    David Davis
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people arrested in(a) Haltemprice and Howden, (b) the East Riding of Yorkshire and (c) the Humberside Police Authority area tested positive for category A or B drugs in each quarter since 1997. [97723]
    391W
    Mr. Bob Ainsworth
    At present arrestees throughout England and Wales are not routinely tested for drugs, so it is not possible to provide the level of detail requested.

    However, the New English and Welsh Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (NEW-ADAM) research programme, which involves interviewing and drug testing those arrested by the police at 16 sites throughout England and Wales, does provide some information. Analysis of the data from the first eight sites in the survey, collected during 1999–2000, shows that of those arrestees that provided a urine sample, 65 per cent. tested positive for one or more illegal drugs, while 30 per cent. tested positive for two or more such substance. Indeed, 29 per cent. tested positive for opiates (including heroin) and/or cocaine (including crack).

    Drug test results are also available from three drug-testing pilot sites. The Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000 gave the police power to drug test arrestees once they are charged with a "trigger offence" (these include property crime, robbery and specified

    Number of defendants1 against at magistrates courts and convicted at all courts2 for certain firearms offences, Humberside, 1997 to 2001

    1997

    1998

    1999

    Offence description

    Statute

    Proceeded against

    Convicted

    Proceeded against

    Convicted

    Proceeded against

    Convicted

    (See footnote3 for definition of Firearm Groups)

    (i) Carrying a loaded firearm in an public place

    Carrying loaded firearm in public place etc. (Group 1)

    Firearms Act 1968 sec. 19 amended by the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 section 157 sch. 8 Part III

    1

    1

    2

    1

    —

    —

    Carrying loaded firearm in public place etc. (Group 1)

    Ibid.

    1

    1

    1

    —

    —

    —

    Carrying loaded firearm in public place etc. (Group III)

    Ibid.

    5

    6

    9

    9

    3

    2

    Total

    7

    8

    12

    10

    3

    3

    (ii) Acquiring a firearm under the age of 17

    Person under 17 acquiring firearm (Group 1)

    Firearms Act 1968 section 22(1)

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    Person under 17 acquiring firearm (Group II)

    Ibid

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    Person under 17 acquiring firearm (Group III)

    Ibid.

    Total

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    (iii) Person under 14 having with him an air weapon or ammunition therefore, (Group III)

    Firearms Act 1968 section 22(4)

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    392W
    Class A drug offences). The proportion of police tests, collected during July 2001 to February 2002, where results were positive for cocaine and/or heroin were: Hackney, 63 per cent.; Nottingham, 58 per cent.; Stafford and Cannock, 47 per cent.

    David Davis
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) prosecutions and (b) convictions were recorded in each year since 1997 in the Humberside police authority areas for (i) carrying a loaded firearm in a public place, (ii) acquiring a firearm under the age of 17. (iii) being a person under 14 possessing an air weapon or ammunition, (iv) being a person under 14 possessing an air weapon in a public place, (v) supplying an air weapon to a person under 14 and (vi) making improper use of an air weapon. [97722]

    Mr. Bob Ainsworth
    The information contained in the table gives the number of defendants proceeded against and convicted of the various firearms offences requested, in the Humberside police force area, 1997 to 2001.

    Statistics for 2002 will be published in the autumn.

    Number of defendants1 proceeded against at magistrates courts and convicted at all courts2 for certain firearms offences, Humberside, 1997 to 2001
    393W

    Number of defendants1 against at magistrates courts and convicted at all courts2 for certain firearms offences, Humberside, 1997 to 2001

    1997

    1998

    1999

    Offence description

    Statute

    Proceeded against

    Convicted

    Proceeded against

    Convicted

    Proceeded against

    Convicted

    (iv) Person under 17 having with him an air weapon in a public place, (Group III)

    Firearms Act 1968 section 22(5)

    —

    —

    1

    1

    1

    1

    (v) Supplying air weapon to person under 14,(Group III)

    Firearms Act 1968, section 24(4)

    —

    —

    —

    —

    1

    1

    (vi) Person under 14 making improper use of air weapon when under supervision,(Group III)

    Firearms Act 1968 section 23(1)(a)

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    2000

    2001

    Offence description

    Statute

    Proceeded against

    Convicted

    Proceeded against

    Convicted

    (See footnote3 for definition of Firearm Groups)(i)Carrying a loaded firearm in a public place

    Carrying loaded firearm in public place etc. (Group 1)

    Firearms Act 1968 sec. 19 amended by the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 section 157 sch. 8 part III

    1

    1

    —

    —

    Carrying loaded firearm in public place etc. (group II)

    Ibid.

    —

    —

    —

    —

    Carrying loaded firearm in public place etc. (Group III)

    Ibid

    9

    7

    4

    3

    Total

    10

    8

    4

    3

    (ii) Acquiring a firearm under the age of 17

    Person under 17 acquiring firearm (Group 1)

    Firearms Act 1968 section 22(1)

    —

    —

    —

    —

    Person under 17 acquiring firearm (Group II)

    Ibid.

    —

    —

    —

    —

    Person under 17 acquiring firearm (Group III)

    Ibid.

    2

    2

    —

    —

    Total

    —

    —

    —

    —

    (iii) Person under 14 having with him an air weapon or a ammunition therefore,(Group III)

    Firearms Act 1968 section 22(4)

    —

    —

    —

    —

    (iv) Person under 17 having with him an air weapon in a public place,(Group III)

    Firearms Act 1968 section 22(5)

    —

    —

    1

    1

    (v) Supplying air weapon to person under 14, (Group III)

    Firearms Act 1968, section 24(4)

    1

    1

    —

    —

    (vi)Person under 14 making improper use of air weapon when under supervision,(Group III)

    Firearms Act 1968 section 23(1)(a)

    —

    —

    —

    —

    1 These data are on the principal offence basis.

    2 Due to the time lag between committal for trial and appearance at the Crown Court, it is possible for number convicted to exceed those proceeded against in a given year.

    3 For the purposes of recording offences. Firearms are divided into three groups as follows:

    Group 1—All firearms etc. other than those described in Group II and III.

    Group II—Shot guns as defined in section 1(3)(a) of the Act.

    Group III—Air weapons as defined in section 1(3)(b) of the Act.

    Criminal Records Bureau
    Mr. Burstow
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applications for Criminal Records Bureau checks processing will be postponed from March 2003 to 2004. [96589]

    Hilary Benn
    I refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave him on 20 January 2003,Official Report, column 176W.

    Mr. Burstow
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will commission an evaluation of the impact of the Criminal Records Bureau on volunteering in deprived communities. [96591]

    Hilary Benn
    We are determined that the operation of the Criminal Records Bureau should benefit the voluntary sector. As part of the Bureau's wider consultation arrangements with its customers, a voluntary and community sector working group has been established whose terms of reference specifically include monitoring the implications of the disclosure service for, and considering how the service should best meet the needs of, the voluntary and community sector.

    Mr. Burstow
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the Criminal Record Bureau plans to launch an advisory service to employers about the availability of checks in a variety of countries; how much the contract is valued at; when the contract will expire; how many people are employed in the service; how much his Department is investing in the service; and if he will make a statement. [97141]

    Hilary Benn
    The Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) launched an overseas information service on 4 December 2002. This provides information, via a fax-back service, on the criminal record checking regimes available in 15 countries. It is expected that the number of countries included in this service will rise during the course of 2003.

    The aim of the service is to provide employers with information that will lead them to sources of information overseas, beyond those capable of being offered by the CRB, to help them make safer recruitment decisions. The only contracted-out element is the fax-back service operated by iTouch (UK) Limited. The amount received by iTouch (UK) Limited over the period of the contract will depend upon the number of inquiries made to the faxback service. The contract is scheduled to run until December 2005, at which time it will be reviewed. All other aspects of the scheme are administered by civil servants employed by the CRB. Two members of staff undertake this work as part of their other duties. The total measurable cost of providing the service during the current financial year has so far been £3,650.00.

    The overseas information service is a non-statutory service provided by the CRB. Part V of the Police Act 1997 under which the CRB was created did not envisage the CRB obtaining overseas criminal records as part of the Disclosure service. Nevertheless, it was recognised that foreign nationals (and UK nationals returning from a period of residence overseas) make up a significant portion of the UK workforce. These individuals often occupy positions of trust, which would normally attract a CRB Standard or Enhanced
    396W
    Disclosure. However a Disclosure would be of limited use for employers seeking to recruit a foreign national, given that it is unlikely that these individuals would feature on the UK data sources accessed as part of the CRB Disclosure service.

    The faxback service provides information regarding the availability of criminal records from overseas, in particular the application procedure involved in obtaining such records from overseas. Calls are charged at premium rate (£1 per minute). The following 15 countries are featured on the faxback service:

    Australia

    Canada

    Denmark

    France

    Germany

    Jamaica

    Malaysia

    Netherlands

    New Zealand

    Philippines

    Poland

    Republic of Ireland

    South Africa

    Spain

    Sweden

    The overseas information service also comprises an email enquiry facility(overseas@crb.gsi.gov.uk) and a National Rate enquiry line (0870 0 100 450).

    The CRB is not involved in any application made to an overseas authority, nor is it responsible for the processes operated by or the nature of the information returned by that overseas authority. The costs incurred in the financial year 2001–02 amount to just over £25,000. The Overseas project was commissioned by the CRB Chief Executive in May 2001 and was concerned with establishing contact with, and benchmarking against, equivalent agencies overseas. This figure includes a number of fact-finding visits to many of the countries covered by the faxback service. The latest visit was undertaken in December 2001.

    Mr. Burstow
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what date the Carter report has set for the restoration of checks against the Protection of Vulnerable Adults List; [97207]

    (2) if he will list the (a) milestones and (b) targets that have been set by the Carter Inquiry into the postponement of Criminal Record Bureau checks; and when they are expected to be achieved. [97211]

    Hilary Benn
    I refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave him on 20 January 2003,Official Report, column 175W.

    Mr. Burstow
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will place a copy of the(a) enhanced, (b) basic disclosure and (c) standard forms and the (i) old and (ii) new explanatory notes for Criminal Records Bureau checks in the Library. [97210]

    Hilary Benn
    Basic Disclosures are not yet available from the Criminal Records Bureau, and as such Basic Disclosure Application Forms do not yet exist. A single application form is used for Standard and Enhanced
    397W
    Disclosure applications and a copy of this form, along with both original and updated guidance notes, has been placed in the Library.

    Mr. Burstow
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department pursuant to his answer of 29 January 2003,Official Report, column 911W, on the Criminal Records Bureau, how much was paid to each organisation who conducted research for the Department; and if he will place a copy of each of the evaluations in the Library. [97225]

    Hilary Benn
    The following payments were made to each organisation that conducted research for the Department:

    £

    Research Payments

    Accent Marketing and Research

    16,293,26

    Rosslyn Research Limited

    5,710.50

    A copy of these evaluations will be placed in the Library in due course.

    Mr. Burstow
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects basic disclosures to be issued again by the Criminal Records Bureau; and if he will make a statement. [97690]

    Hilary Benn
    [holding answer 13 February 2003]: Basic disclosures are not yet available from the Criminal Records Bureau (CRB). In light of the operational difficulties that the CRB experienced in the summer of 2002, following the launch of the Enhanced and Standard Disclosure Services, the CRB decided to postpone the implementation of the Basic Disclosure Service, planned to start one year after the Enhanced/Standard Disclosure service. A revised implementation date has not yet been agreed and this is conditional upon the recommendations made to Ministers by the Independent Review Team.

    Mr. Burstow
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department pursuant to his answer of 3 February 2003,Official Report, column 72W, what the total cost is of the ex-gratia payments that have been made by the CRB. [98836]

    Hilary Benn
    The total cost of ex-gratia payments made by the Criminal Records Bureau, up to 15 February 2003, is £40,160.

    Daedalus Site
    Mr. Viggers
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when his Department was made aware that the Daedalus site at Lee-on-the-Solent might be available for Home Office purposes. [99014]

    Beverley Hughes
    We announced on 11 February 2003 that we had identified HMS Daedalus as a potential site for an Accommodation Centre. We have put this into 398W
    the public domain because, following preliminary work, we consider the site to be a serious prospect for an Accommodation Centre.

    We first became aware in November 2002 that this site might become available for this purpose.

    Mr. Viggers
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what extra resources the Home Office will provide for Hampshire Constabulary for the policing of the Daedalus site at Lee-on-the-Solent in the event of the possible residential unit for young male asylum seekers being approved. [99015]

    Beverley Hughes
    The site at HMS Daedalus is being considered as a potential suitable site for an accommodation centre for single male asylum seekers. A final decision has not yet been taken. Detailed consultations have not yet begun.

    Domiciliary Carers (Criminal Record Checks)
    Keith Vaz
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the decision to allow employment of domiciliary carers for disabled people without them first being cleared by the Criminal Records Bureau from April 2003. [98553]

    Hilary Benn
    I refer my hon. Friend to the answer that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary gave to a question by my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) on 4 November 2002,Official Report, column 100W.

    Since the beginning of October 2002, the Criminal Records Bureau has issued on average over 40,000 Disclosures per week, and has produced in excess of 1 million Disclosures since 11 March 2002.

    The independent review team, which my right hon. Friend announced last September, submitted its conclusions and recommendations at the end of last year. We hope to publish the team's recommendations, together with the Government's response, shortly.

    Drink-driving Offences
    Mr. Hoyle
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) drink-driving offences were recorded in each year since 1997 by the police constabulary and (b) successful prosecutions there have been in (i) England, (ii) Wales and (iii) Scotland since 1997; and if he will make a statement. [98488]

    Mr. Bob Ainsworth
    Available information on the number of proceedings and convictions for offences of driving whilst impaired by drink or drugs or driving above the specified limit for alcohol in England and Wales is given in the table by police force area. The data cannot be disaggregated between alcohol or drug offences.

    Matters related to Scotland are for the Scottish Executive.
    399W

    Proceedings at Magistrates courts and findings of guilt at all courts for offences of driving etc. after consuming alcohol or taking drugs1 by police force area. England and Wales, 1997 to 2001

    1997

    1998

    1999

    2000

    2001

    Police force area

    Proceedings

    Findings of guilt

    Proceedings

    Findings of guilt

    Proceedings

    Findings of guilt

    Proceedings

    Findings of guilt

    Proceedings

    Findings of guilt

    Avon and Somerset

    3,114

    2,812

    2,832

    2,566

    2,971

    2,728

    2,719

    2,462

    2,403

    2,197

    Bedfordshire

    1,323

    1,146

    1,167

    1,060

    961

    869

    884

    797

    1,013

    914

    Cambridgeshire

    1,175

    1,092

    1,145

    1,060

    1,022

    941

    882

    793

    880

    813

    Cheshire

    2,165

    1,969

    2,094

    1,903

    2,002

    1,827

    1,899

    1,652

    1,753

    1,529

    Cleveland

    1,029

    926

    947

    870

    912

    811

    858

    777

    973

    887

    Clumbria

    1,017

    931

    927

    856

    925

    871

    874

    806

    810

    761

    Derbyshire

    1,852

    1,612

    1,695

    1,547

    1,613

    1,463

    1,599

    1,417

    1,612

    1,411

    Devon and Cornwall

    2,637

    2,342

    2,531

    2,265

    2,507

    2,277

    2,421

    2,199

    2,594

    2,369

    Dorset

    1,355

    1,214

    1,310

    1,186

    1,223

    1,120

    1,244

    1,115

    1,284

    1,150

    Durham

    1,140

    1,044

    1,134

    1,035

    1,251

    1,137

    1,218

    1,124

    1,181

    1,097

    Essex

    3,010

    2,736

    2776

    2,438

    2,835

    2,528

    2,702

    2,462

    2,717

    2,456

    Gloucestershire

    1,169

    1,067

    1,079

    985

    971

    889

    891

    804

    950

    865

    Greater

    Manchester

    5,235

    4,806

    5,117

    4,715

    5,254

    4,850

    5,186

    4,801

    5,236

    4,715

    Hampshire

    4,099

    3,774

    3,920

    3,597

    4,062

    3,725

    3,812

    3,472

    3,820

    3,464

    Hertfordshire

    1,844

    1,670

    1,835

    1,672

    1,827

    1,679

    1,691

    1,552

    1,826

    1,666

    Humberside

    1,411

    1,274

    1,473

    1,358

    1,410

    1,323

    1,468

    1,371

    1,355

    1,259

    Kent

    2,533

    2,321

    2,853

    2,627

    2,851

    2,633

    2,807

    2,592

    2,861

    2,575

    Lancashire

    3,684

    3,389

    3,204

    2,945

    3,290

    3,010

    2,879

    2,584

    2,570

    2,304

    London, City of

    463

    463

    338

    301

    259

    236

    193

    162

    182

    162

    Merseyside

    3,113

    2,719

    2,760

    2,451

    2,369

    2,137

    2,515

    2,128

    2,513

    2,195

    Metropolitan

    Police

    18,987

    16,165

    16,433

    13,889

    14,720

    12,414

    14,166

    11,801

    13,744

    11,260

    Norfolk

    1,174

    1,116

    1,197

    1,118

    1,070

    1,010

    1,014

    935

    1,293

    1,143

    Northamptonshire

    1,245

    1,107

    1,230

    1,062

    1,228

    1,058

    898

    782

    464

    399

    Northumbria

    2,973

    2,625

    2,786

    2,457

    2,793

    2,463

    2,958

    2,621

    2,850

    2,529

    North

    Yorkshire

    1,481

    1,365

    1,319

    1,205

    1,229

    1,124

    1,160

    1,073

    1,158

    1,066

    Nottinghamshire

    2,270

    2,031

    2,013

    1,804

    2,026

    1,802

    1,951

    1,722

    1,786

    1,598

    South

    Yorkshire

    2,581

    2,296

    2,188

    2,002

    2,076

    1,927

    2,322

    2,122

    2,231

    2,020

    Staffordshire

    2,302

    2,036

    2,163

    1,955

    1,885

    1,711

    2—

    2—

    1,673

    1,513

    Suffolk

    1,156

    1,050

    1,146

    1,042

    1,187

    1,089

    1,002

    902

    1,049

    920

    Surrey

    1,512

    1;380

    1,455

    1,328

    1,538

    1,417

    1,729

    1,539

    2,055

    1,592

    Sussex

    2,658

    2,373

    2,344

    2,113

    2,440

    2,224

    2,327

    2,112

    2,635

    2,358

    Thames Valley

    4,564

    4,070

    4,355

    3,896

    4,192

    3,725

    3,921

    3,496

    3,681

    3,275

    Warwickshire

    908

    837

    855

    784

    927

    856

    855

    786

    955

    880

    West Mercia

    2,093

    1,947

    1,946

    1,794

    1,867

    1,747

    1,741

    1,631

    1,874

    1,740

    West Midlands

    7,185

    6,351

    6,348

    5,582

    5,470

    4,775

    5,212

    4,559

    5,604

    4,914

    West Yorkshire

    4,395

    3,953

    4,100

    3,669

    4,018

    3,597

    3,798

    3,375

    3,739

    3,220

    Wiltshire

    1,120

    1,043

    1,184

    1,108

    1,067

    1,009

    997

    930

    1,127

    1,045

    Total

    England

    104,960

    93,761

    96,888

    86,709

    93,057

    83,567

    89,329

    79,671

    89,172

    78,684

    Dyfed Powys

    1,163

    1,029

    1,102

    995

    1,047

    944

    985

    858

    973

    867

    Gwent

    1,268

    1,166

    1,336

    1,203

    1,226

    1,079

    1,341

    1,211

    1,297

    1,152

    North Wales

    1,496

    1,354

    1,410

    1,306

    1,347

    1,248

    1,430

    1,332

    1,366

    1,227

    South Wales

    3,238

    2,892

    3,309

    2,903

    2,823

    2,526

    3,075

    2,757

    3,175

    2,812

    Total

    Wales

    7,165

    6,441

    7,157

    6,407

    6,443

    5,797

    6,831

    6,158

    6,811

    6,058

    Total

    England and Wales

    112,125

    100,202

    104,045

    93,116

    99,500

    89,364

    96,160

    85,829

    95,983

    84,742

    1Including offences under Road Traffic Act 1988 sec 4(1) and (2); 5(1)(a) and (b); 6(4); 7(6): Driving or attempting to drive a motor vehicle whilst unfit through drink or drugs (impairment). Driving or attempting to drive a motor vehicle while having a breath, urine or blood alcohol concentration in excess of the prescribed limit. Failing without reasonable excuse to provide a specimen for a laboratory test or two specimens for analysis of breath if at the relevant time he/she was driving or attempting to drive a motor vehicle. In charge of a motor vehicle while unfit through drink or drugs (impairment). In charge of a motor vehicle while having a breath, urine or blood alcohol concentration in excess of the prescribed limit. In charge of a motor vehicle and failing to provide a specimen for a laboratory test or two specimens for analysis of breath if at the relevant time he/she was driving or attempting to drive a motor vehicle. Failing without reasonable excuse to provide a specimen of breath for a preliminary test. Excluding offences under Road Traffic Act 1988 sec 3A: Causing death by careless driving when under the influence of drink or drugs.

    2 Not available (Staffordshire were only able to submit data for a sample of weeks in 2000).

    400W 401W
    Mr. Hoyle
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what studies his Department has undertaken in relation to drink-driving offences from the sale of alcohol from(a) supermarkets, (b) off-licences and (c) petrol filling station forecourts; and if he will make a statement. [98489]

    Mr. Bob Ainsworth
    No studies have been undertaken on the commission of drink-driving offences relating to alcohol purchased from different retail categories. However, the Home Office has commissioned research that determines where people had been drinking on the most recent occasion they had driven after drinking alcohol: at home; at someone else's home; in a pub/pubs; in a restaurant; in a nightclub/club; outside in a public place (e.g. park, street); or a specified other. The results are currently undergoing analysis.

    The Home Office remains committed to combating drink-driving and shall maintain an emphasis on effective enforcement and publicity. The UK has shown that a combination of rigid enforcement and advertising campaigns has a dramatic effect on reducing the numbers of killed and seriously injured in crashes involving illegal levels of alcohol, although we acknowledge there is still much to do. We are currently looking at the possibilities for helping effective enforcement of drink drive legislation, for example, by introducing roadside evidential testing.

    Drugs
    John Mann
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the average number of interventions through the criminal justice system is for a Class A drug misuser before(a) treatment, (b) a drug treatment and testing order and (c) a prison sentence is imposed. [98150]

    Mr. Bob Ainsworth
    Information is not available in the form requested. A range of interventions has been developed at key stages in the criminal justice system which seek to identify and engage drug misusers, particularly those using Class A drugs, in order to access them into drug treatment delivered within a community or custodial setting. Pro-active arrest referral schemes, drug treatment and testing orders, and prison treatment services are available throughout England and Wales. Drug testing under the provisions introduced by the

    Numbers of people proceeded against for drug offences, England and Wales, 1996–2000

    Offence

    1996

    1997

    1998

    1999

    2000

    Possession1

    26,927

    33,125

    43,516

    44,603

    40,738

    Dealing2

    2,148

    2,233

    3,875

    3,644

    2,707

    Trafficking3

    4,067

    4,033

    5,561

    5,021

    3,728

    1 The term 'possession' refers to those proceeded against for unlawful possession.

    2 The term 'dealing' refers to those proceeded against for unlawful supply, possession with intent to supply unlawfully and unlawful import/export.

    3 The term 'trafficking' refers to those proceeded against for unlawful production, unlawful supply, possession with intent to supply unlawfully and unlawful import/export.

    Source:

    Home Office Research, Development, and Statistics.
    402W
    Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000 (including testing after charge and pre-sentence) is being piloted and implemented only in certain areas.

    In the Updated Drug Strategy 2002 the Government set out a comprehensive new programme of criminal justice interventions with a view to delivering an integrated "end to end system" aimed at getting drug misusers out of crime into effective treatment.

    Vernon Coaker
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has for merging drug action teams and crime reduction partnerships; and if he will make a statement.[98083]

    Mr. Bob Ainsworth
    The Police Reform Act, from 1 April 2003, places a statutory responsibility on local authorities, police and others to formulate and implement a drugs strategy mirroring their responsibility for crime and disorder strategies. Multi-agency partnerships are the most effective way of delivering these strategies, but we currently support separate ones for drugs (149 Drug Action Teams in England) and (376 Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships in England and Wales). To reduce burdens on partnerships, ensure they are properly resourced and reduce overlaps in the delivery of community safety, this Government believe that partnerships should be brought together, through merger or, where that is truly not feasible, by developing closer working arrangements.

    Many partnerships have merged or will have merged by 1 April 2003. Others, particularly in two tier authorities, are building on already close working relationships, in discussion with Local Strategic Partnerships, where they exist. We expect that, by April 2003, there will have been a complete overhaul in the way partnerships function, and to see improvements in delivery of the National Drug Strategy and local crime and disorder strategies.

    Lynne Jones
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people have been through the court system for(a) possession, (b) dealing and (c) trafficking of illegal drugs in each of the last five years. [98178]

    Mr. Bob Ainsworth
    The numbers of people proceeded against for possession, dealing and trafficking in illegal drugs in England and Wales in the last five available years are shown in the table.
    403W
    Lynne Jones
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people have been to prison for offences under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 in each of the last five years; and what proportion of these people were from black and ethnic minority backgrounds. [98179]

    Year1

    White

    Black

    South Asian

    Chinese and other

    Unrecorded

    Total

    1998

    6,907

    1.783

    438

    548

    0

    9,676

    1999

    6,823

    2.054

    430

    588

    6

    9,901

    2000

    6,798

    2.189

    456

    607

    5

    10,055

    2001

    6,803

    2.611

    512

    643

    6

    10,575

    2002

    6,860

    3.511

    680

    461

    8

    11,520

    1 June for each year

    Source:

    Prison Population Monthly Brief June 2002

    1Includes all drug offences

    John Mann
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many drug treatment and testing orders have been issued to(a) heroin addicts, (b) crack cocaine addicts and (c) poly-drug users since the scheme began. [98148]

    Mr. Bob Ainsworth
    Between 1 October 2000 and 31 December 2002 (which is the latest month for which figures are available) 10,525 orders were made. Information relating to the proportion of Drug Treatment and Testing orders issued to heroin, crack or poly-drug users is not available centrally.

    Iraq
    Dr. Tonge
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many Iraqi citizens he expects to apply for asylum in the United Kingdom in the event of conflict in Iraq. [96164]

    Beverley Hughes
    A number of Iraqi citizens currently seek asylum in the United Kingdom on a weekly basis. It is not clear if the numbers would significantly increase following a conflict in Iraq.

    Home Office officials routinely revise contingency plans to deal with increases in asylum seekers.

    Dr. Tonge
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many Iraqi refugees the United Kingdom will take in the event of conflict in Iraq. [96166]

    Beverley Hughes
    Home Office officials, in liaison with other Government Departments, routinely revise contingency plans, including those for large influxes of displaced persons.

    There are, at present, no specific plans to take refugees from Iraq.

    Point-of-sale Payment
    Brian Cotter
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received from(a) banks and (b) retailers on conversion to microchip and PIN technology for point of sale payment transactions. [99113]

    Mr. Denham
    I met representatives of the Association of Payment and Clearing Services (APACS) on 12 July 2001 and 31 January 2002 to discuss the implementation
    404W
    Mr. Bob Ainsworth
    The table shows the prison population in England and Wales under sentence and remand for drug offences1.

    of this technology. Since then I have received regular joint progress reports from APACS and the British Retail Consortium (BRC), as well as from the implementation programme managers.

    The Chief Executive of APACS wrote to me in February and again in October last year to express concern about the possible outcome of an Office of Fair Trading investigation into Mastercard interchange fees. He advised me that a ruling that these fees were uncompetitive would put the implementation of Chip and PIN at risk.

    The programme managers, together with representatives from APACS and the BRC, had a further meeting with Home Office officials on 21 January this year, when they advised that the programme was going well and was on target for implementation in late 2004.

    Police Officers (Brain Injury)
    Mr. Boswell
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how frequently serving police officers returning to active duties after traumatic brain injury should be assessed by a clinical psychologist. [98674]

    Mr. Denham
    Police Occupational Health Units in England and Wales will review the case of each officer who has suffered a head injury before they resume duty. Where appropriate, additional psychological tests and treatments are given by either a clinical psychologist or neuropsychologist. The aim of such assessment is to ensure that each force complies with the duty of care described in the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974.

    Prisons
    John McDonnell
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the rights of prison officers to undertake industrial action; and whether the Government plans to review these rights. [97127]

    Hilary Benn
    Section 127 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 makes it unlawful to induce Prison Officers to withhold their services or commit a breach of discipline. For this purpose a breach of discipline means a contravention of Prison Rules or the
    405W
    code of conduct and discipline in the Prison Service. If inducements occur and loss results, the Secretary of State may take legal action against the person or persons so inducing those staff for damages.

    In addition, on the introduction of the Employee Relations Voluntary Agreement in April 2001, the union signatories (Prison Officers' Association (POA) and Prison Governors' Association (PGA)) also agreed not to induce, authorise or support any form of industrial action, which would have the effect of disrupting the operations of the Prison Service. The POA are contractually bound to honour this agreement, which in effect offers protection to the Prison Service against industrial action, in its ability to obtain injunctive relief.

    There are no current plans to review the provisions of the Voluntary Agreement to which the Prison Service remain committed.

    John Mann
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many drug misusers under treatment have been(a) arrested and (b) imprisoned since 1 January 2002. [98146]

    Mr. Bob Ainsworth
    Information is not available in the form requested. Emerging evidence from the National Arrest Referral monitoring system provides some data relating to drug misusers who are arrested and voluntarily screened by arrest referral workers.

    Data for October 2000 to September 2001 show that of the 48,810 arrestees screened by an arrest referral worker, 12 per cent. (5,268) were to continue in treatment they were currently receiving. The arrestees concerned are likely to be problematic drug misusers and may not be representative of the wider arrestee population.

    Other research, from the New English and Welsh Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring programme (NEW-ADAM), has shown that of a total sample of arrestees interviewed, 29 per cent. said that they currently had a need for treatment and, of those, nine per cent. said that they were receiving treatment and 29 per cent. said that they were not.

    The numbers of prisoners who have engaged in one or more of the Prison Service's range of drug interventions since 1 January 2002 are shown in the table:

    Drug intervention

    Number of prisoners engaging since 1 January 20021

    Detoxification

    47,811

    CARATs2

    49,675

    Rehabilitation programmes and therapeutic communities

    4,334

    1 The data cover the period 1 January 2002 to 31 December 2002

    2 Counselling, assessment, referral, advice and throughcare services—a low-level intervention that provides a gateway assessment, referral and support service to prisoners both within custody and upon their initial release.

    John Mann
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many problematic drug users have been in prison. [98151]

    Mr. Bob Ainsworth
    Records of the actual number of problematic drug-misusing prisoners who pass through custody are not kept centrally by the Prison Service.
    406W
    Data from the Office for National. Statistics show that around 80 per cent. of prisoners have used drugs at some point before coming into prison, with 54 per cent. reporting drug dependency in the year prior to custody. With an annual throughput of approximately 130,000 offenders, an average of 70,000 drug-misusing prisoners may be in custody during the course of a year; with around 39,000 present at any one time.

    Lynne Jones
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what his estimate is of the proportion of(a) the prison population, (b) those going through the court system and (c) those going through the court system charged under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 whose offending relates to the need to support illegal drug use over the last five years. [98177]

    Mr. Bob Ainsworth
    The numbers of prisoners who have engaged in one or more of the Prison Service's range of drug interventions since 1 January 2002 are shown in the table.

    Prisoners engaging in one or more drug interventions between 1 January and 31 December 2002

    Drug intervention

    Number

    Detoxification

    47,811

    CARATS1

    49,675

    Rehabilitation programmes and therapeutic communities

    4,334

    1 Counselling, Assessment, Referral, Advice and Throughcare Services—a low-level intervention that provides a gateway assessment, referral and support service to prisoners both within custody and upon their initial release.

    Records of the actual number of problematic drug-misusing prisoners who pass through custody are not kept centrally by the Prison Service. Data from the Office for National Statistics show that around 80 per cent. of prisoners have used drugs at some point before coming into prison, with 54 per cent. reporting drug dependency in the year prior to custody. With an annual throughput of approximately 130,000 offenders, an average of 70,000 drug-misusing prisoners may be in custody over the course of a year.

    The level of detail required about the court system is not collected centrally. However, the NEW-ADAM2 research programme shows that 65 per cent. of arrestees tested positive for one or more illegal drug. 40 per cent. of arrestees reported a connection between their illegal drug use and offending behaviour—and, when those who had committed acquisitive crime were examined, this figure rose to 55 per cent.
    2 New England and Wales Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring programme—a study that collected data from arrestees in police custody during 2000–01.

    Probation Service
    Mrs. Brooke
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures his Department is taking to(a) increase employment to the Probation Service and (b) ensure that officers have the necessary qualifications, training and experience to manage their caseloads; and if he will make a statement. [98194]
    407W
    Hilary Benn
    Trainee Probation Officers are recruited across England and Wales. This is achieved by an annual recruitment drive and the number of trainee probation officers recruited by this method has increased from 254 in 1998 to 787 in 2002.

    The 2003 recruitment drive will commence on 17 March and will be advertised in the national press. The target number is 1,100, distributed in proportion across the nine regions of England and Wales.

    Trainee probation officers complete the Diploma in Probation Studies over a period of two years. This professional qualification combines work and university based learning.

    Candidates must attain a Community Justice NVQ Level 4 and an undergraduate degree in order to become fully accredited probation officers. The programme is provided in partnership with universities, who work with Regional Training Consortia and the National Probation Directorate.

    The programmes are provided in accordance with the Core Curriculum and Regulatory Framework, administered on behalf of the Home Secretary by the Community Justice National Training Organisation (CJNTO). These documents are reviewed at intervals to ensure that the curriculum is updated to address current best practice. The programmes are subject to regular inspections conducted jointly by the CJNTO and Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Probation (HMIP).

    In addition, the Probation Service has increased the number of Probation Service Officers and other staff to 8,282 in 2002 from 6,612 in 1998.

    Staff involved in the delivery of Accredited programmes are provided with appropriate training that is subject to rigorous quality assurance as determined by the Joint Accreditation Panel at the point of programme approval.

    Probation areas provide this and other related training via local and regional training units.

    Property Crime
    Lynne Jones
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what his estimate is of the proportion of property crime related to the need of the perpetrator to support illegal drug use in each of the last five years. [98174]

    Mr. Bob Ainsworth
    Recorded crime figures include statistics on drugs offences, such as possession, and on acquisitive crimes, such as burglary, but do not record whether the latter are related to an offender's drug habits.

    However, the New English and Welsh Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (NEW-ADAM) research programme, which involves interviewing and drug testing those arrested by the police, confirms a link between drug misuse and acquisitive crime, including property crimes. Analysis of the data from the first eight sites in the survey, collected during 1999–2000, shows that 65 per cent. of arrestees provided a urine sample that tested positive for one or more illegal drug. The
    408W
    analysis also shows that up to 29 per cent. of arrestees tested positive for opiates (including heroin) and/or cocaine (including crack).

    As a guide to the proportion of crime that is drug-related, analysis of the NEW-ADAM self-report data indicates that while only 21 per cent. of non-drug using arrestees reported having previously offended in the past 12 months, this figure rises to 75 per cent. for those arrestees who use heroin and/or cocaine/crack. Moreover, while users of both heroin and cocaine/crack represented just under one-quarter of all arrestees interviewed, they were responsible for more than three-fifths of all the illegal income reported.

    In support of this, 55 per cent. of arrestees who reported using one or more drugs in the last 12 months and committing one or more acquisitive crimes, acknowledged a link between their drug use and their offending behaviour. This proportion rose to 78 per cent. for arrestees who said they had used heroin and cocaine/crack.

    Recidivism
    Mr. Gibb
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the relationship between Class A drug addiction and recidivism among criminal offenders [98138]

    Mr. Bob Ainsworth
    Information is not available in the form requested. However, the New English and Welsh Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring research programme, which involves interviewing and drug testing those arrested by the police at 16 sites throughout England and Wales, currently provides estimates of repeat offending by drug misusing offenders. Repeat offending drug misusing offenders are defined as the proportion of arrestees who are using heroin and/or cocaine and/or crack at least once a week and who have offended at least twice a month in the last 12 months. Analysis of the data from the first eight sites in the survey, collected during 1999–2000, shows the proportion of arrestees falling within the definition of repeat offending drug misusing offenders category was 15 per cent.

    Refuge Provision (Capital Funding)
    Margaret Moran
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what revenue funding will be provided to match the capital funding for new refuge provision announced on 11 December 2002. [98010]

    Mr. McNulty
    I have been asked to reply.

    The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister announced on 11 December 2002 that it was making available £7 million to the Housing Corporation to increase safe accommodation choices for women and children. This capital funding will be allocated to local authority areas where provision for victims of domestic violence is identified as an unmet need in a homelessness or Supporting People strategy. The Supporting People programme, which will go live on 1 April 2003, will provide revenue funding for housing related support services for vulnerable people, which may include support for victims of domestic violence. In addition, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister will be making available £70 million in revenue support for local

    409W
    authorities and voluntary sector organisations in 2003–04 to support their work to tackle and prevent homelessness. These resources can be used to fund support services for victims of domestic violence if this is a priority within a local authority's homelessness strategy.

    Terrorist Attacks
    Gregory Barker
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures have been taken to ensure the integration of(a) planning and (b) communications between (i) the armed forces, (ii) the emergency services and (iii) volunteer organisations in the event of an NBC terrorist attack in the United Kingdom. [96254]

    Mr. Blunkett
    I chair three Cabinet Committees, which plan the prevention and response to terrorist attack. DOP(IT)(T) which oversees work to strengthen the United Kingdom's defence against terrorism; DOP(IT)(R) which works to build the United Kingdom's resilience and ability to manage the consequences of major emergencies; and the Civil Contingencies Committee which meets in times of crisis to manage the response. Key Government Departments and representatives of the relevant emergency services and agencies, attend these committees. The devolved Administrations are also involved in these committees. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Policing, Crime Reduction and Community Safety, was given the responsibility, on my behalf, for Chemical Biological

    Persons starting probation service supervision by year: community rehabilitation orders1 with drug/alcohol treatment imposed under the Powers of Criminal Courts Act 20002 in England and Wales 1997 to 20013

    1997

    1998

    1999

    2000

    2001

    Residential drugs/alcohol treatment

    346

    299

    276

    236

    192

    Non-residential drugs/alcohol treatment

    1,039

    1,394

    1,590

    1,795

    1,133

    Drugs/alcohol treatment by/under qualified medical person

    631

    843

    1,131

    1,101

    793

    Total drug/alcohol treatment

    2,016

    2,536

    2,997

    3,132

    2,118

    1Community rehabilitation order is the new name for a probation order under the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000.

    2 For 1997 to 2000 this was under the Powers of Criminal Courts Act 1973.

    3 In compiling probation statistics, each person is counted only once in the total even if several types of additional requirement started in the year. For this reason, the figures quoted above may slightly undercount those undergoing alcohol/drugs treatment.

    Note:

    1. From October 2000, when the Drug Treatment and Testing Order was rolled-out to courts in England and Wales, the power to attach a drug treatment requirement to a community rehabilitation order or community rehabilitation and punishment order was removed. This explains the lower total figures for drug/alcohol treatment requirements in 2001.

    2. It should be noted that these figures represent those starting orders in the respective years, rather than orders made by the courts in each of these years.

    Source:

    Probation Statistics England and Wales, 2001. Table 3.12 (a) and (b).

    Persons starting probation service supervision by year: community rehabilitation and punishment orders1 with drug/alcohol treatment imposed under the Powers of Criminal Courts Act 20002, in England and Wales 1997 to 20013

    1997

    1998

    1999

    2000

    2001

    Residential drugs/alcohol treatment

    4

    5

    3

    1

    6

    Non-residential drugs/alcohol treatment

    165

    238

    238

    175

    143

    Drugs/alcohol treatment by/under qualified medical person

    92

    105

    110

    131

    71

    Total drug/alcohol treatment

    261

    348

    351

    307

    220

    1Community rehabilitation and punishment order is the new name for Combination Order under the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000.

    2 For 1997 to 2000 this was under the Powers of Criminal Courts Act 1973.

    3 In compiling probation statistics, each person is counted only once in the total, even if several types of additional requirement started in the year. For this reason, the figures quoted above may slightly un dercount those undergoing alcohol/drugs treatment.

    410W
    Radiological and Nuclear (CBRN) co-ordination in 2001 and a dedicated team of officials at the Home Office supports him in this work.

    The integration of volunteer organisations in response to civil emergencies of all kinds is co-ordinated through local authority emergency planning officers in accordance with the arrangements set out in the publication "Dealing with Disaster".

    We are continually learning and developing the best way to protect the United Kingdom from terrorism and to manage the consequences of terrorism, in whatever form it comes. However the Government does not give detailed information on CBRN capabilities, as this information could be useful to terrorists.

    Treatment Orders
    Lynne Jones
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many treatment orders have been given to people with alcoholism in each of the last five years. [98175]

    Mr. Bob Ainsworth
    Powers to impose a drug and/or alcohol treatment requirement, as part of a community rehabilitation order or a community punishment and rehabilitation order, were contained in the Powers of Criminal Courts Act 1973, now the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000. However, statistics for this do not differentiate between alcohol and drugs.

    The table gives figures for the numbers starting community rehabilitation orders and community punishment and rehabilitation orders that contain a drug and/or alcohol element for the years 1997 to 2001.
    411W
    Note:

    1. From October 2000, when the Drug Treatment and Testing Order was rolled-out to courts in England and Wales, the power to attach a drug treatment requirement to a community rehabilitation order or community rehabilitation and punishment order was removed. This explains the lower total figures for drug/alcohol treatment requirements in 2001.

    2. It should be noted that these figures represent those starting orders in the respective years, rather than orders made by the courts in each of these years.

    Source:

    Probation Statistics England and Wales, 2001. Table 3.12 (a) and (b).

    Vulnerable Prisoners
    Mr. Cox
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) men and (b) women are being held in vulnerable prisoner units in prisons in England and Wales. [96246]

    Hilary Benn
    The number of male prisoners being held in vulnerable prisoner units in prisons in England and Wales was about 3,800 on 31 December 2002. There are no vulnerable prisoner units for women because the number of female prisoners requiring the specialist facilities that such units would provide is minimal and Governors will make specific arrangements for individuals locally.

  MINISTER FOR WOMEN

    Equal Pay
    Miss McIntosh
    To ask the Minister for Women if she will make a statement on the pay gap between women and men. [97717]

    Ms Hewitt
    The pay gap between women and men currently stands at 19 per cent., down from 30 per cent. in 1975 when the Equal Pay Act came into force. The Government are taking action to tackle the complex underlying factors behind the pay gap, including promoting voluntary pay reviews and good practice on equal pay through the Fair Pay Champions and Castle Awards. Denise Kingsmill is chairing a task force "Accounting for People" which is considering human capital reporting by companies and is likely to have significant implications for women in the workplace. The Employment Act 2002 introduces measures to help parents maintain links with the world of work and better balance their work and home lives. These will help women return to the labour market and have a positive impact on the pay gap. The Act also introduces an equal pay questionnaire that will make it easier to tackle pay discrimination in the workplace. All Government Departments are committed to carrying out a pay review by April 2003.

    Equal Opportunities
    Miss McIntosh
    To ask the Minister for Women what measures she intends to take to encourage the promotion of women into(a) the board of FTSE 100 companies and (b) senior positions in trade unions; and if she will make a statement. [98059]

    Ms Hewitt
    I have welcomed Derek Higgs' proposals on how to widen the pool from which non-executive directors are drawn, which could bring more women into the boardroom. Derek Higgs made proposals for a more rigorous, fair and open appointment process. Subject to consultation on the detailed wording, the Financial Reporting Council intends to put the changes 412W
    to the Combined Code into effect on 1 July. A small group of business leaders and others, led by Professor Laura Tyson of the London Business School, is also being set up to bring to greater prominence candidates, including women, from the non-commercial sector.

    The Women and Equality Unit and TUC held a joint event in November 2002 which aimed at encouraging trade union women to apply for public appointments. This was part of a wider strategy to encourage women to see that they have the skills and confidence necessary to apply for senior positions in public life more generally, including within their own unions.

    I welcome the appointment in January of Frances O'Grady to the position of Deputy General Secretary of the TUC—the first time that a woman has been appointed to this position; and the appointment of Kay Carberry as Assistant General Secretary of the TUC, again the first time a woman has been appointed to this position.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Terrorism
    Mr. Lansley
    To ask the Prime Minister whether he has authorised military aid to the Civil Power in relation to the current terrorist threat to the UK. [98691]

    The Prime Minister
    Following a request from the police, the Government recently authorised a military deployment around Heathrow under the arrangements for providing military aid to the Civil Power. These arrangements have been used on many occasions in the past and will be used again in the future, whenever necessary, to ensure the security of the United Kingdom and its people.

  TRADE AND INDUSTRY

    Arms Exports
    Mr. Laws
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what her estimate is of the annual level of export credits for UK arms sales, in each year from 1990–91 to 2002–03; and if she will make a statement. [96816]

    Ms Hewitt
    ECGD guarantees in support of exports of defence equipment and services have been provided for the following amounts:—

    Year

    £ million

    1990–91

    778

    1991–92

    534

    1992–93

    1918

    413W

    Year

    £ million

    1993–94

    2112

    1994–95

    756

    1995–96

    893

    1996–97

    394

    1997–98

    727

    1998–99

    1,558

    1999–2000

    1,577

    2000–01

    2,556

    2001–02

    1,030

    2002–031

    1,598

    1To date

    Auditor Liabilities
    Mr. Cousins
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether she has plans to cap auditor liabilities. [99090]

    Ms Hewitt
    The Government are considering proposals on auditor liability in the Company Law Review and will consult on its own detailed proposals in due course.

    Burma
    Vera Baird
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) which British companies have investments in Burma; [97221]

    (2) what the value of UK investment in Burma, including transfers via dependent territories, was in each of the past two financial years. [97219]

    Ms Hewitt
    HMG has no reliable annual figures on the level of investment from the UK and the dependent territories to Burma. Burmese statistics, which are often inaccurate, suggest total accumulated British investment of about USC1440 million. The most significant British investments are believed to be Premier Oil's, which are currently in the process of being sold, and those of British American Tobacco. We believe that some of the investment identified as being British is actually foreign investment that has been channelled through dependent territories.

    Coal Industry
    Mr. Grogan
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the results of the consultation on investment for the coal industry. [98638]

    Mr. Wilson
    I intend to publish shortly a formal response to the consultation on the case for investment aid to the coal industry.

    An outline framework for an investment aid scheme was submitted to the European Commission on 19 December 2002. But a number of important details remain to be finalised, and these are now being worked on in the light of the commitments set out in the Energy Policy White Paper Cm 5761, published on 24 February 2003.

    Electricity
    Norman Baker
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what changes in unit payments for 414W
    electricity have resulted from the switch by her Department to purchasing renewable energy which is exempt from the Climate Change Levy. [96485]

    Ms Hewitt
    The actual average price of electricity purchased during 2001–02 was 4.6438 p/KWh compared to the normal price of 4.5978 p/KWh. This is equivalent to an increase of 1 per cent. in the average price paid.

    Entertainment
    Mr. Laws
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what her estimate is of the total spending of her Department on entertainment in each year from 1994–95 to 2002–03; and if she will make a statement. [92398]

    Ms Hewitt
    The Department of Trade and Industry's total spending on entertainment was as follows;

    £000's

    Year

    Numbers

    1998–99

    704

    1999ߝ2000

    887

    2000–01

    1,089

    2001–02

    1,165

    2002–03

    1,1931

    1 Estimate

    As a result of the implementation of a new accounting system and several Machinery of Government changes, comparable figures are not available prior to 1998–99. This expenditure was incurred primarily in the promotion of British Trade, Science and Innovation, UK Business and Energy.

    Fur (Labelling)
    Mrs. Brooke
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent research her Department has(a) undertaken and (b) begun to undertake to assess the amount of fur derived from domestic animals labelled in a misleading manner for sale to the public; and if she will make a statement. [98183]

    Ms Hewitt
    The DTI has received professional advice from LGC Ltd. on the possibilities for undertaking DNA testing of products on sale in the UK that are alleged to contain fur of domestic animals. The advice stated that it had not yet been possible to identify a testing method that could reliably determine the specific type of fur that a product contains—i.e. whether such fur has come from a domestic animal or otherwise. I am placing copies of this advice in the Library of the House. We have asked LGC Ltd. to advise us further on the viability and costs of developing such a testing method.

    We are also in discussions with other Governments who are seeking to undertake the same type of testing, to understand the approach they have taken to this problem.

    There are no regulations in place requiring fur from domestic animals to be labelled as such. Where manufacturers choose to label their products, they must provide accurate information and action can be taken to prevent misleading labelling under the Trade Descriptions Act.
    415W
    However, since it is not currently possible to identify products containing specifically domestic animal furs (as explained above), it is also not possible to determine when products have been mislabelled. The Government are working hard to overcome these problems to be able to determine levels of imports of these products, and to identify any labelling problems that may exist.

    Grant Allocations
    Mr. Chaytor
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many solar installations have been completed as a result of the grants made available by her Department; what has been the average cost of these installations to(a) her Department and (b) the recipient of the grant; and what carbon dioxide savings are expected as a result of these installations. [98669]

    Mr. Wilson
    By grants for solar installations we assume it is meant the £20 million First Phase of the Major Photovoltaics Demonstration Programme, which was launched by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on 26 March 2002.

    Under Stream 1 of the programme (small individual systems up to 5kWp), 171 applications had been received by the middle of February 2003, of which 45 had been completed. The average cost of these installations to both Government and the recipient is £7,241, as the grants cover 50 per cent. of total costs. Most of the recipients are private homeowners, but there are also a few small businesses, schools and community groups. For the 45 completed installations (average 2kWp), total carbon dioxide savings are expected to be in the region of 29,000 kg a year.

    Under Stream 2 (medium and large-scale installations from 5 to 100kWp), 90 applications have been made, half of which have been supported, but none have so far been completed.

    IT Contracts
    Mr. Sayeed
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will list IT contracts in her Department above £50 million in each of the last 10 years; what the inception date for each system was; when it became fully functional; when it became fully debugged; and what the cost of over-runs has been. [98999]

    Ms Hewitt
    The core Department has let one IT contract with a lifetime value of more than 50 million in the last 10 years. This is the ELGAR PFI contract for the provision of IT desktop, application support and development, and business re-engineering services.

    The contract was awarded on 27 November 1998 and the initial service became operational on 31 March 1999, as planned. System Acceptance testing of the new desk top service was completed on 30 November 1999, and the system became fully functional on 31 March 2000. Following user acceptance testing, the system was accepted by the Department and the system was fully debugged by 15 July 2000.

    There were no additional costs to the Department for over-runs on this migration.

    Redundancy
    Dr. Julian Lewis
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the remedies to UK employees of multinationals who have been made redundant without the required(a) process of consultation, (b) notice, (c) definition of the criteria for selection for redundancy and (d) evidence that the post has become surplus to requirements. [98251]

    Alan Johnson
    [holding answer 24 February 2003]: There is legislation in place to protect employees if they are affected by redundancy. Employees can seek redress through the employment tribunals or, in some cases, the civil courts.

    (a) Consultation—Employers in the UK are under a statutory obligation to inform and consult employee representatives about proposed collective redundancies—that is, where they propose to make 20 or more redundancies at one establishment within a 90 day period. The consultation must be conducted in good faith, and must cover ways of avoiding the redundancies, or of reducing their numbers or mitigating their effects. Employee representatives may complain to an employment tribunal where they consider these obligations have not been fulfilled. The tribunal can make a protective award of up to 90 days' pay to each affected employee.

    (b) Notice—depending on length of service both the employer and the employee are entitled to a minimum period of notice. Under the legislation this varies depending on how long the employee has been employed, from one week where he/she has been continuously employed for one month or more but less than two years, up to twelve weeks where continuously employed for 12 years or more. An individual employment contract may specify a longer period of notice. Employees who consider that they have incurred loss because they have not been given the minimum notice to which they are entitled under the legislation or under their contracts of employment, can bring actions for damages in the civil courts, or (if the employment has ended) in the employment tribunals.

    (c) Criteria for selection—In, a collective redundancy case, the employer must disclose to employee representatives certain information in writing including the proposed method of selecting the employees who may be dismissed. Failure to do so is again enforceable through an employment tribunal.

    (d) Redundancy is in principle, a fair reason for dismissal. However, subject to meeting the qualifying conditions, employees can complain of unfair dismissal through an employment tribunal if they believe that they have been unfairly selected for redundancy, that the employer otherwise acted unreasonably in dismissing them or that redundancy was not in fact the genuine reason for dismissal. The remedies available in a case where a tribunal finds in the employee's favour are reinstatement or re-engagement or a monetary award of compensation.

    Dr. Julian Lewis
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on her assessment of the relative susceptibility to being made
    417W
    redundant of employees of multinationals operating within the EU of (a) British, (b) Dutch, (c) French and (d) other EU companies. [98252]

    Alan Johnson
    [holding answer 24 February 2003]: Job losses due to restructuring or plant closure are reported all over Europe and recent examples of this include Dresdner Bank, Siemens and Mobilcom in Germany, HP-Compaq and Bull in France, Lucent Technologies in the Netherlands, Fiat in Italy, Alcatel in Belgium, and Santander in Spain. In some cases these job losses are part of European or global restructuring programmes, for example, Alcatel, Ericsson and Nokia. UK firms, like those on the Continent, are subject to legislation implementing the EC Directive on Collective Redundancies designed to protect employees affected by redundancies. This requires consultation of employee representatives before collective redundancies can be made. Consultation must be undertaken in good faith with a view to reaching agreement, and must include ways of avoiding the dismissals, reducing the number of employees to be dismissed, and mitigating the consequences of the dismissals. The detailed rules vary from country to country, for example, some EU countries have more lengthy consultation periods than others. The law in the UK provides greater protection in certain respects than that in other Member States. For example, Finland, Germany, the Netherlands and Sweden do not, unlike the UK, have a statutory requirement for severance pay. And UK law treats workers more equally in the event of redundancy than workers in Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Greece, Italy and Luxembourg where blue-collar workers receive lower levels of protection than white-collar workers. The system in the UK is relatively transparent and the costs involved for employers and the length of the process are predictable, unlike in many other EU countries. The Government believes that firms should not face excessive barriers to making redundancies that add to the uncertainty and time involved in what is a painful process. To do so could deter investment, and result in fewer jobs overall, not more.

    Official Visits
    Dr. Gibson
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what official visits(a) the Minister for Science and (b) the Chief Scientific Adviser to the Government have made in each of the last three years in their scientific role. [98966]

    Ms Hewitt
    My noble Friend the Minister for Science and Innovation and the Chief Scientific Advisor to the Prime Minister have both undertaken a large number of visits to companies, universities and organisations in this country and overseas.

    The overwhelming majority of these have been in their respective scientific capacities.

    Recruitment Consultants
    Gareth Thomas
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will list the other appointments the recruitment consultants used in the appointment of the Director General of Ofgen have advised her on; and if she will make a statement. [86203]
    418W
    Mr. Wilson
    Price WaterhouseCoopers were one of the firms of recruitment consultants retained by the Department on call-off contracts in 1998, and assisted in this particular recruitment. No central records are held on other appointments on which the firm may have assisted.

    Royal Mail Investigation Branch
    Mr. Swayne
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the future of the powers of entry, search and arrest employed by the investigation branch of the Royal Mail. [97787]

    Mr. Timms
    Responsibility for enforcement policy for criminal offences under the Postal Services Act 2000 (the Act) is a matter for the Postal Services Commission (PostComm) who on 10 January 2003 published a decision document and statement of policy on these matters. Under the terms of its policy PostComm would look to Royal Mail to take the necessary enforcement action where offences are committed in relation to its postal services under Sections 83–88 of the Act.

    Royal Mail is recognised by the Home Office as a non-police law enforcement body. They have no special powers to enter or search premises. Royal Mail investigators will only enter and search with the consent of the appropriate parties. Royal Mail investigators have the powers of arrest of a citizen as outlined in S24 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984; they have no enhanced rights to effect an arrest.

    Royal Mail Group plc has no plans to seek any changes to the existing powers that apply to its investigators.

  FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

    Middle East
    Claire Ward
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the progress of the peace negotiations between Israel and Palestine [98792]

    Mr. Straw
    A settlement of the dispute between the Israelis and the Palestinians would, we believe, enhance global security, including the security of both the immediate region and the United Kingdom. This is why the Prime Minister has led the way, through political and practical support for the Quartet, in working for renewed negotiation towards the realisation through the roadmap towards President Bush's vision of a two state solution in 2005.

    Mr. Brazier
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the United States Government on establishing a Palestinian state; and if he will make a statement. [98802]

    Mr. Mike O'Brien
    The establishment of a Palestinian state alongside Israel is at the heart of President Bush's vision of a final settlement, as set out in his speech of 24 June 2002. My right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary, FCO officials and I are in constant touch with US colleagues on how to realise
    419W
    that vision. We agree with them that the Quartet and its road map provide the right mechanism, and have given both our full support.

    Martin Linton
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will table a resolution under chapter VII of the United Nations charter to impose a duty on Israel to halt and withdraw illegal settlements in the occupied territories. [98805]

    Mr. Mike O'Brien
    We have no plans to table a UN Resolution on Israeli settlements in the occupied territories. Security Council Resolutions 446 and 465 state that they are illegal. The Government have made it clear that an early settlement freeze is essential to the continuing viability of the two-state solution.

    Our priority for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict must be the implementation of those Security Council Resolutions already passed; most recently, Resolution 1435, which calls for a complete cessation of violence, withdrawal of Israeli forces from Palestinian cities and action by the Palestinian Authority to bring those responsible for acts of terror to justice. The UK played a leading role in the adoption of this resolution. We remain committed to further Security Council action, wherever this will be useful.

    Mr. Best
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the Government's activities in seeking a Middle East peace settlement. [98414]

    Mr. Mike O'Brien
    We fully support the efforts of the Quartet to restart a peace process leading via the Roadmap it agreed on 20 December to a realisation in 2005 of President Bush's vision of a two-state solution. That support is both political and practical. We convened the London meeting on Palestinian reform and nation-building in January; it was a British initiative during the hiatus in Quartet activity caused by the Israeli election campaign. From 18–20 February we hosted meetings of the Ad-Hoc Liaison Committee and Task Force on Reform. We remain ready to do all we can to underpin and complement Quartet activity.

    Dr. Iddon
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the prospects for a peace settlement between Israel and the Palestinians.[98798]

    Mr. Mike O'Brien
    I refer my hon. Friend to the answer that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary gave earlier in the House today to the hon. Member for North Wiltshire.

    Syria (Kidnapped Israeli Soldiers)
    Mr. Gibb
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with President Assad of Syria regarding kidnapped Israeli soldiers.[98795]

    Mr. Mike O'Brien
    I raised this issue with the Syrian Foreign Minister during the Syrian President's official visit to the UK on 16 to 18 December 2002.

    Iraq
    Mr. Leigh
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Iraq. [98796]
    420W
    Mr. Mike O'Brien
    I refer the hon. Member to the answer given earlier in the House today by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary to the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake).

    Zimbabwe
    Mr. Bellingham
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the Government of South Africa on the search for a peaceful settlement to the Zimbabwe crisis. [98797]

    Mr. Mike O'Brien
    We have regular contact with the South African Government and have shared with them our view of the problems in Zimbabwe. We have stressed our deep concern about the humanitarian situation. We have made our position clear: we want a return to good governance, respect for human rights and the rule of law. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister last discussed Zimbabwe with President Mbeki at Chequers on 1 February 2003.

    Cyprus
    Mr. Dismore
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the progress of the Annan plan for Cyprus. [98799]

    Mr. MacShane
    My hon. Friend's timely question enables me to commend to the House this morning's written statement on Cyprus by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary. He praised the UN Secretary-General's skilful moves to bring the Cyprus peace process to a head, and explained what Britain is doing to help the UN bring the parties to agreement. A copy of this written statement was placed in the Library of the House on 25 February 2003.

    Mr. Love
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent steps he has taken to promote a settlement in Cyprus. [98804]

    Mr. MacShane
    I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave earlier today in the House to my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore).

    Mr. Cox
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what funding his Department makes available for projects that involve members of the(a) Greek and (b) Turkish communities in Cyprus; and if he will make a statement. [98093]

    Mr. MacShane
    The Foreign and Commonwealth Office provides and administers two funds which finance projects in Cyprus.

    In recent years, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office's EU Action Plan, with a budget of £100,000 per annum has been used to finance projects such as EU accession seminars and training courses, for both the Greek Cypriot and Turkish Cypriot communities. These projects have been run in conjunction with the British Council and have been very successful.

    Each year a portion of the Global Conflict Prevention Fund has also been allocated to fund projects such as training courses in both the north and the south of the island.
    421W
    The British High Commission in Nicosia has made a significant contribution to bringing Cypriots of both communities together in a number of bi-communal projects.

    European Security and Defence Policy
    Mr. Swayne
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last met his French and German counterparts to discuss EU foreign and security policy. [98800]

    Mr. MacShane
    My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary most recently met his French and German counterparts to discuss EU Common Foreign and Security Policy on 17 February 2003.

    Mr. Peter Duncan
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the future of the European Security and Defence Policy. [98801]

    Mr. Mike O'Brien
    The comprehensive agreement between NATO and the EU, reached in December 2002, ensures that the European Security and Defence Policy of the EU will be based on close co-operation with NATO. The Government welcome this strategic partnership in crisis management. The EU and NATO are now finalising the detailed arrangements to give effect to this agreement. The EU has already expressed its willingness to take over from NATO the stabilisation mission in the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.

    Iran (Human Rights)
    Mr. Pope
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next plans to raise the issue of human rights with his Iranian counterparts. [98803]

    Mr. Mike O'Brien
    Her Majesty's Government have an ongoing dialogue with Iran on human rights. I and my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary make a point of raising human rights whenever we see our Iranian counterparts and will continue to do so.

    Asset Recycling Programme
    Mr. Laws
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what his latest estimate is of the proceeds to his Department from the asset re-cycling programme agreed with HM Treasury for the period 1999–2000 to 2001–02; and if he will make a statement. [98440]

    Mr. Rammell
    The FCO achieved £90 million from recycling in the financial years 1999–2000 to 2001–02.

    Chemical Weapons Convention
    Harry Cohen
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether the prohibitions on the use of(a) riot control agents and (b) other disabling chemicals as a method of warfare contained in the Chemical Weapons Convention 1993 would apply to potential conflict in the Gulf. [98166]

    Mr. Mike O'Brien
    All States Parties to the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) have undertaken not to use any toxic chemical or its precursor, including riot control agents (RCAs), as a method of warfare. This 422W
    applies in any armed conflict. RCAs are defined in the CWC as any chemical not listed in a Schedule which can produce rapidly in humans sensory irritation or disabling physical effects which disappear within a short time following termination of exposure. (A chemical listed in a Schedule is one identified for the application of verification measures under the CWC.)

    Davinderpal Singh Bhullar
    John McDonnell
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the progress of representations to the Indian Government in the case of Professor Davinderpal Singh Bhullar. [98452]

    Mr. Mike O'Brien
    We have made no specific representations to the Government of India over the case of Professor Davinderpal Singh Bhullar. In conjunction with the EU, we have demarched India about their use of the death penalty most recently in June 2001. We continue to follow Professor Bhullar's case closely, and are in discussions with EU partners over possible courses of action to take. Foreign Office officials met Professor Bhullar's wife on 12 February to discuss the case.

    Defence Exports (India)
    Mr. Cousins
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what changes he has made to guidance on export licensing, with particular reference to sales of defence equipment and technology to India, following the India-Iran defence cooperation agreement signed on 19th January. [99076]

    Mr. Mike O'Brien
    There has been no change to the Government's policy for considering arms export licence applications for India in light of any defence cooperation between India and Iran. We continue to consider all applications on a case-by-case basis against the Consolidated EU and National Arms Export Licensing Criteria and the prevailing situation. All export licences will continue to be issued subject to the condition that the stated end-user will not re-export the equipment to a third country or end-user outside the terms of the licence.

    Departmental Consultations
    Mr. Yeo
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list consultations his Department has conducted since 1997; and when each consultation(a) opened and (b) closed. [97422]

    Mr. Straw
    The Foreign and Commonwealth Office has conducted the following public consultations since 1997:

    1. Panel 2000: Consultation Document. Presented to Parliament on 10 September 1998 and closed on 15 November 1998. The website address is
    http://www.fco.gov.uk/Files/kfile/panel2000,0.pdf

    2. International Criminal Court: Consultation on draft legislation. Presented to Parliament on 1 August 2000 and closed on 12 October 2000. The website address http://www.fco.gov.uk/Files/kfile/icc.pdf

    423W

    3. Private Military Companies: Options for Regulation. Presented to Parliament on 12 February 2002 and closed on 12 August 2002. The website address is: http://www.fco.gov.uk/Files/kfile/mercenaries,0.pdf

    4. Strengthening the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention: Countering the Threat from Biological Weapons. Presented to Parliament on 12 February 2002 and closed on 13 September 2002. The website address is:

    http://www.fco.gov.uk/Eiles/kfile/btwc290402.pdf

    Departmental Properties
    Mr. Laws
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what his latest estimate is of the(a) market value and (b) same use value of FCO-owned land and buildings; and if he will make a statement. [98377]

    Mr. Rammell
    The current Existing Use Value of the FCO estate at home and overseas is £1,026 million. The Open Market Value is £914 million.

    Mr. Laws
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what his latest estimate is of the(a) same use value and (b) market value of the FCO properties at (i) Buenos Aires, Argentina, (ii) Bridgetown, Barbados, (iii) Santiago, Chile, (iv) Alexandria, Egypt, (v) Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, (vi) Helsinki, Finland, (vii) Bordeaux, France, (viii) Lyon, France, (ix) Marseilles, France, (x) Paris, France and (xi) Strasbourg, France; what plans he has to sell these properties; and if he will make a statement. [98381]

    Mr. Rammell
    The existing use values (EUV) and open market values (OMV) of FCO properties in the overseas posts in question is as follows:

    FCO overseas properties: EUV and OMV

    £000

    Post

    EUV

    OMV

    Abuja

    7,400

    7,400

    Accra

    6,572

    7,670

    Addis Ababa

    7,374

    0

    Alexandria

    511

    511

    Ankara

    6,030

    0

    Atlanta

    902

    902

    Bangkok

    6,077

    14,088

    Berlin

    6,521

    5,385

    Bombay

    1,687

    1,687

    Bordeaux

    293

    293

    Boston

    4,087

    4,087

    Bratislava

    2,702

    2,702

    Bridgetown

    3,044

    3,044

    Buenos Aires

    3,427

    3,427

    Calcutta

    1,419

    1,419

    Guatemala City

    3,755

    3,755

    Helsinki

    11,276

    11,276

    Hong Kong

    69,550

    0

    Houston

    1,184

    1,184

    Kaduna

    400

    400

    Kingston

    3,247

    3,247

    Lagos

    20,900

    20,925

    Los Angeles

    2,645

    2,645

    Lyon

    0

    0

    Madras

    893

    2,078

    Marseilles

    362

    362

    Munich

    0

    0

    Muscat

    5,007

    1,325

    424W

    FCO overseas properties: EUV and OMV

    £000

    Post

    EUV

    OMV

    Naples

    0

    0

    New Delhi

    40,820

    7,023

    Paris

    62,497

    62,497

    Riyadh

    4,344

    4,344

    Rome

    41,784

    41,784

    Santiago

    6,308

    6,308

    Seattle

    685

    685

    Singapore

    45,246

    8,103

    Strasbourg

    580

    580

    Tokyo

    55,184

    0

    I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him today, UIN 98441, for details of individual properties at these posts which are in the process of being sold, or which are currently being considered for sale.

    Mr. Laws
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what his latest estimate is of the(a) same use value and (b) market value of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office properties at (i) Whitehall/King Charles Street, London, (ii) Hanslope Park, Milton Keynes, (iii) Old Admiralty Building, Whitehall, (iv) 1 Carlton Gardens, London and (v) Lancaster House, London; and what plans he has to sell these properties; and if he will make a statement. [98390]

    Mr. Rammell
    The existing use values (EUV) and realisable open market values (OMV) of the FCO properties in the home estate are as follows:

    (a) London Main Building: EUV £50 million, OMV £50 million

    (b) Hanslope Park: EUV £11.5 million, OMV £11.5 million

    (c) Old Admiralty Building: EUV £25 million, OMV £25 million.

    1 Carlton Gardens and Lancaster House are not owned by the FCO but leased from the Crown Estate.

    The FCO has no plans to sell any of its properties in the home estate.

    Mr. Laws
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to sell FCO properties in(a) Hong Kong, (b) Singapore and (c) France; and if he will make a statement. [98439]

    Mr. Rammell
    We are currently selling two staff flats in Paris but have no properties on the market in Hong Kong or Singapore.

    Mr. Laws
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which FCO properties his Department is(a) contracted to sell and (b) trying to sell; what sales proceeds are expected in each year to 2005–06; and if he will make a statement. [98441]

    Mr. Rammell
    The FCO has currently outstanding instructions to proceed to the exchange of contracts for the sale of six properties overseas. We have also instructed agents to offer a further 23 properties for sale. I am withholding part of the information requested Under Exemption 13 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information (Third Party's Commercial Confidence), as valuations remain confidential until contracts are exchanged in order to maximise the return from sales.
    425W

    FCO property sales as at 18 February 2003

    Post

    Address

    Sale considered or under way but not yet in contract

    Kuala Lumpur

    432 Jalan Tun Razak

    Nairobi

    2 Kenya Road

    Nairobi

    3 Kenya Road

    Port Louis

    Trent Lodge

    Pretoria

    218 Crown Avenue

    Beirut

    Abey Villa

    Tunis

    Part of Habous Field

    Gothenburg

    Residence Stenkleviden

    Madrid

    Avenida Ahones 9

    Madrid

    Chalet 33 La Moralejo

    Madrid

    Flat 4 floor 5 Cerro de Castanar

    Paris

    Flat 146 34 Marc Chagall

    Paris

    Flat 148 34 Marc Chagall

    Budapest

    Flat 1 Kikelet

    Budapest

    Flat 2 Kikelet

    Budapest

    Flat 3 Kikelet

    Caracas

    Office Torre Las Mercedes

    Guatemala

    Avenida 7ta

    New York

    4 East 66th Street

    Madrid

    Cerro de Valdematin

    Kiev

    Plot Redbouutnaya Street

    Street 9

    Lima

    Plaza Washington

    Washington

    76 Kalorama Drive

    In contract but not yet completed:

    Port of Spain

    36 Elizabeth Street

    Capetown

    91 Parliament Street

    Nairobi

    Maji Mazuri

    Amman

    Mufti House

    Madrid

    Flat 4 floor 4 Cerro de Castanar

    Bridgetown

    DS10 House 4 Square

    The target for the Third Triennium (financial years 2003–04 to 2005–06) is for £100 million of gross sales. The amount realised in each of the three years will depend heavily on market conditions and changing operational requirements.

    Mr. Laws
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what criteria are used to decide whether to possess an embassy or consular building in a particular(a) city and (b) country; and if he will make a statement. [98376]

    Mr. Rammell
    If accommodation is required in a particular city or country, the value for money offered by freehold purchase as opposed to leasing is assessed by comparing the costs and benefits of the two options using the techniques prescribed by the Treasury's guidance on appraisal and evaluation in Central Government (the "Green Book"). A decision to purchase a property freehold or long leasehold will also depend on whether the requirement is permanent, whether foreign governments are permitted to acquire such interests and whether, in practice, they are available on the market, and whether a purchase can be funded from the FCO's budget for capital investment.

    In addition to using Treasury Appraisal techniques when deciding whether or not to purchase property freehold, the FCO monitors the value for money provided by its existing freehold and long leasehold estate using similar criteria to check that the retention of an owned property remains a better option than leasing.
    426W

    EC Accession (Poetry on the Underground)
    Mr. Austin Mitchell
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what funding he has made available to London Underground Limited to display multi-lingual poetry to mark the 30th anniversary of United Kingdom accession to the European Community. [98475]

    Mr. MacShane
    A total of £15,000 was made available to cover: design and production of nine different bilingual posters; 2,000 advertising spaces in carriages for a period of eight weeks, and the design and production of 5,000 booklets containing 25 poems representing all 15 member states.

    E-mail Addresses
    Mr. Yeo
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs by what e-mail address members of the public may contact(a) his and (b) each of the Ministers in his Department; and for each e-mail address if he will state (i) the date it became active, and (ii) the number of e-mails received in each month since activation. [97464]

    Mr. Rammell
    All FCO Ministers may be contacted via a feedback form on the FCO website, www.fco.gov.uk/feedback. This has been the case since 1997. We do not hold statistics for messages received via this means.

    In addition, the Minister for Europe can be contacted on ministereurope@fco.gov.uk This address was activated in December 2000. Figures for E-mails received are:

    December 2000: 8 to February 2002: 124

    January 2001: 9 to March 2002: 100

    February 2001: 11 to April 2002: 116

    Mar 2001:40 to May 2002: 92

    April 2001: 34 to June 2002: 63

    May 2001: 6 to July 2002:91

    June 2001: 3 to August 2002: 55

    July 2001:5 to September 2002: 133

    August 2001: to October 2002: 142

    September 2001: 79 to November 2002:90

    October 2001: 121 to December 2002: 56

    November 2001: 193 to January 2003: 104

    December 2001: 82 to February 2003: 721

    January 2002:82 to February 2003:72

    1So far to 7 February 2003.

    European Constitution
    Mr. Leigh
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to ensure that a draft European constitution reflects Europe's religious heritage. [98042]

    Mr. MacShane
    The EU is a multicultural group of States with a large non-Christian population.Britain is itself a multi-cultural and multi-faith society. Any reference in the EU's constitutional Treaty would need to reflect this diversity, which is one of the greatest strengths of both Britain and the EU. That said, it is difficult to see what such a Treaty reference would add.
    427W
    Article 10 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights already states that everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion.

    Intergovernmental Conference
    Stephen Hesford
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he expects the Intergovernmental Conference on a Future Treaty of the EU to begin work; and if he will make a statement. [98068]

    Mr. MacShane
    The timing of the next Intergovernmental Conference has not yet been confirmed. The Convention on the Future of Europe is due to present its results at the June 2003 European Council.

    Malcolm Rennie/Brian Peters
    Ann Clwyd
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) whether his Department has made recent representations to the Indonesian Government about the need to co-operate fully with UN officials in connection with the investigation into the deaths of the two British newsmen. [98872]

    (2) when recently released representations were first made by Her Majesty's Government to the Indonesian authorities about the deaths of Brian Peters and Malcolm Rennie; and whether he will list those representations made before June 1996. [98870]

    (3) when his Department was first informed of the circumstances in which the two British newsmen died in Indonesia. [98871]

    Mr. Mike O'Brien
    We cannot provide details of what representations were made by HMG before June 1996 about the deaths of Brian Peters and Malcolm Rennie because of the disproportionate costs involved in researching the answer.

    Our Embassy in Jakarta reported on 24 October 1975 that five journalists from Australia had been killed during an attack on Fretilin forces in Balibo on 16 October 2003, and that the Australian Embassy had confirmed that two of the journalists, Brian Peters and Malcolm Rennie, were British citizens.

    On 30 August 2002, at the UK's instigation, the EU urged the Indonesian Attorney General to co-operate with the UN investigation into the death of Brian Peters and his colleagues. We will continue to raise this issue with the Indonesian authorities.

    Online Sales/Purchases
    Mr. Yeo
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what(a) products, (b) goods and (c) services were (i) bought and (ii) sold online by his Department in each of the last five years. [97465]

    Mr. Rammell
    This information could only be provided at disproportionate cost. The amount of fully online purchasing is limited, but for example we do currently buy some books, publications and technical supplies by this route. More generally we have increased 428W
    the amount of business that is carried out in part by "e-procurement" methods and this will be further expanded when the FCO's new financial management system comes into operation later this year.

    Overseas Students
    Mr. Laws
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many overseas students were awarded FCO scholarships in each of the last five years; what their country of origin was; what the total cost was of the scheme for each year; and if he will make a statement. [98437]

    Mr. MacShane
    In 1998–99 2,196 overseas students were awarded FCO scholarships, at a cost of £39 million. In 1999–2000 2,300 scholarships were awarded at a cost of £40 million. In 2000–01 2,470 scholarships were awarded at a cost of £45 million. In 2001–02 2,510 scholarships were awarded at a cost of –46 million. In 2002–03 we expect to award 2,574 scholarships at a cost of –47 million.

    These figures include scholars studying in the UK under the Chevening programme, the Commonwealth Scholarships and Fellowships Plan, the Marshall scholarships and Atlantic Fellowships. The cost includes contributions from the FCO, other Whitehall Departments and devolved Administrations, the private sector, and the higher education institutions.

    The scholars came from more than 150 countries, territories and regions. I will write to the hon. Member, with further information.

    Mr. Laws
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on his Department's policy toward awarding scholarships to overseas students. [98438]

    Mr. MacShane
    The FCO scholarships programme consists of Chevening scholarships, a contribution to the Commonwealth Scholarships and Fellowships Plan, and Marshall scholarships and Atlantic Fellowships for US citizens. The FCO believes it is in the UK's interest to attract top graduates and young professionals from overseas to study in this country. These individuals will go on to be tomorrow's leaders, opinion formers and decision makers in their own countries.

    The FCO is working with other Whitehall Departments and the Devolved Administrations, the private sector, and UK Higher Education Institutions to increase the number of Chevening scholarships as part of the Prime Minister's Initiative to increase the number of overseas students studying in the UK.

    Palestine (EU Aid)
    Dr. Tonge
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the European Commission regarding allegations of EU aid to Palestinian territories being directed into funding terrorist activities; and if he will make a statement. [98035]

    Mr. MacShane
    I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the to the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) on 11 February 2003,Official Report, column 726W. The European Commission took part in the London meeting on Palestinian reform on 14

    429W
    January 2003 where issues of financial management were discussed. The European Commissioner for External Relations, Chris Patten, has welcomed the decision of the European Anti-Fraud Office OLAF on 5 February 2003 to investigate allegations of misuse of funds donated by the EU in the context of EU budgetary support to the Palestinian Authority.

    UK Companies (Competitiveness)
    Mr. Laws
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what his estimate is of the expenditure of his Department, in enhancing the competitiveness of UK companies abroad in the latest year for which information is available; what contribution to this spending was made by the companies which benefited; and if he will make a statement. [98434]

    Mr. Rammell
    Enhanced competitiveness of companies in the UK through overseas sales and investment is the objective of Trade Partners UK (TPUK), which is part of British Trade International. The latest available figures for TPUK funding are set out in the table.

    £million

    Budget

    2001–02 TPUK Outturn

    Programme

    Expenditure

    61

    Income

    -2

    Administration costs

    DTI

    28

    FCO1

    136

    Capital

    Category of vehicle

    Number of vehicles

    Percentages replaced on an annual basis

    Petrol

    Diesel

    LPG/Electric

    Cars

    16

    12

    5

    6

    5-LPG

    Light Goods Vans

    14

    15

    —

    13

    1-electric

    Minibuses

    4

    25

    —

    3

    1-LPG

    Heavy Goods

    Replaced between

    Vehicles

    5

    5–7 years

    —

    5

    —

    All UK fleet vehicles meet current government targets for emission levels. 18 per cent. of our fleet is LPG/ Electric. Alternative fuel and improved emission levels are always a factor in decisions on the purchase of new vehicles.

    There is no standard replacement period for vehicles held by FCO's overseas posts. The timing depends on local circumstances and conditions including the availability of adequate maintenance facilities. The type of fuel used by the fleet of some 1400 vehicles is split between petrol (60 per cent.) and diesel (40 per cent.). Around 35 cent. of the fleet is purchased in the UK and good environmental performance was one of the criteria used to decide the award of the relevant contracts. Consequently vehicles supplied under these arrangements meet current government targets on emission levels.
    430W

    £ million

    Budget

    2001-02 TPUK Outturn

    DTI

    5

    FCO

    1

    1 FCO administration costs are shown for the whole of BTI. The figure cannot be broken down between TPUK and Invest UK funding.

    Note:

    FCO admin spend for 2001–02 represents the net operating costs as set out in the FCO Expenditure Allocation Report 2001–02.

    Vehicle Fleets
    Rev. Martin Smyth
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the annual rate is at which his Department and its agencies renew their vehicle fleets, by(a) volume and percentage for each category of vehicle, (b) type of power unit and (c) type of fuel; and what progress has been made on the replacement of vehicles on a lower emissions basis in the last three years. [96558]

    Mr. Rammell
    Reducing vehicle emissions is a key transport issue, which has been agreed as a priority across Government. Against a baseline year of 2002/03, all Departments are aiming by 31 March 2006 to reduce road transport vehicle carbon dioxide emissions by at least 10 per cent. and requiring at least 10 per cent. of all fleet cars to be alternatively fuelled. Progress against these targets will be reported in "Sustainable Development in Government" annual reports. The first full report against the Framework will be in 2003, reporting against the baseline year of 2002–03.

    In UK the FCO has a rolling replacement programme to renew its fleet vehicles. Details are shown in the following table:

    Our Agency, the Wilton Park Conference Centre, has three vehicles (two diesel and one petrol). Given the size of the fleet there is no formal replacement programme. Alternative fuel and lower emission options will be considered in future purchases.

    Venezuela
    Mr. Borrow
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action his Department is taking to promote political stability in Venezuela. [98781]

    Mr. MacShane
    We are in regular and extensive contacts with the Venezuelan Government and opposition, with EU partners and members of the Group of Friends supporting the OAS facilitation efforts, we have stressed the importance of respect for the constitution and for democratic principles.

    Visa Fees
    Mr. Laws
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what his policy is on the real level of UK visa fees; and if he will make a statement. [98430]

    Mr. Rammell
    It has been the policy of successive Administrations that visa fees be set at a level to ensure that the full cost of providing the entry clearance service worldwide is met from fee income and that the UK taxpayer does not have to meet any of the costs. This continues to be our aim. There is also a Service Delivery Agreement (SDA) with the Treasury that there will be no increase in the real level of fees against a baseline set in 1997. The increase in fees made in July 2002 kept us within this SDA target.

    Mr. Laws
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much money was collected in visa fees for the latest year for which information is available; and if he will make a statement. [98473]

    Mr. Rammell
    Income from visa fees in financial year 2001–02 amounted to £77,403,853.

  DEFENCE

    Anti-rabies Tests
    Mr. Peter Duncan
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence for what reason Dundrennan Range was selected as the base range for anti-rabies tests; what statutory agencies were consulted over the testing; what plans there are for further such testing; and if he will make a statement on anti-rabies testing at Dundrennan Range. [88643]

    Mr. Morley
    I have been asked to reply.

    The trial was authorised by Defra Ministers and the Central Science Laboratory obtained licences from the Home Office for working with foxes; from the Advisory Committee on Pesticides (ACP) for the use of the experimental poison (T3327) and from Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH) to use means to reduce the risks to resident badgers on the study area. With agreement of MOD, the trial took place at a military training site with very restricted access to the public in Kirkcudbrightshire, Scotland. Local residents with access rights to the site, and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB), were informed of the trial, which was carried out between 27 August and 15 September 2002. The poison baits were laid on 4 September and picked up on 7 September. The trial was successful in obtaining data required and there are no plans to repeat such a trial.

    Biological/Chemical Weapons
    Lynne Jones
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what his policy is on the use by HM armed forces of biological and chemical weapons in future conflicts. [98837]

    Mr. Hoon
    The United Kingdom gave up its offensive biological and chemical weapons capabilities in the 1950s. As a state party of both the Chemical Weapons 432W
    Convention (CWC) and the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention (BTWC), the United Kingdom has renounced the use of such weapons.

    We have played a leading role in the negotiations both of the BTWC of 1975, for which we are a depository Government, and the CWC which entered into force in 1997. We are fully compliant with our obligations under both conventions and continue to press for their full and effective implementation. The Government's policy is to work toward universal adoption of the CWC and BTWC and universal compliance with their obligations. The strength of our political commitment to both conventions is second to none.

    Bullying (Bovington Camp)
    Mr. McNamara
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recommendations have been made to improve protection against bullying at Bovington Camp, Dorset since October 2002; and what compensation has been paid to victims. [97832]

    Dr. Moonie
    So far as I am aware, no recommendations have been made to improve protection against bullying at Bovington Camp, Dorset since October 2002. It is standard practice for each new intake of recruits to be briefed personally by the Commanding Officer within 24 hours of arriving at Bovington on the Army's anti-bullying policy, outlining complaints procedures and welfare support. In addition, on arrival all military instructors must be fully conversant with the Army's zero tolerance stance on bullying and educated to spot the signs of any such behaviour. The Army's policy on harassment or bullying is clear: all incidents and allegations are taken extremely seriously and a thorough investigation is carried out in response to all formal complaints. Furthermore, appropriate action is taken against any individual(s) found guilty of practising or condoning such behaviour.

    Information about compensation paid by the Ministry of Defence could lead to the identification of specific individuals. Accordingly, for reasons of confidentiality and the provisions of the Data Protection Act, it is not Ministry of Defence policy to release such information without the consent of the individuals involved.

    Crichel Down Rules
    Mr. Flook
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many times in each of the last 10 years the Crichel Down rules were applied by the Ministry of Defence; when the last occasion was; and in how many cases in each of the last 10 years MOD land subject to the rules reverted to the original owners. [98853]

    Dr. Moonie
    Information concerning the number of cases over the last 10 years where land reverted to the original owners is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. The most recent case where the rules were found to apply was to agricultural land at Wroughton and the sale to the former owner completed on 27 January 2003.

    The Ministry of Defence considers the application of the Crichel Down rules for all surplus sites as part of the disposal process. Where it is found that the rules apply,

    433W
    the site is offered back to the former owner at current market value. The land is not offered back to the former owner where, for instance, the use of the land has materially changed or where there are several former owners and a fragmented sale would realise less than a sale of the whole.

    Mr. Flook
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he will decide on the application of Crichel Down rules with respect to land which previously formed part of Marlborough at Falmouth, Cornwall and is now known as Swanvale OPA, Navy No. 2 site; and if he will make a statement. [98854]

    Dr. Moonie
    I currently expect that in April the Ministry of Defence will be in a position to write to those parties that have expressed a Former Owner interest, advising them of the application of the Crichel Down rules in this case.

    Defence Estates, an agency of the Ministry of Defence, are responsible for the disposal of the former Oil Fuel Depot (OFD) at Swanvale, Falmouth. They have instructed consultants, Drivers Jonas, to investigate the application of the Crichel Down rules to OFD Swanvale, and prepare a report. DE anticipate that the final Drivers Jonas report will be received in March, after which it will be necessary to take further legal advice before writing to interested parties.

    Daedalus Site
    Mr. Viggers
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans his Department had for the Daedalus site at Lee-on-the-Solent in(a) 1990, (b) 1995, (c) 2000 and (d) January 2003; and when the plans changed in each case. [99012]

    Dr. Moonie
    In 1990 HMS Daedalus, an operational Fleet Air Station, had been identified for closure as part of the Royal Navy's rationalisation of its fixed wing flying capability.

    In 1995 the site was in the process of rundown prior to closure, and early disposal planning work had commenced, involving complex legal and planning issues. A development strategy was agreed with the two local planning authorities

    By 2000 the marketing of the site had commenced, but additional planning and other issues delayed marketing. Against that background, and following the publication of "In Trust and On Trust: A Strategy for the Defence Estate" in June2000, a review of all Ministry of Defence establishments commenced. In July 2001, it was confirmed that the site had potential for future MOD reuse and investment. Part of the site has since been included within a private finance iInitiative to provide MOD service family married quarters. In January 2003 it was recognised that some peripheral parts of the site might be capable of disposal without detriment to potential re-use of the remaining core site by MOD. The master planning and marketing strategies to implement this were under consideration prior to the approach by the Home Office on 11 February. Tuesday 25 February 2003.

    Mr. Viggers
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans his Department has to construct housing for MOD personnel at the Daedalus site. [99013]
    434W
    Dr. Moonie
    The Defence Housing Executive, an Agency of the Ministry of Defence, is inviting PFI bidders to tender for the build of 148 houses in the Gosport area, to meet the needs of Service families. Part of the Daedalus site, sufficient to build these houses, will be offered to bidders. Planning permission has however been sought for up to 300 houses in case a further development for Service family occupation is needed at a later date.

    Frigate Decommissioning
    Dr. Julian Lewis
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which(a) Type 42 destroyers and (b) Type 23 frigates are to be considered for removal from the fleet. [98233]

    Mr. Ingram
    I refer the hon. Member to the answers my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence gave on 30 April 2002,Official Report, column 745W to the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) and on 7 November 2002, Official Report, column 458W to the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth).

    Dr. Julian Lewis
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether there has been an acceleration since the completion of the Strategic Defence Review in the rate at which Type 42 destroyers are expected to be paid off. [98243]

    Mr. Ingram
    I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 7 November 2002,Official Report, column 457W, to the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth). The Strategic Defence Review envisaged the progressive replacement of the capability provided by the Type 42 destroyer with a new vessel. The Type 45 destroyer is planned to come into service from 2007. On this basis, there has been no advancement of the Type 42 destroyers'expected pay off dates since the completion of the SDR.

    Gulf Forces
    Mr. Keetch
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether(a) mail, (b) E-blueys, (c) private telephone calls up to 20 minutes per week, (d) E-mail, (e) newspapers, (f) library services, (g) BFBS, (h) combined services entertainment, (i) Expeditionary Forces Institute, (j) operational fitness equipment, (k) rest and recuperation and (l) free laundry are available to all members of all forces deployed to the Gulf; and if he will make a statement. [95907]

    Mr. Ingram
    (holding answer Monday 17 February 2003: All elements of the Operational Welfare Package (OWP) listed are provided to all United Kingdom military personnel already deployed to the Gulf in support of Operations Resinate and Oracle. We are building up the OWP as quickly as possible for UK military personnel deploying overseas in preparation for possible operations against Iraq.

    HMS Sultan
    Mr. Viggers
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans the MOD has to develop the use of HMS Sultan. [98625]
    435W
    Dr. Moonie
    I refer the hon. Member to the written ministerial statement given by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces on 25 November 2002,Official Report, column 1–2WS. HMS Sultan was identified by the Defence Training Review as a potential location for the proposed Electro-Mechanical Engineering Defence Training Establishment. A final decision on the future utilisation of HMS Sultan will be made in the light of the options currently being studied in conjunction with industry.

    Imams
    Mr. Gordon Prentice
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Imams are attached to the three services. [98847]

    Dr. Moonie
    There are currently no Imams attached to the Naval Service, Army or RAF. This is due to the relatively small number of Muslims serving in the armed forces. However, the armed forces have a representative-Religious Adviser from each of the major world religions, including Islam, and are working with the Religious Advisers and the nationally recognised Inter Faith Network to establish a network of local religious contacts for service personnel from those faiths.

    Iraq
    Dr. Tonge
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what contingency plans he has to limit the damage to Iraq's power supply in the event of war. [97482]

    Mr. Hoon
    Any military action would be in conformity with international law, including the UN Charter and international humanitarian law. In all our military planning, very careful attention is applied to minimising the risk of damage to civilian infrastructure. I am withholding further information under Exemption 1 (Defence, Security and International Relations) of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

    Dr. Tonge
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment has been made of the feasibility of establishing safe havens in Iraq in the event of war. [97485]

    Mr. Hoon
    In the event of any military operation, we would take very seriously our obligations to the civilian population of Iraq and our contingency planning takes this into account.

    Mr. Keetch
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what contingency plans have been made for(a) civilian casualties and (b) humanitarian operations in the event of military action in Iraq; what role British forces will play in such operations; whether he has issued formal guidance on (a) and (b); and if he will make a statement. [97772]

    Dr. Moonie
    Unlike Saddam Hussein, the United Kingdom takes very seriously its current and potential responsibilities towards the Iraqi people. In the event of conflict, United Kingdom forces will take the utmost care to minimise the risk to the civilian population through the careful choice of targets and the selection of weapons appropriate to those targets.
    436W
    Although it is to be hoped that Iraq may yet choose to comply fully with UNSCR 1441, detailed contingency planning is underway to take into account the humanitarian consequences of any potential conflict. Formal guidance will be issued in the unfortunate circumstance that it becomes necessary to do so.

    Mr. Bellingham
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he has had with(a) the US Administration and (b) others concerning the protection and preservation of Iraq's ancient cities and monuments in the event of military conflict in the Gulf; and if he will make a statement. [97871]

    Mr. Hoon
    Any military action would be in conformity with international law, including the UN Charter and international humanitarian law. In all our military planning, very careful attention is applied to minimising the risk of damage to all civilian sites. I am withholding further information under Exemption 1 (Defence, Security and International Relations) of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

    Joint UAV Experimentation Project
    Mr. Cousins
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the(a) remit, (b) timetable, and (c) proposed expenditure for the Joint UAV Experimentation Project is.[99072]

    Mr. Ingram
    The Joint UAV Experimentation Programme (JUEP) will explore the potential of UAVs to significantly enhance future military capability. A variety of activities will be undertaken, ranging from computer modelling and simulation to hands on experience of complete UAV systems operating as part of multi-national exercises. It is intended to establish an initial JUEP capability in 2003. Costs are yet to be established, but total expenditure is likely to be in the region of £65 million over a three-year period.

    Medical Reservists
    Mr. Jenkin
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many medical regular reserves are(a) serving on operations; and (b) eligible for call up. [91518]

    Dr. Moonie
    [holding answer Monday 20 January 2003]: As at 17 February 2003, there were two medical regular reservists serving on operations.

    As at 1 January 2003, 2,016 medical regular reservists in the Army and Royal Air Force were eligible for call-out. As at 15 January 2003, 445 medical regular reservists in the Royal Navy were eligible for call-out.

    Terrorism
    Mr. Lansley
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) on how many occasions since 1 May 1997 the Government have authorised military aid to the Civil Power in relation to the mainland of Great Britain; and by what means in each case Parliament was so informed; [98687]

    (2) when he most recently signed an order authorising military aid to the Civil Power; [98689]
    437W
    (3) what steps he is required to take to inform Parliament that the Government has authorised military aid to the Civil Power; [98688]

    (4) whether he has authorised military aid to the Civil Power in relation to combating current terrorist threats to the United Kingdom. [98690]

    Mr. Ingram
    In common with all armed forces deployments, the provision of Military Aid to the Civil Power (MACP) is authorised by a Minister within the Ministry of Defence, following a request from the police. The legal basis for this is the common law duty of every citizen to provide reasonable support to the police should they request it. The primacy of the police is recognised at all times. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has, of course, overall responsibility for the police and for security in the United Kingdom. There is consequently close and continuous consultation between the Ministry of Defence and the Home Office concerning the provision of this support.

    Support is, for the most part, routine and is linked to active police investigations and operations. By far the largest single category concerns explosive devices. Excluding Northern Ireland, there were 957 occasions in 2001 when experts from the armed forces were asked by the police to provide support in the investigation of improvised explosive devices, and 431 occasions in 2002. The provision of other support, the nature of which varies considerably, is authorised on a case by case basis. On average between 30 and 40 of these requests are authorised each year, a small proportion of which are related to the terrorist threat.

    There is no specific requirement to inform Parliament on each occasion support is authorised, and in view of the sensitivity of many police operations, it would be wrong to make public all the details of the support being provided.

    Ministerial Meetings
    Keith Vaz
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he last met Mr. Donald Rumsfeld.[98974]

    Mr. Hoon
    I last met Donald Rumsfeld on Wednesday 12 February 2003.

    Nimrod/Astute Programmes
    Mr. Bellingham
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to the answer of 23 January 2003 to the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth),Official Report, column 52W, what progress he has made with BAE Systems in resolving the outstanding financial issues arising from the Nimrod and Astute programmes. [98581]

    Mr. Hoon
    As my noble Friend Lord Bach announced in another place on 19 February 2003,Official Report, column WA175–77, the Government have reached agreement with BAE Systems on the way ahead for these two strategically important defence projects. We have agreed a new structure for the two contracts which reduces risk, while placing new incentives on the company to perform. This will, however, involve a rise in the overall expected cost to completion and further delays to the in-service dates of the two projects.
    438W
    For the Nimrod MRA4 project, which was originally won by British Aerospace (now BAE Systems) in open competition in 1996, the company has announced that it will be making a provision of £500 million against the project this year in its preliminary results for 2002. This is in addition to a previous provision of £300 million made in the company's 2000 results. For our part, the Government have agreed to delay the start of series production until we have seen demonstrated performance from the first three aircraft, and to increase our funding of the project by around £270 million, subject to final negotiations. This covers our share of restructuring the programme and will result in the achievement of an in-service date by 2009, defined as delivery of the sixth series production aircraft. As a result of the delay to the start of production, we now have the option of considering an increase in the aircraft's capability to meet the defence requirements of the 21st century. We have already introduced improvements to existing Nimrod MR2 aircraft which use some of the technology planned for the new MRA4 aircraft, thereby both reducing risk in the new programme and increasing existing capability.

    The starting point for the Astute class attack submarine project was different. The original contract was based on a single source supplier, namely GEC-Marconi (which subsequently merged with British Aerospace to form BAE Systems) as the only United Kingdom provider of this unique defence capability. We sought to establish a fair price, given the economic conditions, and agreed joint assumptions on an open book basis at the time of contract signature in March 1997 on how the project would be delivered. These related, in part, to the benefits to be derived from the first comprehensive application of computer aided design (CAD) techniques to United Kingdom submarines. This will deliver significant advantages in the future, but its benefits have proved more difficult to realise on a programme of this complexity than either we, or the company, had assumed. We now know that the introduction of CAD requires more time and effort than either of us had originally anticipated. As a result, the Government have agreed to increase our funding by around £430 million, subject to final negotiations, as against an increased contribution by the company of £250 million which it has announced will be included as a provision in its preliminary results for 2002. These increases reflect the Government's acceptance of a share of the responsibility along with BAE Systems for the underestimate of the required effort and the consequent design delays. They also cover costs incurred through restructuring and other revisions to the project, and will result in the first of class coming into service by 2008. In the light of what we now know about the costs and benefits of CAD, we are confident that the new deal represents a good deal for the taxpayer and will provide outstanding new generation attack submarines for the Royal Navy.

    This agreement has been reached following intensive negotiations, carried out in a constructive and cooperative spirit since the autumn. Both the Government and BAE Systems agree that the priority now is to put these difficulties behind us. We have agreed with the company that we will introduce new methods of project control and reporting on these and other projects. The exact details of the agreement required to establish

    439W
    formally the new financial structure and the revised in-service dates still need to be agreed. This should take several months and the Government will report further to the House when this has been achieved.

    Overall, we expect the additional cost to the Government of these two contracts to be around £700 million, although significant additional Ministry of Defence expenditure will not begin until 2008 and will be spread over the following years. The scale of the financial consequences now announced by the company demonstrates that it accepts responsibility for its share of the serious difficulties that have arisen on these two immensely complex and demanding programmes. It is, however, appropriate, for the reasons that I have set out, that the Government should make these additional contributions to the Nimrod and Astute contracts. The unique military capabilities represented by these two programmes are crucial to Britain's future defences, and there are no alternative systems capable of offering comparable levels of performance at economic costs in any existing projects anywhere in the world. The Government are satisfied that both the Nimrod and the Astute project represent value for money. We now look to the company to deliver.

    Procurement
    Mr. Liddell-Grainger
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the procedure is for emergency procurement in a deployment of the armed forces. [98296]

    Mr. Ingram
    The urgent operational requirements process enables both the acceleration of existing programmes and new procurements against short timescales to equip the armed forces for a specific operational environment, a particular threat faced or an envisaged operational scenario. There are also arrangements to meet surge requirements for stock and consumables. Further information on the urgent operational requirement process can be found at www.mod.uk.

    Reservists
    Mr. Keetch
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many(a) reservists and (b) medical reservists have responded to call-up notices in the last three months; and if he will make a statement. [97771]

    Dr. Moonie
    As at 14 February, 5,495 call-out notices had been issued in support of Operation TELIC. Of these, 513 were issued to medical reservists. On the same date, 1,765 reservists had been accepted for service of which 198 were medical reservists. For all other operations, 140 reservists had been accepted for service between 1 December 2002 and 14 February 2003. Of these, seven were medical reservists.

    Aircraft Carriers
    Dr. Julian Lewis
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) whether the proposed pooling of Royal Navy and French aircraft carriers for future European Union military operations will ensure that at least one will always be immediately available to the EU(a) in addition and (b) as an alternative to being available for UK and NATO tasks; [98230]
    440W
    (2) whether Royal Navy aircraft carriers required for (a) UK and (b) NATO tasks when already deployed on EU tasks would be made available for UK and NATO duties. [98231]

    Mr. Hoon
    At the Le Touquet summit, the United Kingdom and France announced that we would "develop the interoperability of [our] aircraft carrier groups, pursuing all areas of co-operation, in particular harmonising activity cycles and training". The aim will be to maximise carrier availability over the activity cycle. Aircraft carriers available on this basis might participate in national, coalition, NATO or EU-led operations, but will remain national assets. Decisions on the deployment of national assets for operations will continue to be for the nation concerned.

    The Government make decisions on the deployment (and redeployment) of UK forces on operations on a case-by-case basis. These judgments are based on factors such as operational need, what forces we and others have to offer and any international treaty obligations that may be relevant, with NATO remaining as the foundation of our collective defence.

    Telephone Helplines
    Mr. Lazarowicz
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many telephone helplines are sponsored by his Department; and which, of these helplines are charged at(a) national rate, (b) premium rate and (c) local rate. [95720]

    Dr. Moonie
    The Ministry of Defence sponsors many telephone helplines, covering a wide variety of subjects. The primary helplines for all general inquiries are the MOD Public Enquiry Office on 0870 607 4455 and the Welsh Language Public Enquiry Office on 01554 821 413. Both of these numbers are charged at the national rate.

    The main helplines which provide advice on specific subjects are:

    Helpline

    Number

    Charged at

    Low Flying Helpdesk

    020 7218 6020

    National rate

    Gulf Veterans Advice Unit

    0800 169 4495

    Freephone

    020 7395 2375

    National rate

    Medical Assessment Programme Helpline

    0800 169 5401

    Freephone

    Porton Down Volunteers Helpline

    0800 783 2521

    Freephone

    Veterans Agency Helpline

    0800 169 2277

    Freephone

    Defence Vetting Agency Helpline

    01904 662 644

    National rate

    Defence Suppliers Service Helpline

    0117 913 2844

    National rate

    0800 282 324

    Freephone

    Royal Navy recruiting helpline

    0845 607 5555

    Local rate

    Army recruiting helpline

    08457 300 111

    Local rate

    RAF recruiting helpline

    0845 605 5555

    Local rate

    TA recruiting helpline

    0845 605 5555

    Local rate

    Meteorological Office helpline

    0845 300 0300

    Local rate

    441W

    Helpline

    Number

    Charged at

    Defence Estates—

    Disposal of MOD Land

    0121 311 2015

    National rate

    SaBRE (Support Britain's Reservists And Employers)

    0800 389 5459

    Freephone

    The above list is not exhaustive and does not include those helplines created specifically for serving military and civilian personnel and their dependants. Nor does it include those helplines that may from time to time be administered by individual units or establishments to provide advice on local or short term issues. Information on this is not held centrally and could be provided only with disproportionate cost.

    Type 23 Frigates
    Dr. Julian Lewis
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to his answer of 3 February 2003,Official Report, column 68W, on the Type 23 frigate, if he will list the systems being considered to enable attacks by small enemy craft to be dealt with. [98411]

    Mr. Ingram
    Lynx helicopters and close-range guns currently provide anti-ship and close in defence for Type 23 frigates. The project to provide surface vessels, including Type 23 frigates, with an improved capability to deal with the threat presented by small enemy craft is in its very early stages. The concepts currently being assessed include small and medium-calibre guns, rockets and non-lethal means. This assessment phase is expected to complete towards the end of this year.

    Watchkeeper Programme
    Mr. Cousins
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he proposes to announce the shortlist of selected bidders for the Watchkeeper Programme; what sums were given to the bidders; and whether he is considering splitting the bid. [99073]

    Mr. Ingram
    My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence announced on 7 February 2003 that the bidders selected for the remainder of the Watchkeeper assessment phase were: Northrop Grumman ISS International and Thales (UK). To date, around £25 million has been spent on the Watchkeeper programme, and the contracts for the remainder of the assessment phase will be worth approximately £9 million to each bidder. We expect to select a single successful contractor for the demonstration and manufacture phase by mid-2004.

  CABINET OFFICE

    Civil Contingencies (South-West)
    Brian Cotter
    To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what civil contingency plans are in place for the south-west region in the event of a terrorist attack; and if he will make a statement. [99111]

    Mr. Alexander
    The UK has plans in place to maintain national security and protect the public. These classified contingency plans cover a wide range of 442W
    emergencies, including terrorist threats, and are based on established multi-agency local emergency arrangements. They are regularly tested, reviewed and updated as circumstances change.

    In addition, each administration region in England now has its own regional resilience team made up of emergency planning specialists. Through regional resilience forums, these teams will help co-ordinate emergency planning within and across regional boundaries.

    Government Shareholdings
    Mr. Prisk
    To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office (1) what remit the Shareholder Executive Unit will have; [991141]

    (2) what (a) organisational and (b) employment plans his Department has for managing government shareholdings in (i) the Royal Mail, (ii) the Royal Mint and (iii) British Nuclear Fuels; and what estimates have been made of the cost of such plans. [99143]

    Mr. Alexander
    The remit of the Shareholder Executive will be to work with Government Departments to improve their performance as a shareholder in a range of Government shareholdings in public and private sector companies as well as Government's more commercial trading funds. The Shareholder Executive will meet this remit in a number of ways. It will: scrutinise departmental shareholder resource requirements and assist in improving department's capabilities; help departments define their relationship with each company; set best practice standards and procedures for departments in their role as shareholder; and help departments distinguish and articulate long-term commercial and policy objectives for each shareholding. The Shareholder Executive will also become Government's centre of corporate finance and governance expertise, advising departments on shareholder-related management, corporate governance and finance issues as well as wider corporate finance and other industrial issues that arise from time to time.

    The Cabinet Office is putting in place arrangements to enable the Shareholder Executive to become operational as soon as possible. An open competition is under way for the recruitment of a Chief Executive, who will be accountable directly to Lord Macdonald and the Cabinet Secretary for the performance of the Shareholder Executive. In due course, between 10 and 15 people drawn from Government Departments and the private sector will be recruited to support the Chief Executive in delivering the Shareholder Executive's remit. The costs of running the Shareholder Executive are likely to be modest relative to the potential benefits arising from improved shareholder performance.

  ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

    Food Advertising (EU Funds)
    Mr. Rosindell
    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what discussions
    443W
    she has had with the European Commission regarding the use of EU funds on advertising food products. [98202]

    Mr. Morley
    My officials regularly take part in discussions with the European Commission in meetings of the Management Committee for the Council Regulations concerning the Promotion of Agricultural Products in both Third Countries and the Internal Market. Advertising forms part of the promotional activity permitted under these regulations.

    Agricultural Exports
    Mr. Roger Williams
    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what market research has been undertaken by(a) her Department and (b) Food from Britain since 1995 regarding the use of Foods from Britain by agricultural export companies; and if she will place a copy of those findings in the Library. [97869]

    Mr. Morley
    The Department has not undertaken any market research since 1995 into the use of Food From Britain by agricultural export companies. In 2000 research into the usage and attitude of their clients and other exporters was undertaken on behalf of Food From Britain. This was updated in 2002. A copy of the executive summary of the survey will be placed in the Library.

    Mr. Roger Williams
    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many companies used the services, by type, of Food from Britain in each of the last 10 years; and how many of those companies were(a) small and medium-sized businesses and (b) less than five years old when they first contacted Food from Britain. [97870]

    Mr. Morley
    During the last 10 years the approximate total number of companies using Food From Britain is as shown below. Of these at least 50 per cent. were small and medium-sized businesses. Food From Britain does not hold information on the age of companies with which it deals.

    Total number of companies using Food From Britain

    Year

    No.

    1992/93

    700

    1993/94

    1,200

    1994/95

    1,000

    1995/96

    1,000

    1996/97

    1,000

    1997/98

    1,100

    1998/99

    750

    1999/2000

    800

    2000/01

    800

    2001/02

    800

    Mr. Roger Williams
    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs pursuant to the answer to the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George) of 16 January 2003,Official Report, column 728W, on agricultural exports, how much Food from Britain charges companies by size for use of their services. [97933]
    444W
    Mr. Morley
    Food From Britain does not charge for services by size of the company. Fees are calculated according to a number of factors including complexity of the service offered and staff time. Membership of the Fast Track scheme, which gives access to a range of additional export services, is based on the export turnover of a company as follows:

    Export Turnover(£)

    Fee(£)

    Nil—250

    500

    250–500

    1,000

    500–1 million

    1,500

    1–2million

    2,000

    2–5million

    3,000

    over 5million

    4,500

    Associate member

    1,250

    Andrew George
    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs pursuant to her answer of 16 January 2003,Official Report, column 728W, on agricultural exports, how many companies used services provided by her Department's (a) agricultural exports promotion service and (b) Food from Britain in each of the last 10 years, broken down by (i) size by annual turnover and (ii) whether they were charged for those services in each of the last 10 years. [98012]

    Mr. Morley
    [holding answer 24 February 2003]: The information is as follows:

    (a) The total number of companies using services provided by the agricultural exports promotion service (e.g. participation in fairs and missions) over the last 10 years was as shown in the following table. The vast majority were small and medium sized enterprises. The companies were not charged for any of the services provided.

    Year

    Number of companies

    1993–94

    270

    1994–95

    230

    1995–96

    380

    1996–97

    190

    1997–98

    660

    1998–99

    400

    1999–2000

    190

    2000–01

    210

    2001–02

    360

    2002–03

    350

    (b) The total number of companies using services provided by Food From Britain over the last 10 years was as shown in the following table. The information is not available broken down by the size of annual turnover of the companies, although more than 50 per cent. were small and medium sized enterprises. Companies will have been charged for most of the services provided.

    Year

    Number of companies

    1992–93

    700

    1993–94

    1,200

    1994–95

    1,000

    1995–96

    1,000

    445W

    Year

    Number of companies

    1996–97

    1,000

    1997–98

    1,100

    1998–99

    750

    1999–2000

    800

    2000–01

    800

    2001–02

    800

    Andrew George
    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs pursuant to the answer of 16 January 2003,Official Report, column 728W, on agricultural exports, how much (a) revenue and (b) profit was raised through companies supported by Food from Britain in each of the last 10 years. [98013]

    Mr. Morley
    [holding answer 24 February 2003]: The income (other than grant in aid) which Food From Britain generates from the activities it undertakes is shown in the Annual Report and Accounts. The Accounts are laid before Parliament each year and copies are placed in the Library. The income in each of the last 10 years is as shown in the following table. Food From Britain is a non-profit making organisation.

    £ million

    Income

    1992–93

    1.5

    1993–94

    1.7

    1994–95

    1.6

    1995–96

    2.5

    1996–97

    4.1

    1997–98

    3.8

    1998–99

    4.0

    1999–2000

    3.7

    2000–01

    4.1

    2001–02

    4.6

    Bill of Rights (Animals)
    Mr. Hancock
    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if the Government will introduce a Bill of Rights for Animals; and if she will make a statement. [98101]

    Mr. Morley
    The Government have no plans to introduce a Bill of Rights for Animals. We are undertaking a review of animal welfare law with a view to modernising and consolidating them into an Animal Welfare Bill.

    Bovine Subsidy Scheme
    Mr. Steen
    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when the Rural Payments Agency will complete its review of the case referred by Mr. and Mrs. McCoy of Dartmouth regarding their 2001 bovine subsidy scheme claim. [99069]

    Alun Michael
    The Rural Payments Agency (RPA) received a number of representations about the penalties imposed and considered them in consultation with the industry, taking account of the advice and views of the European Commission. As a result, a number of categories were identified where a review of the earlier 446W
    decision was considered to be appropriate. Full details regarding the consultation and the categories affected have been sent to all bovine producers.

    The RPA aims to process cases as quickly as possible but has made a commitment to the industry to complete the exercise by the end of March 2003. Mr and Mrs McCoy's case will be considered under the review provisions and a reply will be sent to them by the deadline.

    The RPA is required under European legislation to cross-check bovine subsidy claims against the British Cattle Movement Service (BCMS) Cattle Tracing System (CTS) database. Discrepancies were found when checks were carried out on 2001 bovine claims resulting in a significant number of producers having penalties applied and also delays in making the subsidy payments.

    The schemes affected are Beef Special Premium, Suckler Cow Premium, Slaughter Premium (including the Veal Calf Scheme) and Extensification Payments.

    Bovine TB
    Mr. Wiggin
    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many bovine TB reactors were positive in(a) Herefordshire and (b) Worcestershire in 2002; and how many have been positive in 2003. [97967]

    Mr. Morley
    Reactors to the tuberculin test are slaughtered and examined post-mortem. Infection is confirmed by either the presence of typical, visible lesions of tuberculosis or by the laboratory culture of the causative agent (Mycobacterium bovis) in tissue samples. These post mortem examinations, carried out in abattoirs, are less than 100 per cent. sensitive. Failure to detect visible lesions or failure to culture the organism from a test reactor does not necessarily rule out infection with M. bovis. It would be misleading, therefore, to equate unconfirmed test reactors to "false positives" or "negative" reactors.

    The latest available data for 2002 show there were 892 confirmed reactors in Herefordshire and Worcestershire. The information is not available separately for each of the counties.

    Laboratory culture of M. bovis takes several weeks. Consequently data for reactors disclosed so far in 2003 is not yet available.

    Circus Animals
    Mr. Hancock
    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans the Government have to change the law relating to the welfare of circus animals; and if she will make a statement. [98100]

    Mr. Morley
    There is currently a review of animal welfare law with a view to modernising and consolidating it into an Animal Welfare Bill. The legislation relating to the welfare of circus animals is part of that review. I am considering a thorough overhaul of the present licensing system for performing animals including the welfare of animals in circuses and circus winter quarters. Officials have held discussions
    447W
    with representatives from the performing animal industry, welfare organisations and other interested parties about the need for better regulation.

    Coastal Erosion
    Mr. Liddell-Grainger
    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what work has been done by the Environment Agency in Somerset on coastal erosion. [98280]

    Mr. Morley
    Maritime District Councils are empowered to carry out works in the management of coastal erosion by the Coast Protection Act 1949. The Environment Agency does not have responsibility for coastal erosion.

    Mr. Liddell-Grainger
    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what funding is being made available under the Government's financial statement 2003 for(a) West Somerset District Council and (b) Sedgemoor District Council for coastal erosion. [98281]

    Mr. Morley
    Grant aid is made available by DEFRA to support capital projects carried out by the maritime district councils to manage the risk from coastal erosion, provided they meet specified economic, technical and environmental criteria, are on the Department's forward capital programme and achieve the Department's threshold priority score. The total allocation for all authorities for coastal erosion works in 2003–04 is £35 million. Responsibility for deciding on which projects to promote and their timing rests with the councils. West Somerset District Council has an entry for a study on DEFRA's forward capital programme for 03–04 but Sedgemoor District Council has no entries.

    Laptop Computers
    Dr. Cable
    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many laptop computers were used by(a) Ministers and special advisers and (b) officials in her Department in each year since 1995; how many were (i) lost and (ii) stolen; what their cost was; and if she will make a statement. [97498]

    Alun Michael
    The number of laptop computers used by(a) Ministers and special advisers was six and (b) officials was 1,835, in the 2001–02 financial year. In that year (i) five laptops were lost, and (ii) six were stolen; the total value of these was £18,675. None of the laptop computers lost or stolen was being used by a Minister or special adviser.

    The Department only came into existence June 2001 so the information requested can only be given from that date.

    Drainage Boards
    Mr. Liddell-Grainger
    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the powers of drainage boards. [98288]

    Mr. Morley
    The Land Drainage Act 1991 provides the powers and duties of Internal Drainage Boards who exercise a general supervision over all matters relating to drainage of land in their district.
    448W
    The detailed powers are set out in Sections 14, 15, 19–21, 25, 36, 55–57, 62–64 and 66 of the Act. They include powers for the improvement and maintenance of existing works, construction of new works, acquisition and disposal of land, powers of entry and the making of byelaws.

    Mr. Liddell-Grainger
    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the constraints are on the fund-raising powers of drainage hoards. [98289]

    Mr. Morley
    The Land Drainage Act 1991 sets out the financial powers of internal drainage boards (IDBs). Section 36 provides for IDBs to meet their expenses (net of payments to, and receipts from, the Environment Agency (EA)) by drainage rates and special levies. Section 37 sets out how these payments will be apportioned. Sections 38–39 deal with differential drainage charges which are set by sub-dividing the IDB area. Sections 40–54 deal with levying of drainage rates and related provisions. Section 55 provides powers for IDBs to borrow in relation to their functions under the 1991 Act or to discharge other loans. Ministerial consent is required for new borrowing. Section 56 allows IDBs to set navigation tolls. Section 57 allows 1DBs to seek contributions from the EA in relation to water from higher land or dealing with water before it reaches a main river.

    We intend to use the forthcoming Water Bill to restore the power for IDBs to borrow to finance contributions to the Environment Agency, which was inadvertently lost when water legislation was consolidated in 1991.

    Egg Marking
    Mr. Lidington
    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the Government's policy on the individual marking of eggs. [97712]

    Margaret Beckett
    [holding answer 13 February 2003]: In 2001 the EU agreed new rules requiring the compulsory marking of hen eggs. From 1 January 2004 eggs will have to be marked with a code identifying the method and place of production. This will improve consumer information and choice and will assist with traceability and enforcement of EU egg marketing regulations. We will soon be consulting interested parties on the format of the producer code. There is no truth in the rumours that each egg will have to be traceable back to an individual hen.

    Egg marking will only apply to class A eggs most of which are sold at retail level. Some 80 per cent. of eggs produced and sold in the UK are already marked under the industry's Lion assurance scheme. In negotiations, the UK successfully argued for the inclusion of a provision in the new rules to allow the marking of eggs to take place at any approved packing centre as well as on farms. Furthermore, eggs sold by the producer directly to the consumer for their own use (e.g. farm gate sales or at farmers'markets) will not have to be marked, nor will any non-class A eggs or those sold for processing.
    449W

    Equine Cruelty
    Diana Organ
    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what information she collates on the imposition of penalties for equine cruelty on a regional basis; and what plans she has to take further measures on equine cruelty. [98037]

    Mr. Morley
    There are no procedures in place for regularly collating information relating to the imposition of penalties for equine cruelty offences on a regional basis. Annual statistics relate to England and Wales as a whole.

    We are undertaking a review of animal welfare law with a view to modernising and consolidating it into an Animal Welfare Bill. The review includes looking at ways to improve the welfare of captive and domestic animals, including equine species, and to reduce acts of cruelty.

    Diana Organ
    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will bring forward proposals for an automatic lifetime ban on keeping horses following a conviction for cruelty. [98048]

    Mr. Morley
    The Protection of Animals Act 1911 (as amended) provides that the court may disqualify a person convicted from having custody of any animal for such a period, as it thinks fit. There is no upper limit on the period of disqualification which a court may impose.

    I am undertaking a review of all existing animal welfare legislation—including the 1911 Act—with a view to the introduction of a Bill that will consolidate and modernise these laws in a single Act. This review includes the penalties available to the courts. No decisions have been taken concerning the contents of the Bill which will be issued in draft for public consultation before it is considered by Parliament.

    Fishermen
    Ann Winterton
    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs pursuant to her answer of 6 February, Official Report, column 377W, on fishermen, what proportion of the aid that will be available for measures to support(a) the training of fishermen and (b) the diversification of their activities outside marine fisheries must contribute to a reduction of the fishing effort developed by the beneficiaries if they continue fishing on a part-time basis. [98597]

    Mr. Morley
    Grant is available for the training of fishermen in safety measures, under the fisheries structural fund. Payments are not conditional on reducing fishing effort. Assistance available from regional sources for supporting the diversification of fishermen's activities outside marine fisheries is administered independently of the obligations under the common fisheries policy for the limitation of fishing effort.

    Flooding
    Mr. Liddell-Grainger
    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what EU funding is available for flood defences outside structural fund areas. [98291]
    450W
    Mr. Morley
    No significant financial assistance is made available by the European Union to assist member states in the provision of flood and coastal defences.

    Miss McIntosh
    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement about how she will deal with future flood alerts. [98065]

    Mr. Morley
    With Defra funding, the Environment Agency has developed a clear national strategy for developing its flood warning capabilities over the next 10 years in order to deliver the highest practicable quality of flood warning service across England and Wales. It is anticipated that in order to achieve defined performance targets for an effective flood warning service to increase both its coverage and the effective action taken by recipients of these warnings that investment will be focussed on the following specific but inter-linked areas of work:

    upgrade and extension of detection and monitoring systems such as telemetry and weather radar to improve the identification of conditions likely to cause flooding;

    the delivery of an enhanced national flood forecasting system to improve prediction of the time, location, likelihood, severity and duration of flooding;

    developing a multi-media warning dissemination system to communicate flood warnings to "at risk" members of the public and to professional partners who need to respond (eg emergency services, local authorities, utilities, media and weather broadcasters);

    targeted public awareness programmes and effective marketing and communication of flood risk, preventative actions and appropriate reactions to warnings to achieve an effective response.

    Mr. Liddell-Grainger
    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the powers of flood defence committees. [98290]

    Mr. Morley
    Flood defence committees, whether regional or local, are executive committees of the Agency.

    Section 106 of the Water Resources Act 1991 requires the Environment Agency to "arrange for all its functions relating to flood defence under the following provisions of this Act and the Land Drainage Act 1991 to be carried out by Regional Flood Defence Committees". The exceptions are issuing of levies, making drainage charges or borrowing money.

    Regional flood defence committees are permitted to arrange for their functions to be carried out:

    (a) by a sub-committee, or an under sub-committee of the committee or an officer of theAgency; or

    (b) by any other regional or, as the case may be, local flood defence committee.

    Statutory local flood defence committees have been established in the Environment Agency's Southern, Wessex and Anglian regions and in Wales.

    Mr. Liddell-Grainger
    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what financial assistance is being given to the Environment Agency to help with flood prevention and relief in the Government's spending assessment for 2003. [98309]
    451W
    Mr. Morley
    The Environment Agency's flood defence function is funded mainly(a) from local authority levies which in turn are supported by funding from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, and (b) from Defra grant for capital projects for new and improved defences, related studies and flood warning. Additionally, Defra makes contributions to support the cost of agency national initiatives such as for the National Flood and Coastal Defence Database and on Catchment Flood Management Plans. Defra provision for 2003–04 is:

    £ million

    Capital projects

    64

    National initiatives

    5

    Game Licences
    Mr. Robathan
    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many game licences were issued for the 2002–03 season; how much it cost to administer the game licence regime in 2002–03; and what revenue was received. [98551]

    Mr. Morley
    [holding answer 24 February 2003]: The information requested in relation to game licensing during the year 2002–03 will not be available until later this year.

    Genetically Modified Soya
    Mr. Robertson
    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much(a) processed food and (b) soya milk, containing genetically modified soya grown in the USA, was consumed in the UK in the last year for which figures are available; and if she will make a statement. [98359]

    Mr. Morley
    [holding answer 24 February 2003]: Official figures on the levels of (a) processed food and (b) soya milk, containing genetically modified soya, grown in the USA and consumed in the UK are not available.

    The following table shows UK imports of (i) unprocessed foods, (ii) lightly processed foods (goods that retain their raw recognisable form, such as meat, cheese and butter, powdered milk, flour, sugar etc.) and (iii) highly processed foods (goods such as confectionery, canned meats, jams, alcoholic drinks, ice cream etc.) from the USA in 2001.

    Degree of processing

    Tonnes

    Unprocessed

    702,978

    Lightly processed

    404,537

    Highly processed

    1,246,311

    Crown Copyright

    Source:

    HM Customs and Excise

    Data prepared by Statistics (Commodities & Food) Accounts and Trade, ESD, DEFRA

    Grants (Farmers and Landowners)
    Mr. Drew
    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list for the latest year that figures are available, how many 452W
    grants for farmers and landowners have been given, broken down by (a) greater than £1 million, (b)
    £800,000-£999,999, (c)£500,000-£799,999, (d) £300,000-£499,999, (e) £200,000-£299,000, (f) £100,000-£199,999, (g) £50,000-£99,999, (h)£25,000£49,999, (i)£l2,500-£24,999, (j) £5,000-£12,499, (k)£2,500-£4,999 and (l) less than £2,500. [98608]

    Alun Michael
    The table breaks down the CAP payments made by the RPA in the EAGGF financial year from 16 October 2001 to 15 October 2002.

    Separate lines are shown for the IACS and non-IACS payments. In the latter category the beneficiaries are largely traders rather than farmers and the coverage is wider than England alone.

    It is not possible to show the number of farmers and landowners who received amounts falling within the bands stipulated in the question without disproportionate cost.

    Trader schemes

    IACS schemes

    Total EAGGF

    Nationally/EU partially funded schemes

    (a) Greater than £1,000,000

    29

    3

    32

    179

    (b) £800,000-£999,999

    20

    3

    23

    54

    (c) £500,000-£799,999

    66

    8

    74

    173

    (d) £300,000-£499,999

    107

    38

    145

    359

    (e) £200,000-£299,999

    115

    109

    224

    561

    (f) £100,000-£199,999

    232

    895

    1,127

    2,123

    (g) £50,000-£99,999

    371

    3,202

    3,573

    4,769

    (h) £25,000-£49,999

    563

    6,885

    7,448

    9,392

    (i) £12,500-£24,999

    704

    10,755

    11,459

    15,167

    (j) £5,000-£12,499

    1,456

    24,038

    25,494

    31,048

    (k) £2,500-£4,999

    1,572

    31,839

    33,411

    36,390

    (l) Less than £2,500

    83,757

    489,420

    573,177

    590,135

    Greater London Assembly (Financial Assistance)
    Mr. Cox
    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what financial assistance her Department gave to the Greater London Assembly in 2002; and for what projects. [95853]
    453W
    Alun Michael
    No financial assistance was given directly to the London Assembly by central Government Departments in 2002–03.

    The London Assembly is part of the Greater London Authority (GLA). It is responsible for scrutinising and reviewing the Mayor's exercise of his statutory functions. It has particular power to investigate, and prepare reports on actions and decisions taken by the Mayor or any member of the Greater London Authority. The London Assembly's specific costs are part of the overall GLA budget which is proposed each year by the Mayor is subject to the Assembly's agreement.

    The GLA grants from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister in 2002–03 as reported on the RA02 form are as follows:

    £million

    GLA Grants

    Revenue Support Grant

    659.641

    Redistributed Non-Domestic

    267.654

    Rate

    General GLA Grant

    27.950

    IT Contracts
    Mr. Sayeed
    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list IT

    Sailing date

    Total animals certified

    Where consignments were certified

    Animals rejected at certification

    Animals rejected at Dover docks

    Destination

    1 February

    1,260

    England

    0

    0

    Germany

    The sheep on the above sailing were certified within 48 hours of export and were sent to approved slaughterhouses.

    These figures relate to the numbers of sheep certified for export and are subject to revision and change.

    Over 30 Months Scheme
    Mr. Steen
    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the effect of the requirement to remove vertebral column from Over 30 Month cattle upon farmers rearing cattle in the West Country under the Beef Assurance Scheme; and if she will make a statement. [98357]

    Mr. Morley
    [holding answer 24 February 2003]: The requirement that vertebral column be removed in licensed cutting plants has created difficulties for members of the Beef Assurance Scheme. I understand that two cutting plants in Devon and Cornwall which may be able to accommodate cattle reared under the scheme have now been licensed by the Food Standards Agency.

    Rural Payments Agency
    Mr. Lidington
    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs pursuant to her answer of 11 February 2003,Official Report, column
    454W
    contracts in her Department and its predecessors above £50 million in each of the last 10 years; what the inception date for each system was; when it became fully functional; when it became fully debugged; and what the cost of over-runs has been. [99008]

    Alun Michael
    Defra has not let any new IT contracts with a whole-life cost above £50 million since it was established as a new Department in June 2001.

    Information covering earlier periods, or for Defra's Executive Agencies and NDPBs, is not readily available and could be constructed retrospectively only at disproportionate cost.

    Live Sheep Exports
    Mr. Prosser
    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many live sheep were exported from Dover to continental Europe on 1 February 2003; when and where health certification was carried out in respect of the sheep; how many of the sheep were rejected as unfit for the intended journey,(a) during inspection for health certification purposes and (b) at Dover docks, and to where those sheep were taken, and what the address was of the final destination given on the route plan for each of the consignments. [98520]

    Mr. Morley
    The information requested is as follows:

    647W, if she will list the main items of property that the Rural Payments Agency lost through theft in 2001–02, together with the value of those items. [98129]

    Margaret Beckett
    [holding answer 24 February 2003]: The Rural Payments Agency only came into existence on 16 October 2001. Losses through theft from then until end December 2002 are as follows:

    16 October 2001–31 December 2002: Loss of five laptops at £2,000 each and six mobile phones at £50 each, making a total of £10,500.

  DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

    Laptop Computers
    Dr. Cable
    To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many laptop computers were used by(a) Ministers and special advisers and (b) officials in his Department in each year since 1995; how many were (i) lost and (ii) stolen; what their cost was; and if he will make a statement. [98702]

    Mr. Leslie
    The information requested on the use of laptop computers in each year since 1995 is not available centrally or in the form requested, and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

    Since the establishment of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister on 29 May 2002 there have been four reported cases of stolen laptop computers, at a total cost of £6,038.
    455W

    Cash Incentive Schemes
    Ms Oona King
    To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will place in the Library a summary of the responses to the consultation on the removal of the requirement for local authorities to obtain consent to run a cash incentive scheme. [98530]

    Mr. McNulty
    A total of 26 responses, which were generally strongly supportive of the proposal, were received. A summary of the responses will be placed in the library of the House.

    Deprivation
    Mr. Gardiner
    To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what response his Office has made to the Greater London Enterprise Report on Developing New Approaches to the Measurement of Deprivation. [94522]

    Mrs. Roche
    The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has received parts of the Greater London Enterprise Report on Developing New Approaches to the Measurement of Deprivation as part of the consultation exercise on updating the Indices of Deprivation 2000. This report is currently being considered as part of the updating process.

    Empty Homes
    Mr. Clifton-Brown
    To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many empty homes his Department had five years ago, by region; if he will establish an empty homes strategy within his Department; and if he will set a target for reduction in empty homes. [92922]

    Mr. Leslie
    The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister was formed in May 2002. Therefore, we do not have information on empty homes from five years ago. The Fire Service College, an executive agency of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, currently has one vacant residential property, at the college site in Moreton-in-Marsh, which it envisages will be let shortly. The College's strategy is to ensure that residential property that is not required for staff use is held out for letting on short term tenancies. Its target is to ensure that it has no residential stock vacant for more than three months.

    Housing
    Mr. Andrew Turner
    To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what has been the ratio of population to(a) housing units and (b) bedspaces in each county of England in each year since 1997. [97407]

    Mr. McNulty
    This information is not available annually. Estimates of population per housing unit for 2001 will be possible later this year when figures on numbers of dwellings are published from the Census.

    Mr. Wray
    To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what proportion of new homes to be built in the UK will be transferred to the private renting sector; and what proportion will be built on brownfield sites. [98462]

    Mr. McNulty
    The information requested on the numbers of new homes available for private renting is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.
    456W
    In England, the target for the proportion of new housing on previously-developed land including through conversions of existing buildings is 60 per cent. by 2008. Latest available figures show that the percentage in 2000 was 60 per cent. and in 2001, 61 per cent.

    Housing targets for other parts of the United Kingdom are a matter for the devolved Administration concerned.

    Neighbourhood Renewal Fund
    Mr. Battle
    To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how much funding Leeds city council has received from the neighbourhood renewal fund; when funds were received; what projects have been funded and by how much; and which organisations are responsible for(a) managing and (b) delivering each project. [96968]

    Mrs. Roche
    Details of the Neighbourhood Renewal Fund (NRF) allocations made to Leeds city council are in the following table.

    The purpose of the NRF is to support the improvement of mainstream service delivery in deprived areas, contributing to the achievement of the Government's floor targets in the five neighbourhood renewal themes of education, health, worklessness, crime reduction, and housing and the environment. In partnership with the Local Strategic Partnership, Leeds city council has allocated NRF across these floor target areas as follows:

    Allocation 2001–02: £4,197,791

    NRF resources spent in 2001–02

    £

    Education

    1,724,472

    Employment

    960,729

    Crime

    366,866

    Health

    0

    Housing and Environment

    383,160

    Other

    41,140

    Total

    3,476,367

    Proposed spend 2002–03: £7,018,111 (including £721,424 carry over from 2001–02)

    NRF resources allocated in 2002–03

    £

    Education

    2,245,690

    Employment

    963,440

    Crime

    1,511,170

    Health

    414,600

    Housing and Environment

    1,307,200

    Other

    701,000

    Total

    17,143,100

    1 Over commitment to allow for slippage

    NRF is paid in fortnightly instalments with the Revenue Support Grant to local authorities. Payments commenced in June 2001.

    However, local authorities account for NRF expenditure through NRF Statements of Use, which are submitted to Government Offices annually in October. Leeds city council's NRF Statement of Use for 2002–03 is available on the LSP's (the Leeds Initiative) website.
    457W
    Details of NRF supported projects and activities for 2002–03, including those organisations responsible for delivery, are as follows:

    Floor Target

    Project

    Burglary Reduction

    Anti-Social Behaviour

    CASAC Target Hardening

    Leeds Watch Local CCTV Initiative

    Neighbourhood Wardens

    New Neighbourhood Schemes

    Youth Diversionary Initiatives

    Cross Cutting

    Community Planning—Locality

    Coordinators

    Data Mapping and Improved Information

    Environment Call Centre

    Leeds Mediation Services

    Neighbourhood Renewal Teams

    Education

    City Learning Centres

    Counselling Scheme

    Ethnic Minority Pupil Achievement (devolved)

    Ethnic Minority Pupil Achievement (retained)

    Getting Started—Nursery Nurses

    Integrated Children's Centres

    IT Access in Libraries

    Leeds Film Festival Children's Workshop

    Pupil Retention Grant (devolved)

    Pupil Retention Grant (retained)

    Study Support National (devolved)

    Study Support National (retained)

    Teaching Assistant Grant

    Teaching Assistant Grant (retained)

    Volunteer Reading Help

    Employment

    Connexions Programme

    Construction and Training Agency (LCATA)

    Job Guarantee Programme

    Leeds Development Agency

    Second Chance School

    South Leeds Family Learning Centre

    Health

    Hamaara Healthy Living Centre

    Increasing Exercise Opportunities—

    Mental Health

    Space for Sport and Arts

    Various Health Schemes

    Social Housing

    Beeston Housing Strategy

    Binyard Improvements

    Code of Standards Development Project

    Dog Fouling Initiatives

    Domestic Noise Nuisance Services (out of hours)

    Enhanced Street Cleansing Services

    Environment Task Force

    Extension of abandoned vehicle pilot

    Flyposting and anti graffiti strategy

    Home Maintenance Project

    Leeds House Condition Survey

    Streetscene

    458W
    Organisation:

    LCC—Community Safety Unit

    LCC—Community Safety Unit

    LCC—Community Safety Unit

    LCC—Housing and Environmental Health Services

    LCC—Social Services

    LCC—Youth Service

    LCC—Community Planning and Regeneration

    Leeds Initiative

    LCC—Community Planning and Regeneration

    Community Mediation Services

    LCC—Community Planning and Regeneration

    Education Leeds

    LCC—Childcare and Early Development Service

    Education Leeds

    Education Leeds

    Education Leeds

    LCC—Childcare and Early Development Service

    LCC—Leisure Services

    LCC—Leisure Services

    Education Leeds

    Education Leeds

    Education Leeds

    Education Leeds

    Education Leeds

    Education Leeds

    Volunteer Reading Help

    LCC—Community Planning and Regeneration

    Leeds Construction and Training Agency

    LCC—Dept. of Training

    Leeds Development Agency

    LCC—Dept. of Training

    LCC—Dept. of Training

    Hamaara Healthy Living Centre

    LCC—Social Services

    Education Leeds

    East Leeds Primary Care Trust

    LCC—Housing and Environmental Health Services

    LCC—Contracting Services

    LCC—Housing and Environmental Health Services

    LCC—Leisure Services

    LCC—Housing and Environmental Health Services

    LCC—Highways and Transportation

    LCC—Community Planning and Regeneration

    LCC—Highways and Transportation

    LCC—Community Planning and Regeneration

    LCC—Housing and Environmental Health Services

    LCC—Housing and Environmental Health Services

    LCC—Contracting Services

    Supporting People Scheme
    Mr. Burstow
    To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the balance between mobile and permanent staff servicing the needs of older people under the Supporting People Scheme. [97784]
    459W
    Mr. McNulty
    Supporting People will enable local authorities to provide user-centred, flexible services designed to meet local need. Local authorities are required to review all services (including those for older people) in their area between 2003 and 2006, to ensure that services meet the needs of users, are of high quality and are cost effective. It is the responsibility of each authority (and each service provider) to ensure that adequate staffing resources are in place to meet local need, and that the balance between the use of mobile and permanent staff is appropriate.

    £ million

    Programmes

    2003–04

    2004–05

    2005–06

    Total

    Housing Defects Grants

    0.4

    0.2

    0.1

    0.7

    Disabled Facilities Grants

    99.0

    99.0

    99.0

    297.0

    Safer Communities Supported Housing

    39.0

    10.0

    10.0

    59.0

    Gypsy Sites

    8.0

    8.0

    8.0

    24.0

    Estate Action

    5.0

    0.0

    0.0

    5.0

    Housing Corporation (Other Programmes)

    227.5

    226.4

    226.4

    680.4

    National Approved Letting Service

    0.1

    0.1

    0.1

    0.2

    Housing Action Trusts

    71.8

    43.8

    17.8

    133.4

    Home Improvement Agencies

    8.9

    10.9

    10.9

    30.7

    Rent Assessment Panels

    10.2

    10.2

    10.2

    30.7

    Housing Mobility Grants

    4.0

    6.7

    12.2

    22.9

    Best Value in Housing

    1.0

    1.0

    1.0

    3.0

    Private Landlords in Low Demand Areas-Pilots

    1.0

    1.0

    1.0

    3.0

    Tenant Participation

    6.1

    5.1

    4.1

    15.3

    Housing Publicity and Publications

    0.8

    0.8

    0.8

    2.4

    Leasehold Enfranchisement Advisory Service

    0.6

    0.6

    0.6

    1.7

    Valuation Office Agency Right to Buy charges

    1.8

    1.8

    1.8

    5.4

    Tenants Deposit Scheme

    0.2

    0.0

    0.0

    0.2

    Supporting People

    61.5

    63.5

    48.5

    173.5

    Home Buying and Selling

    1.5

    1.5

    1.5

    4.5

    Local Authority Funding of Pilot Lettings Systems

    1.0

    1.0

    1.0

    3.0

    BME RSL transitional funding for rent reform

    15.0

    0.0

    0.0

    15.0

    Total

    564.4

    491.7

    455.0

    1,511.0

    The "Other Housing" line in the table on page 66 covers all of the tabled items except for disabled facilities grants, which are shown separately in that table.

  EDUCATION AND SKILLS

    Class Sizes (Derbyshire)
    Mr. McLoughlin
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will list the class sizes of(a) primary and (b) secondary schools in Derbyshire in each of the last five years. [98887]

    Mr. Miliband
    The information requested is shown in the table.

    Maintained primary and secondary schools1; Average class size2, Derbyshire local education authority

    Position in January each year

    Classes taught by one teacher Primary

    Secondary

    1998

    29.4

    22.2

    1999

    28.2

    22.4

    2000

    28.3

    22.5

    2001

    27.3

    22.2

    2002

    27.0

    22.3

    1 Includes middle schools as deemed.

    460W

    Sustainable Communities
    Ms Oona King
    To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the other housing programmes identified in the table on page 7 of Sustainable Communities: Building for the Future are; and how much will be spent on each of these in(a) 2003–04, (b) 2004–05 and (c) 2005–06. [98516]

    Mr. McNulty
    Tabled are the "other housing programmes" identified in the table on page 7 "Sustainable Communities: Building for the Future", with planned expenditure for the next three years. Note that totals may not sum due to rounding.

    2 Classes as taught during the one selected period in each school on the day of the census.

    Source:

    Annual Schools' Census

    Classroom Replacement (Somerset)
    Mr Liddell-Grainger
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many condemned temporary classrooms there are in Somerset; and how many temporary classrooms were replaced in Somerset in(a) 2000–01 and (b) 2001–02. [98277]

    Mr. Miliband
    The Department for Education and Skills does not hold information on numbers of replacement temporary classrooms.

    Mr Liddell-Grainger
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what guidelines the Government has issued on classroom replacement in Somerset. [98283]

    Mr. Miliband
    The Department for Education and Skills has not issued guidelines for replacement classrooms. Somerset, in common with other Local Education Authorities, determines priorities for its capital budgets, on the basis of its Asset Management Plan, which should take Government priorities into account.
    461W

    Construction Industry Training Board
    Annabelle Ewing
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans he has to review the operation of the Construction Industry Training Board levy. [97911]

    Mr. Ivan Lewis
    The CITB's levy arrangements are subject to annual approval by Parliament. They continue to have the support of all the main employer organisations within the construction industry as a way of ensuring that the costs of training the workforce are shared by the whole industry. Also, as a non-departmental public body, the CITB is subject to quinquennial reviews of its function and performance. A review is currently underway.

    Drugs
    Mr. Hoyle
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many schoolchildren were excluded from schools for drug misuse in(a) Lancashire and (b) Chorley in the last year for which figures are available. [98225]

    Mr. Miliband
    I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) on 14 January, columns 573–74W.

    Mr. Hoyle
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what support is given to(a) schools and (b) pupils to tackle drug use. [98226]

    Mr. Ivan Lewis
    The DfES provides considerable support to schools to fulfil their statutory obligation to educate young people about drugs. In 2002–03, £15.5m has been made available via the Standards Fund to improve the extent and quality of drug education. Of this, £1.3m has been set aside under the drug, alcohol and tobacco education training package to support teachers' continuing professional development. We are currently revising and consolidating our guidance to schools to make clear the statutory responsibilities and outline good practice in drug education and incident management. This guidance along with the curriculum materials produced by the QCA and the learning and development website for PSHE will further help schools in this area. Additionally, through the National Healthy School Standard and local programmes support is given to schools in meeting national criteria in drug education.

    Through schools' pastoral support systems, pupils vulnerable to drug misuse should be identified to ensure that those who need extra help either receive it in school or through access to external specialist help. Connexions advisers, which all young people should have access to, also play an important role in identifying and addressing pupils' needs.

    Electronic Registration (Secondary Schools)
    Jim Dowd
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills pursuant to his answer of 4 February, Official Report, column 188W, what benefits were envisaged when the tender process was undertaken; whether this benefit was lost by its discontinuance; whether the cessation of the tender was in accordance with EC regulations covering these matters; how many suppliers were short-listed; how many of these were unable to accept the terms and 462W
    conditions and if he will name them; how many were able to accept the terms and conditions and if he will name them; what principal reason was given for being unable to meet the terms and conditions; whether issues relating to patents were cited; whether the short-listed suppliers were informed of the reasons for the discontinuance; and what ratification procedure will be used to assess applications from schools. [99110]

    Mr. Ivan Lewis
    The tendering process was aimed at reducing burdens on schools through establishing framework contracts with a range of suitable suppliers of electronic registration solutions to offerschools choice and a simple way of contracting with their preferred supplier. The decision to abandon the procurement exercise was taken because too few of the short-listed suppliers could meet the terms and conditions of the framework contracts, thus severely restricting the choice for schools. Information about these contracts and short-listed suppliers is commercially confidential.

    Tendering was stopped in accordance with all appropriate regulations and the schools included in the electronic registration project are now free to buy systems on the open market subject to ratification by the Department. Guidance on purchasing systems has been made available to schools and this, together with information on the process for the approval of systems is available to view on the TeacherNet website:http:// www.teachernet.gov.uk/Management/tools/ict/IMS/Electronic_Registration/

    Graduate Tax
    Mr. McNamara
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will publish his costings that underlie his estimate that the administration costs for a graduate tax would be in the region of £1 billion. [96671]

    Mr. Charles Clarke
    The estimate of up to £1 billion was not for administration costs, but for the additional upfront cash costs of implementing a graduate tax over and above the cost of variable fees and loans, as proposed in the White Paper "The future of higher education". The costs of a graduate tax system are greater for several reasons:The graduate tax would need to support both maintenance and tuition costs, and the upfront costs of non-means tested maintenance grants for all, to be funded by the tax, are considerably more than the cash costs of means-tested loans;
    Under a graduate tax there is no possible mechanism for early additional repayments. With our existing loans, graduates are making additional repayments to clear their debts faster, and this reduces Government's costs. In addition, some students may choose not to take out a loan, but to pay up-front, which also reduces costs; and
    The rate of repayment is slower for a graduate tax than for loans, and so it takes longer for the Government to reach 'break even' point.

    Higher Education
    Mr. Andrew Turner
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills pursuant to his statement of 22 January,Official Report, column 303, on higher education, what the evidential basis was for his

    463W
    description of universities having offered great research accompanied by shoddy teaching; and to which courses at which universities he was referring. [93943]

    Mr. Charles Clarke
    I was highlighting the new measures announced in "The Future for Higher Education" which are aimed at ensuring that teaching is of a universally high standard. These new arrangements will mean that reputation for research excellence will no longer be assumed to be a proxy for high quality teaching. Concerns about the quality of teaching were raised by students with Ministers during their visits to universities, and reflected in some reports by the Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education. The White Paper on Higher Education also identified a number of shortcomings in the way that University teaching was recognised, supported and awarded.

    Mr. Stephen O'Brien
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills pursuant to the answer by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury to the hon. Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien), of 6 February 2003,Official Report, column 396W, on higher education, what research the Department for Education and Skills commissioned to conclude that the proposals included in the White Paper would have a positive impact on the economy; and if he will publish the research. [99128]

    Mr. Charles Clarke
    We are confident that the proposals in the White Paper will have a positive benefit on the economy and more widely on the quality of life.

    Accepted applicants to full-time and sandwich undergraduate courses by area of home residence1

    Year of entry

    Students from:

    1997

    1998

    1999

    2000

    2001

    2002

    Lancashire

    7,750

    6,266

    6,660

    6,314

    6,670

    6,792

    Blackburn with Darwen

    2—

    591

    802

    847

    801

    869

    Blackpool

    2

    502

    554

    566

    616

    574

    The North West3

    26,385

    26,291

    27,253

    27,081

    28,332

    29,144

    1As a result of local government reorganisation, Blackburn with Darwen and Blackpool which were previously part of Lancashire, became separate LEAs in 1998.

    2 Not applicable.

    3 Includes Lancashire Blackburn, Blackpool, Cheshire, Warrington, Halton, Cumbria and Greater Manchester.

    Source:

    Universities and Colleges Admissions Service.

    Mr. Gibb
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what proportion of the planned increase in higher education funding is(a) tied to particular schemes and (b) for specified purposes. [98505]

    Mr. Charles Clarke
    The table on page 19 of the White Paper "The future of higher education" (Cm 5735) includes details of higher education funding in England from 2002–03 to 2005–06.

    Based on that table, the analysis in the following table shows how each of the spending categories contributes to the total increase of funding between 2002–03 and 2005–06 of £2.3 billion.

    £million

    2002–03

    2005–06

    Increase of 2005–06 over 2002–03

    $of total increase in funding

    Research

    1,910

    2,633

    723

    31

    Knowledge transfer

    62

    114

    52

    2

    464W
    The proposals were informed by a range of research that has been published by the Department, by academics and by other organisations including:
    other Government Departments including the Department for Trade and Industry (DTI),
    the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE),
    the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD),
    Universities and Colleges Admissions Service (UCAS),
    Universities UK,
    Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI); and
    the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IPS).

    In many cases, references to the underpinning research are made in footnotes to the White Paper; and the research itself can be found in these organisations'publicly available websites. The Department's own research publications are at http:// www.dfes.gov.uk/research/and http://www.skillsbase.dfes.gov.uk.

    Higher Education
    Mr. Evans
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many people entered higher education from(a) Lancashire and (b) the North West of England in 1997 and each subsequent year. [94131]

    Mr. Charles Clarke
    The latest available information is shown in the table.

    £million

    2002–03

    2005–06

    Increase of 2005–06 over 2002–03

    $of total increase in funding

    Teaching and learning, of which:

    3,943

    4,963

    1,020

    44

    Centres of Teaching Excellence

    0

    35

    35

    2

    Expansion1

    —

    32

    32

    1

    Access and widening participation

    86

    132

    46

    2

    Management, Leadership and strategic development

    15

    34

    19

    1

    Student support

    1,578

    1,996

    418

    18

    Other

    2

    14

    12

    1

    Total

    7,596

    9,918

    2,322

    100

    1 Foundation degree development and incentives

    465W
    As shown in the table above, the funding allocated to 'teaching and learning' will increase by £1,020 million between 2002–03 and 2005–06. Of that increase, £287 million will be for capital and £733 million for recurrent expenditure, made up of funding to cover increased costs and the anticipated increase in student numbers. The recurrent increase also includes additional funding for human resources and pay differentiation for those who teach well (which will be consolidated into all institutions' block grants and allocated by formula once they develop satisfactory human resources strategies) and Centres of Teaching Excellence. The funding allocated for the Centres of Teaching Excellence, and other smaller initiatives that will not be allocated to all institutions by formula, will make up around 6 per cent. of the total recurrent increase in teaching and learning.

    IT Contracts
    Mr. Sayeed
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will list IT contracts in his Department and its predecessors above £50 million in each of the last 10 years; what the inception date for each system was; when it became fully functional; when it became fully debugged; and what the cost of over-runs has been. [98995]

    Mr. Charles Clarke
    We have no IT contracts in my Department or its predecessors for systems costing £50 million or more in the last ten years.

    IT Staff (Higher Education)
    Mr. Boswell
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what studies he has carried out into the shortage of IT staff in higher education since 1997; and if he will make a statement. [98693]

    Mr. Charles Clarke
    No such studies have been made by the Government itself; but the Universities and Colleges Employers Association has undertaken surveys of university staff in general. The findings indicate recruitment and retention is an issue in certain disciplines only, including some aspects of information technology. In 2000, the Government announced funding of £50 million, £110 million and £170 million in England for the years 2001–02 to 2003–04 to underpin human resource strategies in each higher education institution to address recruitment and retention among other things. The Government have recently announced further funding of £50 million in 2004–05 and £117 million in 2005–06 for the same purpose.

    Mr. Boswell
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many IT teaching posts in higher education were unfilled in each year since 1997. [98694]

    Mr. Charles Clarke
    The information is not held centrally. Individual universities and higher education colleges, as employers, are responsible for monitoring their own vacancies.
    466W

    IT Teaching (Core Curriculum)
    Mr. Boswell
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills why IT is no longer part of the core curriculum; and if he will make a statement. [98696]

    Mr. Charles Clarke
    Information and Communication Technology (ICT) is currently a National Curriculum foundation subject at all four key stages of compulsory education. The 14–19 strategy document "14–19: opportunity and excellence", published on 21 January 2003, confirmed that ICT will remain compulsory during Key Stage 4, recognising the importance that ICT plays in preparing young people to participate in a rapidly changing world in which work and other activities are increasingly dependent on access to, and skilful use of, technology.

    We expect that, in time, pupils will increasingly develop their ICT skills through other subjects and ICT may no longer need to be discretely specified as a statutory required National Curriculum subject.

    Maintenance Grants
    Mr. Edwards
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills at what level maintenance grants will be introduced for university students from households where the income is between £10,000 and £20,000; and what criteria will be used to assess eligibility. [98447]

    Mr. Charles Clarke
    The level of grant available for students from households with income between –10,000 and 20,000 will depend on the threshold below which the full grant will be paid. I refer my hon. Friend to my reply to the hon. Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Mrs. Lynne Jones) on 6 February 2003,Official Report, column 359W. Precise details on the eligibility criteria will be announced in due course.

    Lynne Jones
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what percentage of medical students are from families whose family income is(a) less than £10,000, (b) £10,000 to £15,000, (c) £15,001 to £20,000 and (d) over £20,001, using the definition of income that he proposes to use in assessing eligibility for a maintenance grant. [98316]

    Margaret Hodge
    My Department collects data from Local Education Authorities on the assessed contributions by students to fees, grants and loans for all students eligible to apply for student support. This includes medical students. The latest data are for 2000/ 1 and relates to the definition of residual income1 that applied in that year. It is not possible to estimate the income1 distribution of medical students (adjusted to account for changes in definition proposed for the new maintenance grant) separately from this survey because separate data by course subject are not collected.

    In respect of estimates of residual incomes under the proposed definition for maintenance grant for all students, I refer to my reply to the hon. Friend's previous question.
    1Residual Income is gross income less the allowances detailed in my Department's guidance, "Financial Support for Higher Education Students".
    467W

    National Curriculum Alternatives
    Paul Holmes
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what steps he is taking to increase the flexibility of Section 96 of the Learning and Skills Act 2000 to take account of the needs of further education colleges who are working in partnership with local schools to provide alternatives to the National Curriculum; and if he will make a statement. [98980]

    Mr. Charles Clarke
    Any external qualification which meets the published principles for approval can be approved under Section 96 of the Learning and Skills Act 2000. The qualifications are approved for specific age groups; pre-16; 16–18 or over 18 but under 19. Approvals are independent of delivery arrangements.

    There are already 271 partnerships between schools, further education colleges and others as part of the Increased Flexibility for 14–16 Year Olds' Programme delivering vocational and work-related learning opportunities to 14–16 year olds.

    National Insurance
    Mr. Boswell
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the annual cost will be of the forthcoming uplift of National Insurance Contributions for(a) higher and (b) further education institutions. [98672]

    Mr. Charles Clarke
    The additional cost in employers'national insurance contributions in 2003–04 for all Higher Education institutions in England is estimated to be around £60 million and for all Further Education institutions in England the estimate is £25 million. Higher and Further Education institutions receive funding for staff costs from a variety of sources, both public and private, so the element of the increase to be covered from public sources will be only a proportion of this. The actual cost in National Insurance contributions will depend on the number of staff employed and their pay level. These are matters for the institutions to determine.

    In the 2002 Spending Review, Higher and Further Education received generous increases in total funding, averaging 6 per cent. in real terms in each of the three years to 2005–06. As a result of these increases, publicly planned funding per full-time equivalent student will rise by 7 per cent. in real terms between 2002–03 and 2005–06 in both Higher and Further Education. This will put Further and Higher Education institutions in a good position to meet these costs.

    Post-16 Staying-on Rate
    Mr. Cousins
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the post-16 staying on rate was in each region and nation of the UK in(a) 1992, (b) 1997 and (c) 2002. [98449]

    Mr. Miliband
    [holding answer 24 February 2003]: The table gives the percentage of 16-year-olds participating in post-compulsory education in each region and nation of the UK in 1992–93,1997–98 and 2000–01, the latest year for which figures are available.
    468W

    Percentages1

    16-year-olds participating in post-compulsory education2—time series

    Region of Study

    1992–933

    1997–98

    2000–014

    United Kingdom

    78

    77

    78

    North East

    70

    68

    74

    North West

    75

    74

    74

    Yorkshire and the Humber

    74

    74

    76

    East Midlands

    75

    74

    75

    West Midlands

    76

    75

    76

    East

    80

    79

    80

    London

    80

    79

    81

    South East

    83

    80

    78

    South West

    82

    79

    79

    England

    78

    76

    77

    Wales

    75

    75

    79

    Scotland5

    77

    92

    90

    Northern Ireland6

    88

    73

    76

    Notes:

    1 As a percentage of the 16-year-old population.

    2 At school or in further education. Includes a small element of students in higher education institutions.

    3 Excludes evening only students. There is a slight discontinuity with data shown for later years due to the use of different data sources in England and Wales.

    4 Data for Scotland refer to 1999–2000.

    5 The estimates of 16-year-olds at school exclude those pupils who leave school in the winter term at the minimum statutory school-leaving age.

    6 Figures for 1997–98 and 2000–01 exclude students in part-time further education (17.8 per cent. and 15.1 per cent. respectively), which should not be aggregated with full-time further education or schools activity due to the unquantifiable overlap of these activities.

    Source:

    Department for Education and Skills; National Assembly for Wales; Scottish Executive; Northern Ireland Department of Education.

    Probation Service Centre (Chippenham)
    Mr. Gray
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills pursuant to his answer of 11 February 2003,Official Report, columns 694–95W, whether it is in accordance with his Department's guidelines for a probation service centre to be opened adjacent to Ivy Lane School in Chippenham, Wiltshire. [98523]

    Mr. Ivan Lewis
    [holding answer 24 February 2003]: The location of probation service centres is a matter for the Home Office. My Department's published guidance on school security, as set out in my previous reply, does not specifically cover questions of the opening of such centres near existing schools.

    School Maintenance
    Mr. Laws
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what his latest estimate is of the repair and maintenance backlog cost for schools in(a) England and (b) each local education authority; and if he will make a statement. [98375]

    Mr. Miliband
    School premises condition costs for local education authorities were summarised in the answer to parliamentary question 32896 on 13 February 2002. In that response, a table detailed the cost of repair
    469W
    and renewal needs for each local education authority, broken down into three orders of priority. The DfES has not received any more recent data.

    Authorities have been asked to supply new data in April-May this year and we plan to publish analysis following appraisal of the data.

    Science Research Investment Fund
    Ms Dari Taylor
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills whether the formula used to calculate shares of the Science Research Investment Fund 2004–06 takes account of universities engaged in applied scientific research. [98810]

    Mr. Charles Clarke
    The Science Research Investment Fund in England is allocated to institutions according to a formula based on institutions'total research income and on the amount of quality-related research income that they receive from the Higher Education Funding Council for England. Both of these factors take account of applied scientific research.

    Skill Shortages
    Mr. Evans
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) what assessment he has made of the skill shortages experienced by employers in England; [96728]

    (2) what assessment he has made of the skill shortages experienced by employers of (a) mechanics, (b) plumbers, (c) electricians and (d) builders in England[96769]

    Mr. Ivan Lewis
    My Department has funded a number of surveys of employers to assess their current and future skill needs, and also monitors a number of external measures of skills shortages such as those coming from the CBI's Quarterly Industrial Trends Survey.

    The Employers Skill Survey, funded by my Department, interviewed 27,000 employers across England in 1999 and in 2001, and was carried out on a smaller scale in 2002. The survey results provide evidence on trends in skill shortages, including headline measures for broad industries and occupations.

    Our own surveys, and the CBI measures, indicate that skills shortages are relatively low and stable given the historically high levels of employment we are experiencing. However, the Employers Skill Survey results do show that skilled craft trades are among the occupations most affected by skill shortage vacancies, and also that the construction industry experiences one of the highest levels of skill shortage vacancies relative to its employment levels.

    The Skills in England report, published earlier this month by the Learning and Skills Council, also stresses that the construction sector has the most severe skills shortages (as a percentage of employment). The health and social care sector also suffers from a disproportionately high share of skill shortage vacancies. Occupationally associate professionals and skilled trades have the greatest share of skill shortages.
    470W
    Detailed information on specific occupations is not collected by the Department. It is the role of the Skills for Business network (the Sector Skills Development Agency and the Sector Skills Councils) and the two Industry Training Boards to assess detailed skill needs within their particular industries.

    Skills Sector Councils
    Mr. Gardiner
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills why he has established skills sector councils to improve skills in the hospitality and leisure sector. [95861]

    Mr. Ivan Lewis
    The Sector Skills Development Agency (SSDA) has been established to fund, support and champion a new UK-wide network of influential employer-led Sector Skills Councils (SSCs). SSCs have been charged to lead the skills and productivity drive in industry or business sectors recognised by employers. They bring together employers, trade unions and professional bodies to work with government to develop the skills that UK business needs.

    A proposal to set up a Sector Skills Council for Hospitality, Leisure, Travel and Tourism, is now in the development stage. The prospective SSC is receiving support from the SSDA to prepare a detailed Labour Market Assessment and Business Proposition. Their final proposal will be judged against the criteria set out in the published SSC standard. If successful, the SSDA Board will recommend that the Secretary of State issues a five year licence to operate as a Sector Skills Council.

    Special Educational Needs
    Dr. Tonge
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what steps he has taken to identify the special educational needs of children born to(a) crack cocaine and (b) cocaine-addicted mothers. [94214]

    Mr. Miliband
    The Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD) has a statutory duty to advise the Government on drug misuse. Its Prevention Working Group has carried out an in-depth inquiry into the needs of children of problem drug users and is due to report to Government in summer 2003. The report will include policy and practice recommendations for Government on how they can ensure the needs of these children are met, including the role of health, social care, education, criminal justice and other services.

    Children's special educational needs are assessed on an individual basis regardless of their family or social circumstances. The Government recognise the importance of early identification and intervention for all children with SEN and will include our plans to strengthen action in this area in a new SEN action programme to be launched later this year.

    Specialist Schools Programme
    Mr. Gibb
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills pursuant to his answer of 11 February 2003,Official Report, column 697W, on specialist state schools, what percentage of schools participating in the specialist schools programme are languages colleges. [98905]
    471W
    Mr. Miliband
    16 per cent. of operational specialist schools are language colleges.

    Study Support Schemes
    Mrs. Brooke
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many youth action groups have been established with funding through partnerships of study support schemes.[98184]

    Mr. Ivan Lewis
    The Partners for Study Support grant scheme, which finished in March 2002, encouraged schools to work with voluntary, private and public sector organisations to develop innovative and sustainable study support partnerships. One of the 134 projects funded through the scheme enabled Crime Concern to work with St Helen's Crime and Disorder Reduction Task group and other local organisations to develop a youth action group at local schools in the St Helen's area. Outside the study support scheme, my Department is also funding other school-based projects to prevent crime. For example, we have set up 100 Safer School Partnerships where a police officer works in a school to reduce crime locally, make the school a safer place for learning, help keep young people in education, and re-engage them with their community.

    January each year

    1998

    1999

    2000

    2001

    2002

    Teachers in post1

    Secondary

    2,600

    2,630

    2,670

    2,730

    2,810

    Nursery/primary

    2,520

    2,600

    2,670

    2,690

    2,700

    Vacancies2

    Secondary

    13

    13

    11

    19

    21

    Nursery/primary

    25

    11

    25

    24

    13

    Teaching Assistants3

    Secondary

    150

    170

    230

    280

    320

    Nursery/primary

    660

    690

    790

    1,030

    1,180

    1Full-time equivalent teachers in post in the maintained schools sector.

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

    3 Includes full-time equivalent nursery assistants, special needs support staff, minority ethnic pupil support staff and non-teaching assistants.

    Source:

    DfES annual 618G survey and Annual School Census.

    Diana Organ
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many schools made errors on form TPP-S concerning the number of teachers who had gone through Round 1 on Teachers Performance Pay; and how many errors related to teachers in Gloucestershire. [98117]

    Mr. Miliband
    [holding answer 24 February 2003]: LEAs checked the accuracy of school returns in the autumn. The DfES further challenged apparently inaccurate survey returns in early January in 1,000 cases. 12 of these inaccuracies related to returns made by schools in Gloucestershire.
    472W

    Sustainable Communities Plan (Ashford)
    Mr. Damian Green
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what provisions he has made in his departmental budget for the spending entailed in the Sustainable Communities plan on schools in Ashford; and if he will make a statement. [98636]

    Mr. Miliband
    The Department provides capital funding for new pupil places as part of its annual capital round, but at this stage it is too early to say what the costs will be for new provision in Ashford. Most of the revenue funding for new pupil places would be provided through Kent LEA's Education Formula Spending Share. Education Formula Spending Share, and most DfES revenue grants, are primarily provided on a per pupil basis; new pupil places created as a result of the Sustainable Communities plan in Ashford would receive their share of national revenue funding totals accordingly.

    Teacher
    Mr. McLoughlin
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many(a) secondary school teachers, (b) primary school teachers and (c) classroom assistants are employed in Derbyshire; and how many teacher vacancies there were in each year since 1997. [98884]
    Mr. Miliband: The following table provides information for Derbyshire since re-organisation in April 1997.

    January each year

    Diana Organ
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many teachers in Gloucestershire went through Round 1 on the Teachers Performance Pay Scheme; and what percentage this is of teachers in Gloucestershire. [981181]

    Mr. Miliband
    [holding answer 24 February 2003]: It is too early to say how many teachers who passed the threshold in Gloucestershire will be advanced by their schools to upper pay scale point two.

    Diana Organ
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the closing date was for accepting errors on form TPP-S for rectification. [98681]

    Mr. Miliband
    Local education authorities were asked to comment on the data returned on form TPP-S by their schools by 20 December 2002. The Department also contacted some schools whose data still appeared
    473W
    obviously inaccurate during the week commencing 6 January and allowed them to amend returns until 10 January.

    Temporary Classrooms
    Mr Liddell-Grainger
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many temporary classrooms there are in England. [98285]

    Mr. Miliband
    As part of the data collected through the appraisal of Asset Management Plans, the Department for Education and Skills has some information on the overall area of temporary accommodation at schools, but it is not possible from these data to identify with any precision the actual number of temporary classrooms.

    Training Costs
    Mr. George Howarth
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what his estimate is of the average cost to the public purse of(a) training a plumber, (b) training an electrician, (c) training a plasterer and (d) a degree course, broken down by further education colleges, universities and higher education institutions, for each parliamentary constituency and each local education authority area. [94703]

    Mr. Ivan Lewis
    Publicly funded training of plumbers, electricians, plasterers and other craft occupations is usually provided through Modern Apprenticeships for young people or through programmes provided by further education institutions. Reporting on the costs of this learning is the operational responsibility of the Learning and Skills Council. I have asked John Harwood, the Council's Chief Executive, to write to the hon. Member providing the information requested and a copy of his reply will be placed in the Library.

    Figures for degree courses broken down in the way requested are not held centrally. For higher education in England, the Government allocates funding via the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE). The HEFCE provide teaching grants on the basis that similar courses are funded at similar rates irrespective of the type of institution providing the education. The detailed allocations are calculated according to the numbers and types of students in the institutions, and the courses they are taking. Different courses are weighted at different levels to reflect, for example, the higher costs of providing laboratory-based and medical courses. There are also adjustments made to the calculations to reflect London weighting, the additional costs of teaching students from disadvantaged backgrounds and mature and part-time students. The cost to the public purse of a degree course will therefore reflect these weightings and adjustments.

    Tuition Fees
    Mr. Edwards
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what estimate he has made of the 474W
    proportion of full-time students who (a) are exempt from paying the full tuition fee of £1,100, (b) pay a proportion of the tuition fee and (c) pay the full tuition fee. [98448]

    Mr. Charles Clarke
    In Academic Year 2000/01 (the latest year for which data are available):

    (a) 42 per cent. of students in England and Wales who were eligible to be assessed for student support were not required to make a payment to the fee contribution of £1,050, and

    (b) 19 per cent. paid a proportion of the fee contribution, and

    (c) 39 per cent. paid the full tuition fee contribution.

    These figures are based on provisional 2000/01 data (published on 30 April 2002).

    University Applications
    Mr. Hoyle
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many students applied to attend university in each of the last three years in(a) Lancashire and (b) the UK. [97411]

    Mr. Charles Clarke
    The latest available information is shown in the table.

    Applicants to full-time and sandwich undergraduate courses by area of home residence

    Year of entry

    Students from:

    2000

    2001

    2002

    Lancashire

    7,781

    8,091

    8,134

    UK

    389,091

    399,645

    401,854

    Source:

    Universities and Colleges Admissions Service

    Vocational Skills
    Paul Holmes
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what progress has been made on developing a suite of qualifications which provide a progression route from entry level through to level three and which accredit vocationally related skills; and if she will make a statement. [98981]

    Mr. Miliband
    There are 129 entry level qualifications which provide progression to a variety of qualifications at level one. In addition there are 617 vocationally related qualifications at levels one to three currently accredited. Many of these qualifications form coherent and progressive suites covering all three levels. This position changes as new qualifications are accredited to meet the needs identified by sectors for workforce development.

    Working Age Population (Qualifications)
    Mr. Jim Cousins
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what percentage of the working age population had(a) no qualification and (b) no qualification above NVQ Level 2 in each region and nation of the UK in (i) 1992, 1997 and (iii) 2002. [98451]

    Margaret Hodge
    [holding answer 24 February 2003]: The information requested is presented in the following table:
    475W

    Table 1: The Level of Highest Qualification held by People of Working Age1 in the UK and UK Countries and by Government Office Region (GOR). Labour Force Survey 1992, 1997 and 2002

    Percentage

    Above level 22

    Level 23

    Below level 24

    No qualifications

    No qualifications above level 2

    Autumn 2002

    UK

    44.4

    21.9

    19.2

    14.5

    55.6

    NE

    39.3

    22.6

    20.3

    17.8

    60.7

    NW

    42.2

    22.5

    18.5

    16.8

    57.8

    Y&H

    42.0

    21.5

    20.3

    16.1

    58.0

    EM

    41.9

    22.3

    20.2

    15.6

    58.1

    WM

    40.3

    22.3

    19.7

    17.7

    59.7

    EE

    41.3

    23.9

    21.3

    13.5

    58.7

    LN

    47.5

    20.3

    19.4

    12.8

    52.5

    SE

    48.8

    21.9

    19.1

    10.1

    51.2

    SW

    46.8

    21.7

    21.6

    10.0

    53.2

    ENG

    44.1

    22.0

    19.9

    14.1

    55.9

    WAL

    42.5

    23.1

    17.2

    17.2

    57.5

    SCO

    50.2

    19.7

    15.8

    14.4

    49.8

    NIR

    41.2

    23.4

    12.0

    23.4

    58.7

    Autumn 1997

    UK

    38.7

    22.3

    21.6

    17.4

    61.3

    NE

    32.7

    22.3

    22.8

    22.2

    67.3

    NW

    38.0

    22.3

    21.6

    18.1

    62.0

    Y&H

    36.3

    21.5

    23.3

    19.0

    63.7

    EM

    36.3

    21.8

    22.6

    19.3

    63.7

    WM

    34.3

    22.0

    22.4

    21.3

    65.7

    EE

    36.2

    24.7

    23.7

    15.5

    63.8

    LN

    43.2

    20.7

    20.9

    15.2

    56.8

    SE

    42.0

    22.9

    22.1

    13.0

    58.0

    SW

    40.9

    23.2

    21.7

    14.2

    59.1

    ENG

    38.5

    22.3

    22.2

    16.9

    61.5

    WAL

    36.5

    22.3

    19.5

    21.8

    63.6

    SCO

    43.5

    21.5

    18.3

    16.6

    56.5

    NIR

    34.4

    23.0

    15.7

    26.9

    65.6

    Autumn 1992

    UK

    30.7

    22.0

    21.2

    26.1

    69.3

    NE

    25.7

    22.0

    22.2

    30.1

    74.3

    NW

    28.2

    22.3

    21.4

    28.1

    71.8

    Y&H

    27.3

    22.5

    22.1

    28.2

    72.7

    EM

    26.1

    21.6

    21.8

    30.5

    73.9

    WM

    26.1

    20.9

    22.5

    30.5

    73.9

    EE

    29.4

    23.8

    23.7

    23.1

    70.6

    LN

    35.6

    20.4

    19.8

    24.1

    64.4

    SE

    33.8

    23.1

    22.4

    20.6

    66.2

    SW

    31.6

    23.3

    23.1

    22.0

    68.4

    ENG

    30.0

    22.2

    22.0

    25.8

    70.0

    WAL

    26.7

    22.1

    21.4

    29.7

    73.3

    SCO

    39.3

    20.4

    13.6

    26.7

    60.7

    NIR

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    1Working Age is defined as males aged 16–64 and females aged 16–59.

    2Qualifications above level 2 are as follows:

    Level 5 includes Higher degrees and other qualifications at Level 5. Level 4 includes First degree. Other degree and sub-degree higher education qualifications such as teaching and nursing certificates HNC/HNDs, other HE diplomas and other qualifications at level 4.

    Level 3 includes Vocational qualifications include those with RSA Advanced Diploma. BTEC Nationals. ONC/ONDs. City and Guilds Advanced Craft or trade apprenticeships and other professional or vocational qualifications at Level 3. Academic qualifications include those with Advanced GNVQs. more than one GCE A level or SCE Highers/Scottish Certificates of Sixth Year Studies (CSYS) at Level 3.

    3 Vocational qualifications include those with BTEC general certificates YT certificates, other RSA qualifications, other City and Guilds or other professional or vocational qualifications at Level 1 Academic qualifications include those with one or more GCSE grade G or equivalent (but less than five at grades A-C).

    4 Vocational qualifications include those with BTEC general certificates, YT certificates, other RSA qualifications, other City and Guilds or other professional or vocational qualifications at Level 1 Academic qualifications include those with one or more GCSE grade G or equivalent (but less than five at grades A⋆-C)

    Note:

    The Labour Force Survey was not conducted in Northern Ireland in Autumn 1992

    Source:

    Labour Force Survey (LFS): Autumn quarters 1992, 1997 and 2002

  LORD CHANCELLOR

    Bow Street Magistrates Court
    Mr. Malins
    To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department pursuant to her answer of 16 December 2002,Official Report, column 644W,
    476W
    concerning Bow Street Magistrates Court and night sittings, when she expects to be able to write to the hon. Member for Woking. [98648]

    Yvette Cooper
    The Final Evaluation Report for the Extended Court Sitting Hours pilot was published on 27 January 2003. I am writing to the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Malins) with a copy of that report.
    477W
    In regard to the questions raised in his previous question, I can now inform him that:

    (1) the night sessions at Bow Street Magistrates Court, which ran between the dates of 17 May 2002 and 28 September 2002, from 6pm until midnight on Friday and Saturday evenings, operated for a total of 200 hours; (a) during the course of the pilot 155 (42 per cent.) of cases were disposed of at first hearing; and (b) 213 (58 per cent.) of cases were remanded over until a later date;

    (2) the total cost for all agencies concerned in the pilot operation of the night session at Bow Street Magistrates Court was £1,198,669.

    Laptop Computers
    Dr. Cable
    To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many laptop computers were used by(a) Ministers and special advisers and (b) officials in his Department in each year since 1995; how many were (i)lost and (ii) stolen; what their cost was; and if he will make a statement. [98704]

    Ms Rosie Winterton
    Prior to 1999 the figures for laptops supplied for use in my Department cannot be produced without incurring disproportionate cost. The figures for the years from 1999 onwards are as follows:

    Laptops supplied

    (a) Ministers and special advisers

    (b)Officials

    1999

    2

    674

    2000

    2

    693

    2001

    2

    689

    2002

    2

    706

    The figures for (i) lost and (ii) stolen laptops are as follows:

    Laptops lost and stolen

    (i)Lost

    (ii)Stolen

    Cost(£)

    1995

    —

    9

    —

    1996

    —

    12

    —

    1997

    —

    2

    —

    1998

    —

    4

    4,300

    1999

    —

    2

    1,200

    2000

    —

    3

    2,500

    2001

    1

    15

    22,500

    2002

    —

    14

    19,600

    Note:

    Only officials'laptops have been lost or stolen; we do not have any figures for costs before 1998.

    The Department is actively promoting guidance on the security of IT equipment, increasing staff awareness in this area.

    Legal Services Commission
    Mr. Malins
    To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what percentage salary increase was awarded to the staff of the Legal Services Commission, broken down by grade, in(a) 2000–01 and (b) 2001–02. [98645]

    Ms Rosie Winterton
    I shall write to the hon. Member as soon
    as possible.
    478W

  TRANSPORT

    Heavy Goods Vehicles (Northern Ireland)
    Mr. Beggs
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment has been made of the number of additional HGVs which will be required on roads in Northern Ireland if the working time directive is applied. [99124]

    Mr. Jamieson
    My officials are discussing the likely impact of the directive on the UK as a whole, with representatives from both sides of industry. Much will depend on current vehicle usage, the amount of working time drivers currently perform and whether existing operations and shift patterns need to be revised.

    A regulatory impact assessment will be published later this year, alongside a consultation document on how the directive could be transposed into UK law.

    Airports (Police Services)
    Andrew Mackinlay
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if he will list those airports whose operators are not charged for police services and presence; and for what reason charges are not made; [98564]

    (2) if he will list those airports which are designated for police purposes, and for which the airport operators are charged for police services. [98565]

    Mr. Jamieson
    I refer the hon. Member to my answer of 3 February 2003,Official Report, column 34W, which explained the current situation with regard to the designation of airports for uniformed policing purposes. There are presently nine designated airports, the listing of which would be inappropriate on security grounds.

    Departmental Spending (Ashford)
    Mr. Damian Green
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what provisions he has made in his departmental budget for the spending entailed in the Sustainable Communities plan in and around Ashford; and if he will make a statement. [98637]

    Mr. Jamieson
    The Highways Agency is promoting improvements to the existing junction 10 of the M20 with the costs fully covered by the developers. Further planned growth at Ashford will be facilitated by a new junction to the south of the existing junction 10 and the and the Secretary of State has asked the Highways Agency to investigate the feasibility of its provision.

    In addition some £5.2 billion of public and private investment is already being made available to complete the channel tunnel rail link which will greatly improve the accessibility of Ashford.

    Freight Traffic
    Mr. Lansley
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what effect on planned growth in freight traffic between 2000–01 and 2010–11 he expects to result from the deferred schemes of(a) the Trans Pennine/ South Humberside freight capacity works, (b) Felixstowe to Nuneaton Phase 2, (c) the de-scoped East Coast Main Line and (d) reviewed Phase 1 of Felixstowe to Nuneaton. [98968]
    479W
    Mr. Jamieson
    The Strategic Rail Authority (SRA) confirmed in its revised Strategic Plan (issued at the end of January 2003—copies in the House Library) its objectives for freight. These and other objectives will be reviewed as the 10 Year Plan is rolled forward.

    Portland Helicopter
    Mr. Swire
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he will be making an announcement on the future of the Bristow helicopter operation at Portland. [98650]

    Mr. Jamieson
    This Government is committed to ensuring the continued provision of appropriate civilian maritime search and rescue services for our coasts. We have listened very carefully to all the arguments for and against moving the helicopter based at Portland and announced last week that the Coastguard helicopter will continue to fly from there. The Maritime and Coastguard Agency is now in a position to let a new contract for the continued provision of a helicopter based at Portland for beyond May 2003, when the current contract expires.

    Public Transport (Overcrowding)
    Mrs. Dunwoody
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what definition he uses for overcrowding on different forms of public transport. [98612]

    Mr. Jamieson
    There is no definition for overcrowding on public transport. However all rail operators are required to provide a frequency of service and adequate capacity to prevent excessive crowding

    Injuries to railway employees

    Year

    Major1

    Minor1

    Injuries to passengers requiring hospital treatment

    Other members of the public requiring hospital treatment Injuries to trespassers and attempted suicides requiring hospital treatment

    2001–02

    351

    2,023

    2,401

    92

    179

    2000–01

    300

    2,135

    2,795

    84

    177

    1999–2000

    340

    2,065

    2,742

    85

    144

    1998–99

    376

    2,070

    2,671

    101

    149

    1997–98

    351

    2,088

    2,747

    127

    136

    1These figures will include some injuries that required hospital treatment.

    Note:

    The figures refer to injuries occurring on all railways (including tramways and underground systems.

    Rail Passenger Partnership Fund
    Mr. Lansley
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what level of funding under the Rail Passenger Partnership Fund is identified for transfer to regional assemblies in England. [98883]

    Mr. Jamieson
    The level of funding for Rail Passenger Partnership schemes that will transfer to elected regional assemblies in England has not been determined yet.

    Rail Services (Scotland)
    Mrs. Lait
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what responsibility the Strategic Rail Authority has for rail services in Scotland. [98383]
    480W
    and to have in place strategies for dealing with regular systematic crowding when it occurs. On buses and coaches, regulations are also in place to prohibit the carriage of more than the authorised number of passengers.

    Rail Injuries
    Mrs. Dunwoody
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many of the non-fatal injuries that occurred on the rail network required hospital treatment in each year since 1997; and what definitions his Department uses for the different categories of injury incurred by passengers on the rail network. [98589]

    Mr. Jamieson
    The recording of information on injuries occurring on the railway network are a requirement of the Health and Safety Executive's (HSE) Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations (RIDDOR), 1995. It is a RIDDOR requirement that HSE is informed of the following injuries:

    (a) Fatalities;

    (b) Major injuries to railway employees;

    (c) Minor injuries to railway employees resulting in an absence from their normal range of work duties for more than three consecutive days;

    (d) Injuries to members of the public resulting in the injured person being removed from the site of the accident and taken to hospital for treatment.

    Information provided by the HSE on the numbers in each year since 1997 of non-fatal injuries that occurred on the rail network is shown in the following table:

    Mr. Jamieson
    The Strategic Rail Authority's responsibilities and its relationship with the Scottish Government are set out in the Transport Act 2000. The SRA has overall responsibility for the strategic development of the national passenger and freight railway network serving Scotland, England and Wales.

    The SRA must have regard to directions and guidance from the Scottish Ministers in respect of ScotRail services, provided these are not inconsistent with its directions and guidance from the Secretary of State or its financial framework. It also takes into account non-binding advice from the Scottish Ministers in respect of cross-border passenger services provided by non-Scottish franchises.
    481W
    The SRA is working closely with the Scottish Executive on the replacement process for the current ScotRail franchise, which ends in 2004. The SRA must seek the consent of the Scottish Ministers before awarding the franchise.

    Railway Standards and Safety Board
    Mr. Don Foster
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport which organisation is managing the recruitment of the senior staff for the Railway Standards and Safety Board; and who is chairing the selection committee. [98340]

    Mr. Jamieson
    Network Rail is managing the recruitment process for the Chairman and Chief Executive of the Rail Safety and Standards Board on behalf of the industry. The selection committee will decide who its chair will be.

    Speed Limits
    Mr. Maples
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects the proposed new national guidance on speed limits to be published. [99051]

    Mr. Jamieson
    Guidance on the setting of speed limits already exists in the form of Circular Roads 1/93. This remains good advice but we recognise the need to update it. Work currently under way which will feed into a review, is planned for the latter part of this year.

    Strategic Rail Authority
    Mrs. Dunwoody
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many consultants the SRA employs; and what specialities they cover. [98403]

    Mr. Jamieson
    Since 1 April 2002 the Strategic Rail Authority has employed the services of 95 consultancy firms with expenditure valued above £25,000. The work procured covers a wide range of subjects, including legal, financial, technical and IT services. Information regarding the work procured valued at under £25,000 is not readily available.

    Traffic Lights
    Mr. Sheerman
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he is taking to encourage local authorities to introduce traffic lights based on light emitting diodes. [98028]

    Mr. Jamieson
    It is widely recognised that light emitting diode (LED) traffic signals potentially offer good optical performance combined with high reliability and good energy efficiency. A number of LED traffic signals are available for local authorities to purchase and install. Some authorities are installing them, in spite of the significantly higher prices of these signals over conventional filament lamp types. Energy cost savings go some way to offsetting the price difference but there is still a major financial commitment if LED signals are used.

    LED traffic signals are still relatively new and we expect there to be improvements in their specifications generally, including reliability and power consumption, and lower prices as product designs improve. As a result,
    482W
    authorities may, not unreasonably, be waiting to see these demonstrated before committing to large-scale purchase.

    As there is a competitive market for light emitting diode signals, with at least five manufacturers supplying them, and in view of the above, I do not believe specific incentives are required to encourage their use.

    Transport 10-year Plan
    Jon Cruddas
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he will announce the terms of reference of the review of his 10 year transport plan referred to in the Sustainable Communities Plan. [98619]

    Mr. Jamieson
    The 10 year plan for transport published in 2000 set out the intention to review the plan periodically "to ensure that the Plan continues to provide the most cost-effective and efficient means of delivering our transport strategy and that it takes account of new pressures and developments". The report on progress towards delivery of the Government's 10 year plan for transport, published last December, confirmed that we will be conducting such a review to consider with Spending Review 2004. That review will take account of the progress made so far and the challenges that have to be met in the period up to 2015 and beyond.

  WORK AND PENSIONS

    Asbestos
    Mr. Heald
    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what level of interference with asbestos is required to meet the definition that a person has disturbed asbestos for the purposes of the Control of Asbestos at Work Regulations 2002; and if he will make a statement. [98665]

    Mr. Nicholas Brown
    Asbestos has been disturbed if asbestos fibres have been released. The types of work that would do this include, for example, drilling holes with power tools and sawing or sanding material. Working near asbestos-containing material may disturb it if it is in poor condition for instance knocking against the material. To assess whether asbestos will be disturbed the type of material, location, extent, accessibility, amount of damage and deterioration (and if it is sealed in) all need to be considered.

    Mr. Heald
    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions whether it is the Government's policy that asbestos should be removed only as a last resort; what assessment he has made of whether the availability of 150 per cent.tax relief on the removal of asbestos has led to asbestos being removed unnecessarily; and if he will make a statement. [98686]

    Mr. Nicholas Brown
    The Government's policy is that asbestos in good condition that will not be disturbed is safe to leave in place providing it is properly managed. HSE has no evidence that 150 per cent. tax relief, which applies only to the regeneration of derelict buildings to remove asbestos, is an inducement. The Government will keep the position regarding tax relief under review.
    483W

    ASW
    Mr. Heald
    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what inquiries he has instituted into(a) the collapse of ASW and (b) the effect of the collapse upon the pension schemes of the Company's employees; and if he will make a statement on the Government's response to the situation. [94897]

    Mr. McCartney
    [holding answer 31 January 2003]: As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, stated in a written answer given to the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) on 7 January 2003, Official Report, columns 144–45W, the Minister of State for Employment Relations, Industry and the Regions looked at ASW's difficulties in July last year when he tried to find a way to resolve them and enable the company to continue to trade.

    Ministers have also met members of the Allied Steel and Wire (ASW) Action Groups' and their constituency MPs, to discuss the Groups' concerns about the Cardiff and Sheerness pension schemes.

    On 15 October 2002, the Minister for Pensions and the Financial Secretary to the Treasury met with hon. Members for Sittingbourne and Sheppey and Cardiff, West, and members of the ASW Pensions Action Group. A number of practical ways forward were identified, including an undertaking by the Minister for Pensions to discuss the issues raised with colleagues across Government. Also, a number of technical pension issues were raised on the process of winding up, which the Minister subsequently resolved with the group.

    Following an adjournment debate about ASW on 16 October, the Minister for Pensions arranged a meeting between the hon. Members for Sittingbourne and Sheppey and Cardiff West, the Occupational Regulatory Authority (Opra) and one of his officials to discuss the MPs' concerns about the length of time it can take to wind up a pension scheme and other pensions issues.

    Benefit Claims
    Adam Price
    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many people are claiming(a) unemployment related and (b) sickness related benefits in each (i) local authority and (ii) parliamentary constituency in Wales. [96271]

    Mr. Nicholas Brown
    The information is in the tables.

    Unitary authority

    Number of people claiming Jobseeker's Allowance August 20021

    Number of people of working age Claiming sickness related benefits August 2002

    Total Wales

    46,900

    218,700

    Anglesey

    1,500

    4,300

    Blaenau Gwent

    1,800

    8,100

    Bridgend

    1,800

    11,500

    Caerphily

    2,900

    17,500

    Cardiff

    5,700

    18,500

    Carmarthenshire

    2,600

    14,100

    Ceredigion

    900

    4,400

    Conwy

    1,500

    6,900

    Denbighshire

    1,100

    5,900

    Flintshire

    1,800

    7,400

    484W

    Unitary authority

    Number of people claiming Jobseeker's Allowance August 20021

    Number of people of working age Claiming sickness related benefits August 2002

    Gwynedd, Isle of

    2,100

    5,800

    Merthyr Tydfil

    1,200

    7,600

    Monmouthshire

    800

    3,600

    Neath Port Talbot

    2,300

    14,300

    Newport

    2,800

    9,300

    Pembrokeshire

    2,100

    7,100

    Powys

    1,300

    6,600

    Rhondda, Cynon,

    3,500

    24,800

    Taff

    Swansea

    3,900

    17,900

    The Vale of Glamorgan

    1,900

    6,200

    Torfaen

    1,400

    8,400

    Wrexham

    1,700

    8,300

    Parliamentary constituency

    Number of people claiming Jobseeker's Allowance August 20021

    Number of people of working age Claiming sickness related benefits August 2002

    Total Wales

    46,900

    218,700

    Aberavon

    1,000

    7,200

    Alyn and Deeside

    1,100

    3,500

    Blaenau Gwent

    1,800

    1,800

    Brecon and Radnorshire

    800

    3,900

    Bridgend

    1,100

    5,300

    Caernarfon

    1,000

    3,400

    Caerphilly

    1,500

    9,000

    Cardiff, Central

    1,600

    4,400

    Cardiff, North

    700

    2,400

    Cardiff, South and Penarth

    2,000

    6,700

    Cardiff, West

    1,700

    6,200

    East Carmarthen and Dinefwr

    800

    5,300

    West Carmarthen and South Pembrokeshire

    1,200

    4,200

    Ceredigion

    900

    4,400

    Clwyd, South

    900

    4,600

    Clwyd, West

    900

    4,000

    Conwy

    1,300

    4,100

    Cynon Valley

    1,000

    6,200

    Delyn

    800

    3,900

    Gower

    900

    5,100

    Islwyn

    1,000

    6,200

    Llanelli

    1,400

    7,200

    Meirionnydd Nant Conwy

    600

    1,700

    Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney

    1,500

    9,800

    Monmouth

    800

    3,600

    Montgomeryshire

    500

    2,500

    Neath

    1,300

    4,600

    Newport, East

    1,300

    4,600

    Newport, West

    1,700

    5,300

    Ogmore

    1,000

    7,800

    Pontypridd

    1,200

    6,800

    Preseli

    1,300

    4,400

    Pembrokeshire

    Rhondda

    1,200

    9,600

    Swansea, East

    1,500

    6,900

    Swansea, West

    1,500

    5,900

    Torfaen

    1,300

    7,900

    Vale of Clwyd

    900

    5,100

    Vale of Glamorgan

    1,500

    4,900

    Wrexham

    1,000

    4,200

    Ynys Môn

    1,500

    4,300

    485W
    1Later information is available for unemployment benefits, but August 2002 data have been provided in order to give figures comparable with the latest figures available for sickness related benefits.

    Notes:

    1. Figures are rounded to the nearest hundred.

    2. Sickness related benefits are Incapacity Benefit, Severe Disablement Allowance and Income Support with a Disability Premium.

    3. Sickness related benefit figures are based on a 5 per cent. sample, and are therefore subject to a degree of sampling variation.

    Sources:

    Unemployment benefits: Count of claimants of Jobseeker's Allowance, Jobcentre Plus computer systems.

    Sickness related benefits: Client Group Analysis of DWP Information Centre 5 per cent. statistical samples.

    Benefit Uprating
    Malcolm Bruce
    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what recent research has been conducted into benefit uprating methods; and what conclusions were drawn from recent reviews of uprating methods. [97684]

    Mr. McCartney
    [holding answer 13 February 2003]: We meet our statutory obligation by uprating benefits by the retail prices index (RPI) or Rossi (RPI less housing costs) to maintain their value in real terms.

    RPI is a reliable measure of the impact of inflation on family budgets. Over 120,000 prices are collected every month, for a basket of goods and services covering the full range of consumers'expenditure. The basket is reviewed and updated annually to take account of changes in the pattern of expenditure. In addition, there is a programme of research into the methodology used in the RPI.

    Benefits
    Kevin Brennan
    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what guidance he has issued to officials regarding(a) family birthday and (b) Christmas expenditure when calculating normal household expenditure for the purpose of assessing ability to repay overpayment of benefit. [98557]

    Malcolm Wicks
    No guidance has been issued specifically regarding family birthday or Christmas expenditure when calculating normal household expenditure for the purpose of assessing ability to repay overpayment of benefit.

    If someone feels that the recovery rate of their overpayment is excessive, consideration can be given to their weekly outgoings to decide if recovery should be made at a lower rate. Basic necessities such as food, clothing or fuel costs are always taken into account when considering this.

    Employer's Liability Compulsory Insurance
    Mr. Gibb
    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on the Employer's Liability Compulsory Insurance Review. [98596]

    Mr. Nicholas Brown
    I refer the hon. Member to the Written Ministerial Statement I gave on 12 December 2002,Official Report, columns 23–24W.
    486W

    Employment Development Fund
    Mr. David Laws
    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how much his Department plans to spend on the Employment Development Fund in each year from 2002–03 to 2004–05; what the purpose is of this fund; and if he will make a statement. [97350]

    Mr. Nicholas Brown
    The Employment Development Fund (EOF) was established to fund the delivery of employment policies, including the set up of Jobcentre Plus. As part of the 2002 Spending Review, the Department's settlement for the three year period from 2003–04 to 2005–06 subsumed the resources previously in the EDF.

    The current expenditure plans of the Department for Work and Pensions are contained in Tables 1–11 of the 'Department for Work and Pensions Departmental Report—The Government's expenditure plans 2002–03 and 2003–04' (Command 5424), which is in the Library.

    Independent Schools (Health and Safety)
    Mr. Burnett
    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many prosecutions of independent schools have been made by the Health and Safety Executive in each of the last 10 years; and of the independent schools that have been prosecuted, what the results have been. [94382]

    Mr. Nicholas Brown
    A table showing prosecutions taken by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) of schools which are not under local authority control, for the years 1996–2002, is given as follows. Data earlier than 1996–97 are not readily available.

    Year

    Name of defendant

    Comments

    Result

    Fine incurred£

    1996–97

    Bradfield House School

    Failure to with two Improvement Notices in relation to electrical safety

    Guilty

    2,000

    1996–97

    St. Edmund's Catholic School

    Pupils suffered serious burns from explosion during a chemistry demonstration

    Guilty

    7,000

    1997–98

    Whitgift Foundation

    Fall of employee working on roof

    Guilty

    5,000

    1998–99

    William Edwards Schools

    Employee injured using a circular sawing machine

    Guilty

    500

    1998–99

    Queen Katherine School

    Pupil injured at drilling machine

    Guilty

    6,250

    2000–01

    None

    —

    —

    —

    487W

    Year

    Name of defendant

    Comments

    Result

    Fine incurred£

    2001–02

    King Harold School

    Pupil injured at woodworking machine

    Guilty

    10,000

    2001–02

    Mr. K. Boulter

    Failure to ensure the safety of children, staff and visitors during major construction work

    Guilty

    17,000

    2001–02

    King Edward VI College

    Fall of employee from a ladder

    Guilty

    5,000

    Industrial Injuries Disablement Benefit
    Mr. Dismore
    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) what plans he has for an invest to save bid to the Treasury for the computerisation of industrial injuries disablement benefit records; and if he will make a statement; [95513]

    (2) if he will estimate the cost of checking, and where necessary amending, industrial injuries disablement benefit records manually in each of the last three years; and if he will make a statement; [95515]

    (3) what estimate he has made of the likely costs of computerising industrial injuries disablement benefit records; and if he will make a statement; [95514]

    (4) what plans he has to computerise industrial injuries disablement benefit claim records; and if he will make a statement. [95516]

    Mr. Nicholas Brown
    The Industrial Injuries Computer System holds personal information and payment details for around 342,000 Industrial Injuries Disablement Benefit customers. It allows users to register new awards, record clerical payments, and generate ongoing benefit payments.

    Industrial Injuries Disablement Benefit already has a high degree of assessment accuracy and requires little in the way of maintenance of customer records. We have no current plans to develop the system further and have no recent estimate of the cost of doing so.

    Information on the cost of checking and amending records manually is not available.

    Injury Benefits
    Annabelle Ewing
    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many applications for injury benefits have been received pursuant to the NHS (Scotland) (Injury Benefits) Regulations 1998 (as amended) in each full year of their entry into force; and of those, what percentage have been successful upon(a) first application, (b) review and (c) appeal. [97914]
    488W
    Mr. Nicholas Brown
    [holding answer 13 February 2003]: This scheme is administered by the Scottish Public Pensions Agency, an agency of the Scottish Executive.

    Jobcentre Plus
    Mr. Willetts
    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what changes he intends to make to Jobcentre Plus regulations as a result of the evaluations of the ONE Programme. [99054]

    Mr. Nicholas Brown
    We have no plans to change the Jobcentre Plus regulations. The ONE evaluation has provided valuable information that we will use in the ongoing development of the Jobcentre Plus service.

    Mr. Hancock
    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions when he expects a new Jobcentre Plus office to be opened in Portsmouth; where it will be; how many staff it will employ; what its hours of operation will be; and if he will make a statement. [98095]

    Mr. Nicholas Brown
    We are progressively extending the new integrated Jobcentre Plus office network across the country over the next four years. These offices provide an active and responsive service to help people find jobs, and give advice on the full range of help and support available.

    Plans are currently being developed to roll out the new integrated Jobcentre Plus service in Portsmouth. Partners and stakeholders were consulted about these plans in June and September 2002. Their comments are being taken into consideration in reaching final decisions, which will be announced in due course.

    Medical Services
    Kevin Brennan
    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) what proportion of targeted audits carried out by medical services have been categorised as grade C; [98423]

    (2) how many targeted audits have been carried out on medical service reports in the last five years; [98424]

    (3) what plans he has to reform the assessment procedures of targeted audits on medical assessments of claimants by Medical Services; and if he will make a statement. [98425]

    Mr. Nicholas Brown
    A total of 122,205 cases have been randomly audited since 1 September 1998, of which 5,134 were found to be C Grades, a proportion of 4.2 per cent.

    The medical quality audit process has been shown to be robust and reliable, and there are no plans to change it. The Department is working with Medical Services to ensure that timely and robust remedial action is taken with doctors who fail to meet the required standards.

    ONE Pilot Schemes
    Mr. Heald
    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many people, broken down by client group, participated in the 'ONE' pilot schemes; and how many people in each client group obtained employment as a result. [91642]
    489W
    Mr. Nicholas Brown
    [holding answer 20 January 2003: Participation in ONE became mandatory from April 2000. During the period from April 2000 to April 2002, 457,976 jobseekers, 128,537 sick or disabled clients, 49,909 lone parents and 55,077 clients in other categories entered ONE.

    Survey evidence from the ONE evaluation found that 41 per cent. of jobseekers, 25 per cent. of sick or disabled clients and 14 per cent. of lone parents, had moved into work of over 16 hours a week, four to five months after having begun their claim.

    These figures correct those provided on lone parents in a previous reply to the hon. Member on 7 January which were taken from the ONE Management Information System which is less robust than the longer-term formal evaluation of ONE.

    Further information on the employment effects of ONE has been published in DWP Research Report No 156 and DWP In-house Report No 88, copies of which are in the House of Commons Library. Final results from the ONE evaluation will be published on 31 January.

    The majority of ONE offices will become fully integrated Jobcentre Plus offices by March 2003. The remaining offices will continue to provide an integrated service until they transfer as part of the Jobcentre Plus national roll out.

    Mr. MacDougall
    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what proportion of lone parents participating in the ONE programme have gained employment in(a) Scotland and (b) Fife. [93562]

    Mr. Nicholas Brown
    The only ONE pilot in Scotland was a Basic Model pilot in Clyde Coast and Renfrew, and so lone parents in Fife did not participate in the ONE programme.

    The ONE evaluation found that 20 per cent. of lone parents in the Basic Model of ONE had moved into work of over sixteen hours a week when they were interviewed between ten and eleven months after having begun their claim.

    Evaluation findings are not available for individual ONE pilot areas so we cannot provide separate figures for the Scottish pilot.

    Final results from the ONE evaluation, including the employment effects of ONE, were published on 31 January 2003 as DWP Research Report No 183, copies of

    which are in the House of Commons Library.

    Pension Schemes
    Mr. Willetts
    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what his latest estimate is of the cost to employers of following the full buy-out option contained in paragraph G33 of "Simplicity security and choice" technical paper published on 17 December 2002, if all pension schemes were to wind up. [96608]

    Mr. McCartney
    Within the Green Paper, "Simplicity, security and choice: working and saving for retirement" (Cm 5677), we are seeking views on two options for strengthening protection for members 490W
    whose solvent employer decides to wind up their pension scheme. These are the "full buy-out" option and the "partial buy-out" option.

    The Partial Regulatory Impact Assessment in "Simplicity, security and choice" technical paper contains the latest estimate of costs for these options, a copy of which is available in the Library of the House.

    Pensioners Abroad
    Mr. Willetts
    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions for what reason British pensioners living abroad are facing a delay in receiving their state retirement pension. [99070]

    Mr. McCartney
    This is a matter for Alexis Cleveland, Chief Executive of The Pension Service to reply. She will write to the hon. Member.

    Letter from Alexis Cleveland to Mr. David Willetts, dated 24 February 2003:
    The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions has asked me to respond to your recent Parliamentary Question asking for what reason British pensioners living abroad are facing a delay in receiving their state retirement pension.
    The Department for Work and Pensions sent over 115 million items of mail in 2002 to overseas destinations.
    Whilst every effort is made to ensure items destined for overseas customers arrive at their destination within the designated timescales, (5 calendar days for Europe and 10 calendar days for rest of the world destinations) unfortunately, sometimes delays are experienced.
    The most common causes of delay to overseas customers'payments are problems within foreign postal authorities. For example strikes and adverse weather conditions, which affect the transportation of mail. Also national holidays in the receiving country can add delay,
    Delays reported by customers are taken very seriously and every effort is made to ascertain the reason for the delay, although we are reliant on foreign postal authorities communicating delays or problems within their delivery network.
    Overseas customers now have the option to have their Pension paid directly into their bank account. There are currently 30 overseas destinations which will accept direct payments, with a further 7 countries coming on board over forthcoming months. This method of payment eliminates payment delays caused by postal difficulties.
    If you require further information about a specific case I will be happy to investigate further if you let me have details of the customer, country and the period of delay in non-receipt.

    Pneumoconiosis Benefit
    Adam Price
    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many claims for pneumoconiosis benefit have been received in Wales in the last two years; and how many are outstanding. [96264]

    Mr Nicholas Brown
    The latest available information is in the table.

    Estimated number of claims for Industrial Injuries Disablement Benefit from pneumoconiosis sufferers in Wales

    2000–01

    900

    2001–01

    1,100

    Notes:

    1. Figures are rounded to the nearest hundred and may be subject to a degree of sampling variation.
    491W
    2. Information is not currently available on the number of claims outstanding.

    Source:

    10 per cent. sample of annual statistical returns from Disablement Benefit offices taken in March 2001 and March 2002.

    State Pension
    Mr. Webb
    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will estimate the cost to the Exchequer, net of savings in means-tested benefits and of additional income tax revenue, of an increase of £5 per week in the basic state pension together with the introduction of age additions of £5 per week at age 75–79 and £10 per week at age 80 years and over, on the basis that the age additions for those aged 75 to 79 and 80 years and over are paid in full, regardless of contribution record. [92156]

    Mr. McCartney
    Our priority is to target help on those current pensioners who have the lowest incomes. While it is true that older pensioners tend to be poorer on average, income inequality is far more pronounced across the whole pensioner population than between pensioners of different ages. For example, the median net income of the richest fifth of pensioner couples is around four times that of the poorest fifth.

    Age additions are not the most effective way to target those pensioners with the lowest incomes. For example, just under half of all minimum income guarantee claimants are aged under 75.

    As a result of the minimum income guarantee, no pensioner need live on less than £102.10 a week and a couple on less than £155.80 per week from April 2003. All pensioners receiving MIG will be at least 21 per cent. better off in real terms as a result of MIG rises compared to 1997, with the youngest households gaining as much as one third. Following the introduction of pension credit, the average pensioner household will be over £1,150 per year better off due to Government measures introduced since 1997 and the poorest third of pensioners will be over £1,500 per year better off.

    In addition to extra help for the poorest pensioners, the Government is committed to providing support for all pensioners throughout retirement. From April 2003 the full basic state pension will increase to £77.45 a week—an increase of 7 per cent. in real terms since 1997. Since 1997 the Government has also doubled winter fuel payments to £200, guaranteeing this for the rest of this Parliament, and has introduced free TV licences for those aged 75 and over. Both of these measures are helping pensioners regardless of their income.

    If the maximum rate payable of the basic state pension was increased by £5 per week and weekly age additions of £5 were introduced for people aged 75–79 and £10 for people aged 80 and over in 2003–04, we estimate that the increase in public expenditure could be around £2.6 billion. This is calculated on the generous assumption that consequent savings in other benefits and any additional tax yield are channelled back into the basic state pension.
    492W
    Notes:

    1. Estimates are in cash terms for Great Britain and are rounded to the nearest £100 million.

    2. The estimate takes account of offsetting savings in income related benefits and additional tax yield. Income related benefit offsets are calculated using the Department for Work and Pensions Policy Simulation Model for 2003–04. Additional tax yield is calculated by the Inland Revenue based upon the Survey of Personal Incomes 2000–01, projected to 2003–04.

    3. Calculations assume the maximum rate payable of the basic state pension is increased by £5 per week and all other payments proportionately and that age additions of £5 per week are paid to all those aged 75–79 and £10 per week to those aged 80 and over.

    4. For modelling purposes, pension credit is assumed to be in place throughout 2003–04. In fact, pension credit will begin in October 2003.

    Source:

    Department for Work and Pensions calculations.

    Mr. Webb
    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will estimate by how much it would be possible to raise the basic State Pension for the over-75s on a revenue neutral basis, and taking account of offsetting savings in expenditure on means-tested benefits and enhanced income tax revenue, if he were not to introduce the pension credit and were instead to spend the money on the state pension for the over-75s. [92153]

    Mr. McCartney
    Increasing the basic State Pension for those aged 75 and over would not target resources on those who are most in need. While it is true that older pensioners tend to be poorer on average, income inequality is far more pronounced across the whole pensioner population than between pensioners of different ages. For example, the median net income of the richest fifth of pensioner couples is around four times that of the poorest fifth.

    If Pension Credit was not introduced and expenditure re-directed into the basic State Pension for those aged 75 and over in 2004–05, the maximum rate payable of the basic State Pension for those aged 75 and over could be increased from around £79 per week to around £98 per week and all other payments increased proportionately. This increase would only be possible on the generous assumption that savings from other benefits and any additional tax yield were channelled back into the basic State Pension for those aged 75 and over.

    We estimate that the poorest third of pensioners could be around £130 a year better off under Pension Credit than if the maximum rate payable of the basic State Pension was increased to £98 per week for those aged 75 and over and Pension Credit abolished in 2004–05.

    In this scenario, the only gainers from increasing the maximum rate payable of the basic State Pension and abolishing Pension Credit would be pensioners aged 75 and over. Among those aged 75 and over, the biggest gainers would be those higher up the income distribution.

    Pension Credit has been designed to be simpler, fairer and less intrusive for pensioners than the Minimum Income Guarantee. We are designing the application process to be simpler including the use of the telephone for most applications. The capital rules excluding pensioners with savings of £12,000 or more from any

    493W
    help have been removed. Pensioners will have to report fewer changes to their circumstances and most will have their Pension Credit award fixed for five years.

    Notes:

    1. Figures are for Great Britain and are rounded to the nearest £1.

    2. The Basic State Pension is assumed to rise by 2.5 per cent. in April 2004, reflecting the commitment given by the Government to increase the Basic State Pension by 2.5 per cent. or the September Retail Prices Index, whichever is higher.

    3. The estimate takes account of offsetting savings in income related benefits and additional tax yield. Income related benefit offsets are calculated using the Department for Work and Pensions Policy Simulation Model for 2004–05. Additional tax yield is calculated by the Inland Revenue based on the Survey of Personal Incomes 2000–01, projected to 2004–05.

    4. The estimate has been produced for 2004–05, the first full financial year of Pension Credit.

    5. Projections of distributional consequences for 2004–05 are subject to a variety of assumptions and should be treated with caution.

    Source:

    Department for Work and Pensions calculations

    Regional Agencies (Eastern Region)
    Andrew Selous
    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will list the locations of the offices of regional bodies and agencies in the Eastern region; by county, for which his Department is responsible. [95058]

    Mr. Nicholas Brown
    The answer is in the tables.

    Offices in East of England Government Office Region

    Bedfordshire

    Bedfordshire District Manager

    Dunstable Jobcentre

    Location and District Office, Dunstable

    Bedford Social Security Office

    Leighton Buzzard Jobcentre

    Bedford Jobcentre

    Luton Social Security Office

    Biggleswade Jobcentre

    Luton Jobcentre

    Cambridgeshire

    Cambridge Social Security Office

    Peterborough Social Security Office

    Cambridge Jobcentre

    Peterborough Jobcentre

    Ely Jobcentre

    St Neots Jobcentre

    Huntingdon Jobcentre

    Wisbech Jobcentre

    March Jobcentre

    Essex

    Essex District Manager

    Grays Jobcentre

    Location and District Office, Chelmsford

    Basildon Social Security Office

    Harlow Social Security Office

    Basildon Jobcentre

    Harlow Jobcentre

    Braintree Social Security Office

    Harwich Jobcentre

    Brentwood Jobcentre

    Loughton Jobcentre

    Canvey Island Jobcentre

    Maldon Jobcentre Plus

    Chelmsford Jobcentre Plus

    Rayleigh Jobcentre Plus

    Clacton Social Security Office

    Southend Social Security Office

    Clacton Jobcentre

    Southend Jobcentre Plus

    Colchester Social Security Office

    Stansted Airport Jobcentre

    Colchester High Street Jobcentre

    Tilbury Jobcentre

    Colchester Southway House Jobcentre

    Witham Jobcentre

    Grays Social Security Office

    494W

    Offices in East of England Government Office Region

    Hertfordshire

    Bishop Stortford Jobcentre

    St Albans Jobcentre

    Borehamwood Jobcentre

    St Albans Social Security Office

    Hatfield Jobcentre

    Stevenage Social Security

    Herriel Hempstead Social Security Office

    Stevenage Jobcentre

    Hemel Hempstead Jobcentre

    Waltham Cross Jobcentre

    Herford Jobcentre

    Watford Social Security Office

    Hitchin Jobcentre

    Watford Jobcentre

    Letchworh Jobcentre

    Welwyn Garden City Jobcentre

    Norfolk Cromer Jobcentre

    Kings Lynn Jobcentre

    Dereham Jobcentre

    North Waltham Jobcentre

    Diss Social Security Office

    Norwich Chantry Social Security Office

    Diss Jobcentre

    Norwich Kiln House Jobcentre

    Downham Market Jobcentre

    Norwich Mountergate Social ecurity Office/Pensions Centre

    Fakenham Jobcentre

    Norwich Theatre Street Jobcentre

    Great Yarmouth Social Security Office

    Swaffham Jobcentre

    Great Yarmouth Jobcentre

    Thetford

    Hunstanton Jobcentre

    Wymondham Jobcentre

    Kings Lynn Social Security Office

    Suffolk

    Suffolk District Manager

    Leiston Jobcentre

    Location & District Office, Ipswich

    Beccles Jobcentre

    Lowestoft Social Security Office

    Bury St Edmunds Social Security Office

    Lowestoft Jobcentre

    Bury St Edmunds Jobcentre

    Mildenhall Jobcentre

    Felixstowe Jobcentre

    Newmarket Jobcentre

    Haverhill Jobcentre

    Stowmarket Jobcentre

    Ipswich Social Security Office

    Sudbury Jobcentre

    Ipswich Jobcentre

    Woodbridge Jobcentre

    Offices outside the East of England Government Office region that serve the people within it

    Wembley Disability Benefits Centre

    Notts Local Service Branch (CSA)

    Disability Benefits Unit, Blackpool

    North West Yorkshire Local Service Branch (CSA)

    Invalid Care Allowance Unit, Preston

    South East Yorkshire Local Service Branch (CSA)

    Barnsley Satellite Processing Centre (CSA)

    Western Local Service Branch (CSA)

    Nottingham Satellite Processing Centre (CSA)

    Hull Caller Centre (CSA)

    Norwich Satellite Processing

    Pensions Direct, National

    Centre (CSA)

    Pension Centre, Tyne View Park, Newcastle.

    Sheffield Satellite Processing Centre (CSA)

    Child Benefit Centre, Washington1

    Central Local Service Branch (CSA)

    Notes:

    1Responsibility for Child Benefit will transfer to the Inland Revenue in April 2003, when Child Benefit Centre will become the Child Benefit Office of then Revenue.

    495W
    The following offices based outside Bedfordshire serve the population of Bedfordshire, Norwich Mountergate Social Pensions Centre; Wembley Disability Benefits Centre; Disability Benefits Unit, Blackpool; Invalid Care Allowance Unit; Preston, Hull Caller Centre, Tyne View Park, Newcastle; Child Benefit Centre, Washington and Western Local Services Branch (CSA)

    Shoulder Impingement Syndrome
    Annabelle Ewing
    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what plans he has to recognise impingement syndrome of the shoulder as a prescribed disease for the purpose of industrial injuries disablement benefit. [98598]

    Mr. Nicholas Brown
    Representations concerning impingement syndrome of the shoulder were brought to the attention of the research working group of the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council (IIAC) at its meeting on 13 February 2003. Work related upper limb disorders are part of IIAC's programme of work for 2003–04 and the Council will consider the scientific evidence on Impingement Syndrome in its review.

    Information is not collected centrally on the number of people affected by Impingement Syndrome of the shoulder. We have received no representations from the Department of Health on this issue.

    Transco
    Mr. Gardiner
    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions when the Health and Safety Executive's review of Transco's data handling will be completed; and whether the findings will be published. [94638]

    Mr. Nicholas Brown
    HSE received a final copy of Transco's consultants'report reviewing Transco's data handling arrangements on Tuesday 4 February. HSE is now awaiting Transco's formal action plan in response to the report and will consider both documents to determine whether any further action is necessary.

    It is HSE's intention that the health and safety findings of the report will be made public.

    Trillium Group
    Mr. Laws
    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many buildings were sold to the Trillium Group Ltd. under the Private Sector Resource Initiative for Management of the Estate; what the market value was of these buildings at the time of the sale; if he will list
    the buildings involved; and if he will make a statement. [98389]

    Malcolm Wicks
    On 1 April 1998 the then Department of Social Security transferred almost all of its estate through the Private Sector Resource Initiative for Management of the Estate (PRIME) to the private sector consortium now called LandSecurities Trillium. At that time the Department occupied approximately 700 buildings. Of these, only the 212 freehold and long lease buildings had a capital value and these are listed in the table. As part of the PRIME contract the Department received a cash consideration of £250 million for assets transferred. At the time of the transfer the Departments' property advisers estimated the value of the Estate to be over £300 million. The excess value of the estate is being recovered through reduced facilities payments.
    496W
    The National Audit Office report entitled "The PRIME project: The transfer of The Department of Social Security Estate to the private sector" was published in April 1999. The report was positive and concluded that PRIME is likely to provide better Value for Money than continuing with the existing arrangements.

    Freehold and long lease buildings (i.e. those with a capital value) transferred to Trillium from the Department of Social Security in April 1998. Modern leasehold properties are not listed.

    Property name

    Freehold or Leasehold

    Aberdare Crown Building

    F

    Aberdeen Greyfriars House

    F

    Abertillery Crown Buildings

    F

    Aberystwyth Crown Buildings

    L

    Aberystwyth Old Welsh

    L

    Bromley Westmorland Road

    F

    Burton-upon-Trent Crown Building

    F

    Caerphilly Crown Buildings

    F

    Campbeltown Hall Street

    F

    Cannock Beecroft Road

    F

    Canterbury Nutwood House

    F

    Cardiff Government Buildings

    F

    Carmarthan Danybank Road

    F

    Castleford Wheldon Road

    F

    Chatham The Brook

    F

    Chelmsford Beeches Road

    F

    Cheltenham Rivershill House

    F

    ChesterLeStreet Station Road

    F

    Chippenham St. Pauls House

    F

    Chorley St. Marys Walk

    F

    Clitheroe Primrose Mill

    F

    Clydebank Radnor House

    L

    Coatbridge South Circular Road

    F

    Colchester Crown Building

    F

    Coventry Cofa Court

    F

    Cowdenbeath Factory Road

    F

    Crawley The Boulevard

    F

    Dartford Crown Buildings

    L

    Derby Forester House

    F

    Derby St. Andrews House

    F

    Dewsbury Rishworth Road

    F

    Diss Dominion House

    F

    Dumfries Irish Street

    F

    Dumfries Tormore

    F

    Dundee Magdalene Yard Road

    F

    Edinburgh Argyle House

    L

    Edinburgh Haymarket House

    F

    Edinburgh High Street- Portobello

    F

    Elgin Trinity Road

    F

    Ellesmere Port Whitby Road

    F

    Exeter Melrose House Unit 1

    L

    Falkirk Antonine House

    F

    Falkirk Callendar Park

    F

    Falkirk Callendar Park

    F

    Falkirk Heron House

    F

    Falkirk Heron House (PAU)

    F

    Fareham Crown Office

    L

    Folkestone Palting House

    F

    Frome Northover House

    F

    Galashiels Market Street

    F

    Garston Cressington House

    F

    Glasgow Atlas Road

    F

    Glasgow Coustonholm Road

    F

    Glasgow Crosshill Road

    F

    Glasgow Minerva Street

    F

    497W

    Property name

    Freehold or Leasehold

    Glasgow Muslin Street

    F

    Glasgow Nitshill Road

    F

    Glasgow Northgate

    F

    Goole Burlington House

    F

    Grantham Crown House

    F

    Great Yarmouth Yarmouth way

    F

    Grimsby Cleethorpes Road

    F

    Grimsby Crown House

    L

    Halifax Crossfield House

    F

    Hamilton Douglas Street

    F

    Harlow Beaufort House

    F

    Hartlepool Crown Building

    F

    Hartlepool Crown House

    F

    Hastings Ashdown House

    F

    Havant Elmleigh Road

    F

    Haywards Heath Oaklands

    L

    Hexham St. Andrews House

    F

    Hinchley Wood

    KingstonByPass

    Houghton LeSpring Broadway

    F

    House

    Hull Government Buildings

    F

    Hyde Beech House

    L

    Ilkeston Crown Buildings

    F

    Newcastle Saxon House

    F

    Newton Abbott Ilford Park

    F

    Newton Stewart Victoria Street

    F

    Newtown Afon House

    F

    Northallerton Elder House

    F

    Northampton Gladstone Road

    L

    East Northshields Unicorn House

    F

    Northwich Hartford House

    F

    Nottingham David Lane

    F

    Ormskirk Moorgate

    F

    Orpington The Walnuts

    F

    Oxford Harcourt House

    F

    Paisley Lonend

    L

    Penrith Voreda House

    F

    Penzance Branwell House

    F

    Peterhead Government Buildings

    F

    Peterlee Hatfield House

    F

    Plymouth Crownhill Court

    F

    Pontefract Newgate

    F

    Pontllanfraith Ennisclare

    F

    Poole Park Road

    F

    Port Glasgow Scarlow Street

    F

    Preston Albert Edward House

    L

    Preston Cop Lane

    F

    Preston Diadem House

    L

    Redcar Dawson House

    F

    Redhill London Road

    F

    Rochdale Newgate House

    L

    Change in claimant unemployment in the Jarrow constituency 1997 to 2003

    As at January

    1997

    1998

    1999

    2000

    2001

    2002

    2003

    Total unemployment

    3,428

    3,130

    3,170

    2,879

    2,592

    2,598

    2,334

    Change from previous year

    —

    –298

    40

    –291

    –287

    6

    –264

    (Percentage)

    —

    (–8.7%)

    (1.3%)

    (–9.2%)

    (–10.0%)

    (0.2%)

    (–10.2%)

    Change from 1997

    —

    –298

    –258

    –549

    –836

    –830

    –1,094

    (Percentage)

    —

    (–8.7%)

    (–7.5%)

    (–16.0%)

    (–24.4%)

    (–24.2%)

    (–31.9%)

    Latest figure available is for January 2003. Information is provided for January of preceding years as figures are seasonally unadjusted.
    498W

    Property name

    Freehold or Leasehold

    Romford Crown House

    F

    Rossendale Hurstdale House

    F

    Salisbury Crown Buildings

    F

    Scunthorpe Crown Buildings

    F

    Selby Abbey House

    F

    Sheffield Eastern Avenue

    L

    Shipley Woolcombers Hall

    F

    Shotts Dyfrig Street

    F

    Shrewsbury Whitehall

    F

    Skegness Government Buildings

    F

    Skipton Cavendish House

    F

    Smethwick Church Hill Street

    F

    Southend Prittlewell Chase

    L

    Southend Victoria House

    F

    St. Albans Beauver House

    F

    St. Helens Manor House

    F

    Stanley Towneley House

    F

    St. Austell Carlyon House

    F

    Stevenage Danestrate

    F

    Stirling St. Ninian's Road

    F

    Stornoway Castle Street

    F

    Stranraer Ashwood Drive

    F

    Sutton-in-Ashfield Crown Building

    F

    Swindon Spring Gardens House

    F

    Torbay Cotswold House

    F

    Trowbridge Homefield House

    F

    Twickenham Crown Buildings

    F

    Uxbridge Colham House

    F

    Wakefield Crown House

    L

    Walsall Lower Hall Lane

    L

    Welling High Street (30–40)

    F

    Whitehaven Mark House

    F

    Wick Girnigoe Street

    F

    Wigan Griffin House

    L

    Wigan Mesnes House

    L

    Wishaw Alexander Street

    L

    Worthing Crown Building

    F

    Wrexham Hightown Barracks

    F

    Unemployment
    Mr. Hepburn
    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) what the change in the level of unemployment has been in the Jarrow constituency in each year since 1997; [96358]

    (2) what action the Government have taken to help reduce unemployment in the Jarrow constituency since 1997. [96375]

    Mr. Nicholas Brown
    Information on the change in the level of unemployment in Jarrow is in the table.

    Our policies have created a strong economy geared to delivering stability, low inflation and sound public finances. Building on this foundation, our labour

    499W
    market policies have helped to deliver record levels of employment across the country, and unemployment at its lowest level since the 1970s.

    As the table shows, my hon. Friend's constituency has shared in this success. As well as the reductions in claimant unemployment in Jarrow since 1997, long-term unemployment (over 12 months) has been cut by over 70 per cent. The local Jobcentre has played an important part in these achievements, helping their clients move into work and working closely with employers to fill their vacancies. It is not only unemployed people that have been helped, across the New Deals in Jarrow over 2,000 people have been helped into work.

    We have also introduced Action Teams for Jobs to help disadvantaged people in the most employment deprived areas move into jobs. Be the end of 2002, the Action Team operating in my hon. Friend's constituency had helped 820 people move into work. The Team has developed innovative ways to help jobless people overcome the barriers to work they may face. For example, they have secured funding from the Transport Projects Fund we introduced last year to provide a bus service from South Shields to the Metro Centre and Team Valley, running through Jarrow, to help their clients overcome their transport barriers to work. The Team are also taking their services into the communities they help in Jarrow using a Mobile Unit.

    We are building on the services we provide in Jarrow. The new Jobcentre Plus office in Jarrow will open later this year, delivering a single, integrated service to benefit claimants of working age, with a clear focus on work. Jarrow will also be part of a progress2work-LinkUP pilot starting in the autumn. This new initiative will provide further support for those facing the greatest disadvantages in the labour market, including ex-offenders, homeless people and recovering alcohol misusers.

    Mr. Hancock
    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what recent assessment he has made of trends in the rate of unemployment in Portsmouth; and if he will make a statement. [98346]

    Mr. Nicholas Brown
    The Government's policies have created a strong economy geared to delivering stability, low inflation and have helped deliver a high and stable level of employment benefiting every part of the country. Alongside this, through Jobcentre Plus and programmes such as the New Deal, our labour market policies are helping more people move into work.

    The number of people out of work and claiming Jobseeker's Allowance in Portsmouth has fallen by over 60 per cent. since 1997. Between January 2001 and January 2002 the number of claimant unemployed people in Portsmouth, as a percentage of the resident population of working age, fell from 2.7 per cent. to 2.4 per cent. However, in the last 12 months unemployment has levelled out and is 2.4 per cent. in January 2003. But, with unemployment at levels not seen since the 1970s and inflation and interest rates low, we believe that the UK is better placed than for many years to weather the current uncertainties in the world economy.

    War Pensions
    Mr. Clapham
    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many war pensioners with a diagnosed relevant psychiatric disorder have had their Incapacity Benefit terminated in each of the last three years for which figures are available; and how many had benefit restored on appeal. [96951]

    Mr. Nicholas Brown
    Information on appeals is temporarily unavailable. I will write to my hon. Friend when the data requested become available and place a copy of my letter in the Library.

    The available information is in the table.

    Incapacity Benefit (IB) claims ceasing for people also claiming War Pension because of a psychiatric disorder

    1 September 1999 to 31 August 2000

    200

    1 September 2000 to 31 August 2001

    100

    1 September 2001 to 31 August 2002

    200

    Notes:

    1. Figures are rounded to the nearest hundred.

    2. Figures exclude a small number of cases held clerically.

    3. Numbers are based on a very few sample cases and are therefore subject to a high degree of sampling error and should be used as a guide to the current situation only.

    4. Figures exclude IB claims ceasing due to award of Retirement Pension.

    Source:

    Merges of 5 per cent. samples of the Incapacity Benefit and War Pensions computer systems.

  HEALTH

    Home Care
    Keith Vaz
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many domiciliary carers seeking employment in(a) 2000, (b) 2001 and (c) 2002 were found to have a criminal record preventing them from work. [98552]

    Jacqui Smith
    The information requested is not available.

    Shoulder Impingement Syndrome
    Annabelle Ewing
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of how many people suffer from Impingement Syndrome of the shoulder; and what representations he has made to his Department about the recognition of the syndrome as a prescribed disease for the purpose of industrial injuries disablement benefit. [98599]

    Mr. Nicholas Brown
    I have been asked to reply.

    Representations concerning Impingement Syndrome of the shoulder were brought to the attention of the research working group of the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council (IIAC) at its meeting on 13 February 2003. Work related upper limb disorders are part of IIAC's programme of work for 2003–04 and the Council will consider the scientific evidence on Impingement Syndrome in its review.

    Information is not collected centrally on the number of people affected by Impingement Syndrome of the shoulder. We have received no representations from the Department of Health on this issue.
    501W

    999 Calls
    Mr. Burns
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the average time it took an ambulance to reach an emergency after the initial 999 call was made in(a) England and (b) Greater London over the last 12 months. [97817]

    Mr. Lammy
    Information about the average time it takes an ambulance to reach an emergency after the initial 999 call is not available. The latest information about the proportion of emergency calls resulting in an ambulance arriving at the scene of the reported incident within the Government's target response times for the London Ambulance National Health Service Trust, and all other ambulance trusts in England, is contained in the Department of Health Statistical Bulletin "Ambulance Services, England 2001–02". A copy of the bulletin is available in the Library and available at www.doh.gov.uk/public/sb0213.htm.

    Mr.Burns
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many 999 calls were made to the Greater London Ambulance Service between 20 December 2002 and 3 January 2003 for which it was decided an ambulance was not necessary; and what proportion of calls over this period such calls represented. [97834]

    Mr. Hutton
    The London Ambulance Service received 36,114 emergency calls between 20 December 2002 and 3 January 2003. After receiving clinical telephone advice, 699, or 1.9 per cent. of callers, did not subsequently require an ambulance.

    Accident and Emergency Services
    David Davis
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients admitted to accident and emergency departments waited more than 12 hours before being treated in each of the last two quarters for which figures are available; and what the national average waiting time is for patients waiting more than 12 hours. [97737]

    Mr. Lammy
    The NHS Plan set a new target for accident and emergency (A&E), to reduce the maximum wait in A&E from arrival to admission, transfer or discharge to four hours by 2004.

    In line with this target from August 2001, the Department has collected data on total time spent in A&E from arrival to admission, transfer or discharge. In Quarter 2, 2002–03, 3,095,650, or 77 per cent. of, patients spent less than four hours total time in A&E.

    In addition, the Department collects data on waiting times in A&E post decision to admit patients to a hospital ward. In Quarter 2, 2002–03, 56,581, or 10 per cent. of, patients were not placed in a bed in a ward within four hours of a decision to admit. In Quarter 1, 2002–03, 54,546, or 9.7 per cent. of, patients were not placed in a bed in a ward within four hours of a decision to admit.

    The Department does not collect information on how long patients wait in A&E before being treated or the average waiting time for patients in A&E.

    Chris Grayling
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the number of accident and emergency clinical staff, by category, which will need to be recruited to achieve the four hour waiting time target by the end of 2004. [97704]
    502W
    Mr. Lammy
    The NHS Plan set a new target for accident and emergency (A&E), to reduce the maximum wait in A&E from arrival to admission, transfer or discharge to four hours by 2004.

    The Reforming Emergency Strategy was launched in October 2001 to help achieve the NHS Plan target. The NHS Plan included a commitment to increase the numbers of National Health Service consultants. For A&E, as set out in the strategy, this will result in the recruitment of an additional 183 A&E consultants by 2004.

    In addition, new investment of 40 million was made available to recruit 600 additional A&E nurses to help to deliver the streaming system in A&E. At 31 December 2002, 692 additional A&E nurses had been recruited and were in post.

    Acute Trusts
    Mr. Lyons
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people from outside the UK were treated in acute trusts in 2001–02. [97985]

    Mr. Hutton
    The information requested is not collected centrally.

    Food Advertising
    Chris Grayling
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what his policy is on the advertising of fatty and other foods carrying health risks to the under-fives. [96829]

    Ms Blears
    The Food Standards Agency has met with consumers, enforcement authorities and industry to discuss the development of best practice guidance on the promotion, including advertising, of foods to children. It has also commissioned a review of research into the effects of promotional activity on children's eating behaviour, and will decide how best to take this matter forward when the results are available.

    Current Government action to tackle children's diets and ensure that they have the opportunity to develop healthy lifestyles includes the National School Fruit Scheme, which will provide all four to six-year-olds with a free piece of fruit each school day. There is also considerable work in schools to help children develop healthy lifestyles.

    Agenda for Change
    Dr. Fox
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health if the new NHS foundation trusts will set their pay within the limits spelt out in Agenda for Change. [97304]

    Ms Blears
    [Holding answer 13 February 2003]: The Government will ensure National Health Service foundation trusts are implementing Agenda for Change, if agreed, on establishment. Once established, they will be able to continue to benefit from wider agreements but will also have the additional flexibility and freedom to ensure the necessary mix of skills to provide the best standards of care to patients.
    503W

    Arnica
    Mr. Evans
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the use of arnica as a natural herbal remedy. [97517]

    Ms Blears
    There is a wide variety of remedies containing arnica which have either a marketing authorisation, or a homoeopathic registration or a product licence of right in the United Kingdom. In addition, remedies containing arnica may be sold as unlicensed herbal remedies under section 12 of the Medicines Act 1968. The products with a marketing authorisation are indicated for external use for the relief of bruising, muscle pain, muscle stiffness and sprains. Where the homoeopathic products have an indication this is generally for bruising and trauma.

    Barnet Hospital
    Mr. Dismore
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps are being taken to reduce(a) waiting times and (b) cancelled operations for elective surgery at Barnet Hospital; and if he will make a statement. [98935]

    Mr. Hutton
    The National Health Service is working to reduce waiting times so that by the end of March 2003, the maximum waiting time for an inpatient appointment will be cut to 12 months.

    Barnet and Chase Farm Hospital NHS Trust is working with the Modernisation Agency to reduce cancelled operations by improving theatre utilisation, planning and scheduling.

    Behavioural Difficulties
    David Davis
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the number of children with educational and behavioural difficulties in(a) Haltemprice and Howden and (b) England. [93842]

    Mr. Ivan Lewis
    I have been asked to reply.

    The information requested is currently not collected centrally.

    There is currently no requirement for schools to submit information in the Annual Schools' Census on the nature of such pupils'disability or learning difficulty. However, in June 2001, the Department carried out pilot study involving a sample of 200 mainstream and special schools to assess whether it would be possible to collect data from schools on a broad range of types of Special Educational Needs (SEN). From January 2004 the Department is planning to ask schools and local education authorities to provide this information.

    The available information on the total number of pupils with SEN in Haltemprice and Howden parliamentary constituency and in England is shown in the table.
    504W

    Maintained schools: Number of pupils with Special Educational Needs (SEN)—as at January 2002

    England

    Haltemprice and Howden1

    Pupils with statements of SEN

    Primary

    70,729

    106

    Secondary

    78,606

    132

    Special2

    85,803

    182

    Total

    235,138

    420

    SEN pupils without statement

    Primary

    834,413

    738

    Secondary

    519,116

    711

    Special2,3

    2,407

    5

    Total

    1,355,936

    1,454

    1Parliamentary constituency.

    2 Maintained special schools. Excludes dually registered pupils.

    3 Excludes General Hospital Schools. Data for pupils with SEN without statement are not collected from these schools.

    Source:

    Annual Schools'Census

    Beta Interferon
    Miss McIntosh
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress is being made on increasing the availability of beta interferon for MS sufferers in York and North Yorkshire. [95200]

    Jacqui Smith
    The York multiple sclerosis service has begun implementing the beta interferon risk sharing scheme within the existing neurology facilities. To date four patients have been assessed and three have been accepted onto the scheme.

    Plans are also in place for the recruitment of an additional consultant neurologist for this service which will enable the York service to be able to fully implement the scheme.

    Blood Donations
    Mr. Havard
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health when his Department will announce the results of its inquiry into whether recipients of blood are to be prevented from donating blood tissue or organs for transplant. [95571]

    Ms Blears
    The Government's Advisory Committee on the Microbiological Safety of Blood and Tissues (MSBT) has considered whether all blood transfusion recipients should be excluded from donating blood and has advised that this policy would have a damaging impact on blood supplies. There are therefore no plans to introduce this measure although we will continue to keep it under review. MSBT is continuing to consider possible further measures to reduce the theoretical risk of vCJD through blood transfusion.

    In October 2001, the CJD Incidents Panel recommended in its consultation paper "Management of possible exposure to CJD through medical procedures" (www.doh.gov.uk/cjd/consultation) that people who received blood from donors with vCJD should be informed of their potential exposure and advised not to give blood or donate organs and tissues and that special precautions might be needed if they

    505W
    require surgery. The panel recommended that no one should be given this information until proper counselling and back-up facilities were made available.

    A decision on whether to implement the Incidents Panel's recommendations has not been made. The issue is currently with the four United Kingdom Chief Medical Officers to agree a common approach.

    Cancelled Operations
    Mr. Burns
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many operations were cancelled less than two days before the due date, broken down by strategic health authority, in each of the last 12 months; [97828]

    (2) how many operations were (a) cancelled and (b) delayed in each of the last 12 months in each strategic health authority area in England. [97833]

    Mr. Hutton
    Quarterly data are collected on the number of operations cancelled by the hospital for non-clinical reasons at the last minute (i.e. on the day patients are due to arrive or after arrival in hospital or on the day of their operation) and on the day of surgery. These data are available at strategic health authority level in the Library and on the Department's website at www.doh.gov.uk/hospitalactivity/data requests.htm. Data from strategic health authorities were first collected from Quarter 1 of 2002–03.

    Cancer
    Sir Nicholas Winterton
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to ensure that teenagers diagnosed with cancer gain appropriate access to medical treatment and care; and if he will make a statement on the number of hospitals which provide dedicated care facilities for teenagers suffering from cancer. [96943]

    Ms Blears
    We are taking action to meet the specific needs of teenagers with cancer. We are providing funding through the national cancer research network to enable more teenage cancer patients to enter trials of the latest treatments. In addition we are looking at how teenagers can participate in the design of health services centred around their particular needs. This is being addressed through the Commission for Patient and Public Involvement in Health. The contribution of patients will also be reflected in the forthcoming national service framework for children, young people and maternity services which will drive up standards of care in all health and social care settings for all children and young people. We hope to publish the first module on hospital services shortly. The national service framework will also inform guidance the National Institute for Clinical Excellence is developing on children's and adolescent cancers.

    We do not hold details of all services centrally but are aware of at least eight units dedicated to teenage cancer patients in the national health service.

    Mr. Evans
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health which hospitals have wards specialising exclusively in cancer in teenagers. [97804]
    506W
    Ms Blears
    We do not hold details of all services centrally but we are aware of eight units dedicated to teenage cancer patients in the following National Health Service trusts:

    Middlesex Hospital, University College Hospitals NHS Trust, London;

    University College Hospital, University College Hospitals NHS Trust, London;

    Queen Elizabeth Hospital, University Hospital Birmingham NHS Trust;

    Christie Hospital NHS Trust, Manchester;

    Weston Park Hospital, Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust;

    St James's University Hospital. Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust;

    Royal Victoria Infirmary, Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Trust;

    Alder Hey Hospital, Royal Liverpool Children's NHS Trust.

    Canthaxanthin
    Mr. Wyatt
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action he plans to take over the import into the UK from non-EU countries of(a) poultry and (b) eggs which are fed canthaxanthin; and if she will make a statement. [97577]

    Ms Blears
    In December 2002 European Union member states agreed the text of a Directive to reduce the maximum incorporation levels for canthaxanthin in feed. However, the United Kingdom successfully argued that maximum residue limits also be introduced for relevant foods. These will be set following a risk assessment and when European Commission legal powers are available later this year. The levels will apply evenly to both imports and home production.

    Mr. Wyatt
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what tests will be carried out to check the levels of canthaxanthin in(a) poultry and (b) eggs imported into this country from non-EU countries. [97578]

    Ms Blears
    There are no statutory maximum permitted levels for canthaxanthin in eggs or poultry against which such tests could monitor compliance. Nevertheless, I am advised that the Food Standards Agency is considering such surveillance of canthaxanthin in food derived from European Union and non-EU countries as would be necessary both to inform the setting of future maximum residue levels and to inform estimates of consumer exposure.

    Care Standards Act
    Tim Loughton
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many responses he received to his consultation on regulations to the Care Standards Act 2000; and how many dealt with(a) room dimensions, (b) communal space and (c) training of staff. [97885]

    Jacqui Smith
    The consultation document issued on 16 August set out proposals to change certain national minimum standards for care homes for older people and care homes for younger adults (18–65) which relate to the physical environment. The consultation did not propose making any changes to the Care Homes Regulations 2001 issued under the Care Standards Act.
    507W
    In total, 243 responses to the consultation were received. The majority of respondents commented on two or more of the standards. 109 of the responses mentioned the issue of room dimensions, 82 mentioned communal space, and 33 mentioned training of staff.

    Chemical Protection Suits
    Mr. Swayne
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what allocation of chemical protection suits has been made to each ambulance NHS trust; and if he will make a statement. [97788]

    Mr. Lammy
    On 14 March 2002 the Department issued a letter outlining the process for purchasing mobile decontamination units and personal protective equipment (PPE) suits for chemical incidents.

    The funding allocation made to each region in the financial year 2002–03 is:

    £

    Eastern

    458,000

    London

    575,000

    Northern and Yorkshire

    630,000

    North West

    673,000

    South East

    968,000

    South West

    706,000

    Trent

    407,000

    West Midlands

    583,000

    Regional offices are free to agree with National Health Service trusts the number of decontamination facilities and the amount of associated PPE and any other items that can be obtained from the regional allocation to implement regional strategies.

    The number of suits ordered to date by ambulance trusts is as follows:

    No.

    Avon

    100

    Bedfordshire

    100

    Cumbria

    100

    Dorset

    100

    East Anglian

    200

    East Midlands

    150

    Essex

    100

    Greater Manchester

    150

    Guernsey

    12

    Hampshire

    150

    Hereford and Worcester

    50

    Kent

    150

    Lancashire

    150

    Lincolnshire

    100

    London

    350

    Mersey

    200

    North East

    200

    Oxfordshire

    100

    Royal Berks.

    100

    South Yorkshire

    50

    Surrey

    150

    Sussex

    100

    Tees East & North Yorks.

    150

    Two Shires

    100

    West Country

    400

    West Midlands

    105

    West Yorkshire

    100

    Wiltshire

    100

    508W

    Children (West Africa)
    Tim Loughton
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what discussions he has had with social services authorities in(a) Nigeria, (b) Sierra Leone and (c) the Ivory Coast about the dangers to children coming to the UK to live without their parents. [96111]

    Jacqui Smith
    None. However, as part of a recent Department of Health review of private fostering, officials from the Department have had discussions with organisations in this country with direct links to communities in West Africa, including the African Women's Welfare Association.

    Cigarette Smuggling
    Chris Grayling
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research his Department has carried out into the health implications of cigarette smuggling. [96516]

    Ms Blears
    There is clear evidence that price affects consumption and the availability of smuggled cigarettes acts against our efforts to reduce smoking prevalence.

    The price a person has to pay for cigarettes is linked to the likelihood of that person smoking. The higher the price the greater the likelihood that a person will not buy cigarettes.

    Smuggled cigarettes are sold at relatively low prices and therefore encourage people to purchase and smoke cigarettes. With lower levels of smuggling we would expect fewer people to smoke and hence fewer people to develop smoking related illnesses.

    Congestion Charge
    Mr. Burns
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what discussions he has had with the London Ambulance Service concerning the introduction of congestion charges in Central London; [97819]

    (2) how many representations he has received concerning the possible consequential impact of the introduction of congestion charges in Central London on health services, with particular reference to emergency services, in London. [97818]

    Mr. Hutton
    I have received three letters from national health service professionals employed in London about the impact of the congestion charge.

    The London Ambulance Service (LAS) has been actively involved in the consultation process for the congestion charging scheme and the development of the NHS reimbursement scheme, in discussion with Transport for London. The implementation of the reimbursement scheme is being led by the NHS and a steering group has been established, with trust, staff and patient representation, to oversee the development of the scheme and assess the impacts of congestion charging on both staff and patients.

    My hon. Friend Under-Secretary for Public Health has visited the LAS and corresponded with the chief executive regarding the congestion charging and the NHS reimbursement scheme.
    509W

    Coronary Heart Disease
    Mr. Rosindell
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he next plans to visit coronary heart disease departments in hospitals in Havering. [97696]

    Mr. Hutton
    I have no current plans to visit coronary heart disease departments in hospitals in Havering at this time.

    Mr. Rosindell
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what plans he has to combat coronary heart disease in the London Borough of Havering; [97698]

    1996

    1997

    1998

    1999

    2000

    England

    86

    81

    78

    74

    69

    Havering

    89

    79

    71

    79

    75

    Barking & Dagenham

    105

    94

    93

    96

    87

    Redbridge

    91

    76

    81

    74

    74

    Hackney

    82

    80

    76

    66

    64

    Tower Hamlets

    100

    89

    79

    77

    73

    Newham

    100

    96

    95

    100

    89

    Waltham Forest

    96

    92

    78

    94

    85

    The national service framework (NSF) for coronary heart disease (CHD), published in March 2000, sets out a 10 year strategy for tackling heart disease through improved prevention, identification and treatment of CHD. The NHS Plan reinforced this, including a commitment to significantly increase investment in services. Since the publication of the NSF, an additional 359 million revenue funding has been made available, most of this in baseline allocations, to enable local health communities to develop the services they need to meet the needs of their local population.

    In north east London there is a cardiac network as well as the local Havering cardiac NSF implementation team working to ensure that the NSF is implemented fully. There is joint work ongoing between the local primary care trust (PCTs) and acute trust to improve speed of access to thrombolysis for patients admitted to accident and emergency with acute myocardial infarction.

    There are also additional resources being made available from Havering PCT to support primary care in developing CHD registers. These are a key tool to enable systematic identification and treatment of people with, or at high risk of developing, CHD. The PCT also provides a smoking cessation service. Figures available are combined for Barking and Havering and in 2001–01, 318 people successfully quit, whilst in 2001–02 there were 502.

    International research shows that diets rich in fruit and vegetables are protective against cardiovascular disease, including heart disease and stroke. The National School Fruit Scheme, which will be fully operation from 2004, will entitle school children aged four to six to a free piece of fruit each school day. The scheme was rolled-out to schools in London during the autumn of last year. The scheme is now available to all Romford schools with four to six year olds.

    Mr. Rosindell
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what discussions he has had with(a) Havering Primary Care Trust and (b) the Havering, Barking and Redbridge NHS Hospitals Trust regarding coronary heart disease. [97699]
    510W
    (2) if he will make a statement on the levels of coronary heart disease in the London Borough of Havering. [97697]

    Mr. Hutton
    Figures available on trends in mortality from coronary heart disease (LCD 410–414) indirectly standardised ratios (SMR) for all ages, covering the time period of 1996–2000, show that there has been a sustained decrease in mortality in all of the primary care trusts in north east London, including Havering. This information is shown in the table.

    Mr. Hutton
    I have had no discussions with Havering Primary Care Trust and Barking Havering and Redbridge Hospitals National Health Service Trust regarding coronary heart disease.

    Correspondence
    Mr. Webb
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will reply to the letter from the hon. Member for Northavon of 25 October 2002, regarding Mrs. J. A., his ref P01018183. [94021]

    Jacqui Smith
    A reply was sent to the hon. Member on 18 February 2003.

    Mr. Kaufman
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he intends to reply to the letter to him dated 10th January from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton with regard to Mrs. H Fisher. [98964]

    Mr. Milburn
    A reply was sent to the right hon. Member on 24 February.

    Delayed Discharges
    Mr. Ruffley
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many delayed discharge patients there were in January in(a) the Suffolk West PCT area and (b) the Central Suffolk PCT area; and what percentage of those patients had been waiting over 28 days. [97391]

    Jacqui Smith
    The information requested is not available for January. The latest centrally collected figures are for December 2002, when 34 patients in Suffolk West primary care trust (PCT) area and 12 patients in Central Suffolk PCT area were awaiting discharge. 41.2 per cent. in Suffolk West PCT had been waiting over 28 days and 41.7 per cent. in Central Suffolk PCT.

    Dentistry
    Mr. Gareth Thomas
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what discussions on a reciprocal agreement to recognise qualifications in dental surgery achieved in
    511W
    Kenya there have been in the last 30 years with the Kenyan authorities; and if he will make a statement. [96792]

    Mr. Lammy
    The General Dental Council has statutory responsibility within the United Kingdom for determining which qualifications confer eligibility for admission to the dental register. Discussions about reciprocal arrangements would be a matter for the GDC. Advice for overseas dentists seeking to become eligible to work in the United Kingdom is available from the GDC and the National Advice Centre for Postgraduate Education, Faculty of Dental Surgery of the Royal College of Surgeons.

    Dietary Advice
    Chris Grayling
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much money his Department has spent on public health programmes targeted at encouraging the consumption of fruit and vegetables in each of the past 10 years. [97104]

    Ms Blears
    In 2002–03 the Department of Health expects to have spent £783,000 on the Five-a-day programme to promote consumption of fruit and vegetables, including Five-a-day community initiatives and the National School Fruit Scheme. The New Opportunities Fund is also spending £52 million on those schemes: £42 million for National School Fruit Scheme and £10 million for community initiatives over the next two years.

    In each of 2001–02 and 2000–01 the Department spent £1.25 million. There was no spending specifically to encourage consumption of fruit and vegetables before 1999.

    In addition to the above, initiatives to increase fruit and vegetable consumption have been funded through health action zones, sure start, healthy living centres and through general funding allocations to health authorities and primary care trusts.

    Dr. Gibson
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what advice is given to the public on improving diet. [97322]

    Ms Blears
    The Government are committed to providing advice and information, based on a sound evidence base, which will help to achieve long-term improvements in the diet and nutrition of the United Kingdom population. It is for this reason that government advice, in general, is for people to consume a healthy and varied balanced diet.

    The Food Standards Agency (FSA) and Department of Health are engaged in a wide range of activities aimed at promoting the uptake of a healthy balanced diet as outlined in the FSA's Nutrition Action Plan and the NHS Plan.

    Chris Grayling
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the fruit and vegetables that are(a) excluded and (b) included in the approved lists for the five a day campaign. [96884]

    Ms Blears
    The Five-a-day message is to eat at least five portions of a variety of fruits and vegetables each day. Fresh, frozen, canned, dried and 100 per cent. juice count.
    512W
    100 per cent. juice only counts once per day even if more than one portion is consumed. Beans and other pulse vegetables only count once per day even is more than one portion is consumed. A portion of dried fruit counts, but other types of fruits and vegetables should be consumed to meet the rest of the five a day target.

    Potatoes and other vegetables that are eaten as the main starchy 'staple', such as yam and cassava, do not count towards the five a day target. Starchy foods are an important part of a healthy, balanced diet.

    Nuts and seeds, coconut, marmalade and jam do not count towards five a day. Fruit drinks with added ingredients such as juice "drinks" and squashes do not count towards five a day.

    The fruit and vegetables contained in processed foods, such as pasta sauces, soups, stews and puddings can contribute to five-a-day. However, processed foods containing fruit and vegetables which are also high in added fat, salt and/or sugars should only be eaten in moderation.

    A Five-a-day logo has been developed as part of the communications programme, to help people recognise the Five-a-day message and introduce consistency in the message in all settings. In the first instance, the logo will only be able to be used to promote products without any added sugar, fat or salt. While the recommendation to eat more fruit and vegetables is an important one, this needs to be considered in the context of an overall balanced diet. We are giving further consideration to developing nutrition criteria for the use of the Five-aday logo on fruits and vegetable product with added ingredients.

    Digital Hearing Aids
    Miss McIntosh
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress is being made on increasing the availability of digital hearing aids for patients in York and North Yorkshire. [95201]

    Jacqui Smith
    Funding has been made available for the years 2003–04 and 2004–05 to ensure that a modernised service, providing digital hearing aids, will he available from all National Hearing Service hearing aids services in England by April 2005.

    Those NHS hospital trusts not yet involved in the modernisation project will now need to discuss with their respective primary care trusts whether they wish to modernise in 2003–04 or 2004–05.

    Mr. Hoyle
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will provide digital hearing aids on the NHS in Chorley; and when the next round of allocations for the provision of digital hearing aids on the NHS will be announced. [97693]

    Jacqui Smith
    Funding has been made available for the years 2003–04 and 2004–05 to ensure that a modernised service, providing digital hearing aids, will be available from all National Health Service hearing aids services in England by April 2005.

    Those NHS hospital trusts not yet involved in the modernisation project will now need to discuss with their respective primary care trusts whether they wish to modernise in 2003–04 or 2004–05.
    513W
    Tim Loughton
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he expects to use non-NHS providers to achieve full coverage of digital hearing aids under the Modernising Hearing Aid Services Programme. [97877]

    Jacqui Smith
    Following a successful pilot, which provided National Health Service aids via private hearing aid providers, we intend to extend public private partnerships to boost NHS capacity, reduce waiting times and to make it easier for people with hearing impairment to access services—on the high street rather than in hospitals. We are drawing up plans for this work and want to make rapid progress.

    Tim Loughton
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many additional audiologists he estimates will need to be recruited to provide digital hearing aids for the target user group within the two year timetable. [97890]

    Jacqui Smith
    It is currently estimated that an additional two audiological posts will be required by each site as it is modernised to become a service that provides digital hearing aids. As modernised hearing aid services are rolled out across England over the next two years, work will be continuing on skill-mix and involvement of the private sector, which could have an effect on that estimate.

    Tim Loughton
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many NHS trusts do not offer digital hearing aids; and what estimate he has made of when each of them will be able to start fitting digital hearing aids. [97891]

    Jacqui Smith
    All National Health Service hearing aid services will be providing digital hearing aids by April 2005. We plan to modernise 80 in 2004–05 and the remaining services, approximately 70, in 2004–05.

    By the end of March, there will be a total of 50 NHS trusts providing digital hearing aids as part of a modernised hearing aid service. In addition, any NHS hearing aid service which has received appropriate training and equipment is able to access the NHS digital hearing aid contract. This represented in the region of 23 additional trusts accessing the contract at the beginning of this financial year, five of which have since joined the modernisation programme. By April 2003, a further 17 services will have received, through the modernisation programme, the equipment and training to enable them to access the contract. We understand that there may be other trusts who supply digital hearing aids outside the NHS contract. Those figures are not held centrally.

    Drug Dependency (Treatment)
    Mrs. Helen Clark
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the average waiting time was for an opiate dependent patient seeking treatment before he or she received treatment in the last year for which figures are available. [97643]

    Ms Blears
    Opiate dependent patients receive treatment through the different treatment delivery methods as listed, depending on their clinical need. The National Treatment Agency for Substance Misuse (NTA) has implemented a waiting times strategy which 514W
    is significantly reducing waiting times. The longest waiting times reported to the NTA in drug action team treatment plans are shown in the table.

    Weeks

    December 2001

    December 2002

    In-patient detoxification

    12

    8

    Specialist prescribing

    14

    8

    GP prescribing

    5

    4

    Structured counselling

    7

    5

    Day Care

    6

    3

    Residential rehab

    9

    7

    Mrs. Helen Clark
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the proportion of opiate dependent patients seeking treatment who(a) proceed to receive treatment, (b) complete the course of treatment and (c) fail to report for treatment when offered. [97644]

    Ms Blears
    Information on the numbers of drug misusers in contact with drug treatment agencies in England is available in "Statistics from the Regional Drug Misuse Databases on drug misusers in treatment in England, 2000–01" http://www.doh.gov.uk/public/ sb0133.htm. This document is available in the Library.

    The Department funded National Treatment Outcome Research Study demonstrates that around half, or 47 per cent., of drug users who have gone through residential programmes, and more than a third, or 35 per cent., of those from methadone programmes are still abstinent from opiates at four to five years. More than a third, or 38 per cent., of all the residential clients were also abstinent from all six illicit target drugs—illicit heroin, non-prescribed methadone, non-prescribed benzodiazepines, crack cocaine, powder cocaine, amphetamines—at four to five years.

    The National Drug Treatment Monitoring System collects data on drug users on arrest referral schemes which show that 48,810 individuals were screened between October 2000 and September 2001 in England and Wales, of whom over half were voluntarily referred to a specialist drug treatment service. Of those referred, a quarter made a demand for treatment, a total of 5,520 individuals.

    Mrs. Helen Clark
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of methadone is prescribed for(a) oral consumption and (b) delivery by injection. [97647]

    Ms Blears
    96 per cent. of all prescription items for methadone hydrochloride that were dispensed in the community in England in 2001 were for oral consumption. The corresponding percentage for injections is 4 per cent.

    It should be noted that methadone is not only prescribed for opioid dependence and may be prescribed as a treatment for other conditions.
    515W

    Electronic Patient Records
    Chris Grayling
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what targets are in place for the introduction of electronic patient records; [88736]

    (2) how many trusts are meeting their targets for the introduction of electronic patient records. [88737]

    Tim Loughton
    To ask the Secretary of State for health pursuant to the answer given to the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham on 13 January 2003,Official Report, column 488W, when he expects all NHS trusts in the south-east to have introduced electronic patient records. [92598]

    Mr. Lammy
    The following targets are in place for implementing the Integrated Care Record Service (ICRS) in the Government's '21st Century IT' Strategy for the national health service:Health Records Infrastructure initial connections by all trusts by March 2005;
    December 2005—all primary care trusts and all NHS trusts actively implementing elements of electronic patient records (EPR);
    December 2007—full national health record service, with core data and reference links to local EPR systems for full record access; EPR (compliant with new national standard, XML-based specification) systems implemented in all PCTs and all hospitals (to be confirmed during calendar year 2003); and
    Unified Health Record (with all appropriate social care information) by December 2010 (to be confirmed during calendar year 2006).

    ENT Patients
    Dr. Fox
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has put in place to extend the London pilot scheme on patient choice for(a) cataract patients, (b) ENT patients and (c) general surgery throughout England. [97316]

    Ratio of all practitioners (excluding GP retainers)1 and unrestricted principals and equivalents (UPEs)2 to patients in North Yorkshire health authority and England; 1997, 2000 and 2001

    1997

    2000

    2001

    Ratio of:

    Ratio of:

    Ratio of:

    All practitioners: patients (excl. GP retainers)

    UPEs: patients

    All practitioners: patients (excl. GP retainers)

    UPEs: patients

    All practitioners: patients (excl. GP retainers)

    UPEs: patients

    North Yorkshire

    HA

    1:1,512

    1:1,660

    1:1,439

    1:1,605

    1:1,443

    1:1,594

    England

    1:1,732

    1:1,878

    1:1,697

    1:1,853

    1:1,670

    1:1,841

    1 All practitioners (excluding GP retainers) include GMS unrestricted principals, PMS contracted GPs, PMS salaried GPs, restricted principals, assistants, GP registrars, salaried doctors (para. 52 SEA), PMS others.

    2 UPEs include GMS unrestricted principals, PMS contracted GPs and PMS salaried GPs.

    Notes:

    1. GP retainers were first collected in 1999 and have been omitted from this table for comparability purposes.

    2. Data as at 1 October 1997 and 30 September 2000–01.

    Source:

    General and Personal Medical Services Statistics

    Foster Care
    Mr. Wray
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans the Government has to increase(a) funding for the foster carer service and (b) local authority allowances for children in foster care. [98486]
    516W
    Mr. Hutton
    Choice pilot projects have been approved in the following areas:Surrey and Sussex, Dorset and Somerset, Berkshire, Greater Manchester and West Yorkshire for certain specialities
    Southern England as a whole for ophthalmology.

    These projects will help local health services prepare for the implementation of wider patient choice leading to implementation guidance being issued to the national health service later this year.

    Evening Primrose
    Chris Grayling
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the withdrawal of Oil of Evening Primrose from the NHS Tariff. [96508]

    Ms Blears
    The marketing authorisations for two products, Epogam and Efamast, containing gamolenic acid, which is derived from evening primrose oil, were withdrawn in October 2002. This action followed a review by the Committee on Safety of Medicines and the Medicines Commission, who came to the conclusion that the products did not meet the current standard of effectiveness required for authorisation of these products as medicines for the treatment of eczema and breast pain respectively.

    Family Doctors
    Miss McIntosh
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the average ratio of family doctors to patients was in(a) 1997 and (b) 2000; and what the average is now in (i) England and (ii) North Yorkshire. [98050]

    Mr. Hutton
    The average ratio of all practitioner, excluding general practitioner retainers, and unrestricted principle equivalents GPs to patients in England and North Yorkshire in 1997, 2000 and 2001 is shown in the table.

    Jacqui Smith
    A £19.75 million choice protects grant will be paid to local authorities in 2003–04 to expand and strengthen their fostering services. The choice protects review is examining placement services for looked after children with a particular emphasis on fostering services. Fostering allowances are being considered alongside issues such as recruitment, retention and methods of supporting foster carers.
    517W
    Tim Loughton
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much is paid towards foster care allowances in each Social Services Authority. [96091]

    Jacqui Smith
    This information is not held centrally.

    Tim Loughton
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to standardise allowances paid to foster carers throughout the United Kingdom. [96092]

    Jacqui Smith
    The Department of Health is currently reviewing all aspects of the fostering service, including remuneration and other issues such as training and support as part of the Choice Protects review.

    Foundation Hospitals
    Dr. Fox
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures foundation hospitals will be able to use to recruit and retain staff. [97305]

    Ms Blears
    [holding answer 13 February 2003]: As set out in "A Guide to NHS Foundation Trusts", paragraph 6.1, National Health Service foundation trusts will have the freedom to recruit and employ their own staff. In developing recruitment and retention policies that recognise local needs they will have flexibility to adopt measures within the framework set out in licence and forthcoming legislation, including the statutory duty of partnership.

    Genito-urinary Medicine
    Mrs. Calton
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what(a) monitoring and (b) research has been conducted or for his Department on long waiting times for genito-urinary medicine services; [97149]

    (2) if he will make a statement on the investment by his Department on GUM clinics; and how the investment will be spent; [97148]

    (3) what the average waiting times were in GUM clinics for patients referred by general practitioners in the latest period for which figures are available. [97147]

    Ms Blears
    The average (mean) waiting time for a first out-patient appointment for patients referred to genitourinary medicine (GUM) clinics by general practitioners is 2.15 weeks as of September 2002. However GUM services are open-access and the vast majority of patients self-refer, so this figure may not be an accurate reflection of waiting times which vary across the country.

    Data from clinicians in the field shows that medium time to first appointment in GUM services has lengthened to 12 days for men and 14 days for women. However there is wide variation in waiting times across the country. It is important that people with sexually transmitted infections (STIs) are able to access GUM services quickly. Evidence from the National Survey of Sexual Attitudes and Lifestyles (2000) shows that people with an untreated STI typically pass the infection on to a further one to four partners. If there is a wait for several weeks, there is a high risk that the patient will not turn up for the appointment.
    518W
    We have invested a total of £5.3 million in GUM services this financial year. This funding was allocated in recognition of the pressure GUM services are facing and in response to concerns from the profession about the possible impact of the new adult sexual health campaign launched in December. We advised this money should be used in line with the priorities highlighted in the sexual health and HIV strategy to increase service capacity and reduce waiting times, develop clinical networks and expand the role of health advisers. The local primary care trust sexual health lead has been asked to monitor that the money has been used effectively.

    General Practitioners
    Tim Loughton
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many golden hello payments have been made to general practitioners in(a) London and (b) West Sussex, broken down by primary care trust level. [96081]

    Mr. Hutton
    Successful applications from general practitioners are forwarded to the Department by primary care trusts for monitoring purposes. Information on the number of applications received by the Department relating to London and West Sussex, broken down by primary care trust level, is shown in the following table.

    Strategic Health Authority/ Primary Care Trust North West London

    Number of applications received

    Ealing

    12

    Hounslow

    4

    Hammersmith and Fulham

    13

    Hillingdon

    9

    Brent

    10

    Harrow

    16

    Westminster

    5

    Kensington and Chelsea

    0

    North Central London

    Barnet

    15

    Enfield

    10

    Haringey

    6

    Camden

    0

    Islington

    0

    North East London

    Barking and Dagenham

    1

    Havering

    5

    City and Hackney

    16

    Newham

    9

    Tower Hamlets

    0

    Chingford, Wanstead and

    6

    Woodford

    Redbridge

    10

    Walthamstowe, Leyton and

    10

    Leytonstone

    South East London

    Bexley

    9

    Greenwich

    9

    Bromley

    17

    Lambeth

    26

    Southwark

    10

    Lewisham

    10

    South West London

    Kingston

    8

    Richmond and Twickenham

    9

    519W

    Strategic Health Authority/Primary Care Trust North West London

    Number of applications received

    Sutton and Merton

    16

    Wandsworth

    11

    Croydon

    25

    Surrey and Sussex (West Sussex PCTs only)

    Adun, Arun and Worthing

    8

    Western Sussex

    13

    Crawley

    3

    Horsham and Chanctonbury

    5

    Note:

    Due to the reconfiguration of primary care groups and trusts in 2002, the information includes applications received from primary care groups and trusts, which merged to form the primary care trusts shown in the table.

    Miss Anne McIntosh
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received concerning the level of GP vacancies; and if he will make a statement. [98049]

    Mr. Hutton
    I have received 29 representations concerning the level of general practitioner vacancies in recent months.

    The increase in GP vacancies reflects the intention of primary care trusts to increase numbers throughout the country. The last GP recruitment, retention and vacancy survey, carried out by the Department for the year ending 31 March 2002, reported that 83 per cent., of vacancies filled in the period of the survey took six months or less to fill.

    The Government is committed to recruiting and retaining more GPs. That is why we have introduced a range of measures, including extended flexible working and childcare and financial incentives for GPs new and returning to general practice and for those who delay their retirement.

    Mr. Cox
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many vacancies there are for general medical practitioners in the London Borough of Wandsworth. [97532]

    Mr. Hutton
    The Department of Health does not collect the information in the format requested. However information provided from South West London Strategic Health Authority shows is that there are five general practitioner vacancies in Wandsworth.

    Health Care (East Riding)
    David Davis
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) residential care and (b) nursing homes have closed in (i) Hull and (ii) the East Riding in each quarter since 1997 for which figures are available. [97731]

    Jacqui Smith
    Information on the number of residential and nursing care homes that have closed is not centrally available.

    Information on the number of residential and nursing care homes in East Riding and Hull is shown in the table at 31 March for the years 1997 to 2001. Data for 2002 are not yet available.
    520W

    Number of residential and nursing care homes1 in East Riding and Hull2 at 31 March 1997 to 2001

    Residential care homes2

    Nursing care homes2,3

    As at 31 March

    Kingston upon Hull Unitary Authority

    East Riding Unitary Authority

    Total for Kingston Upon Hull Unitary Authority and East Riding Unitary Authority

    East Riding and Hull Health Authority

    1997

    106

    237

    343

    49

    1998

    116

    228

    344

    56

    1999

    105

    259

    364

    56

    2000

    100

    247

    347

    52

    2001

    103

    240

    343

    47

    1Residential data exclude dual registered homes.

    2 Residential data is shown separately for Kingston upon Hull Unitary Authority and East Riding Unitary Authority, and combined for comparative purposes with East Riding and Hull Health Authority. Nursing data refers to East Riding and Hull Health Authority.

    3 Nursing data includes general nursing homes, mental nursing homes, private hospitals and clinics.

    David Davis
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients contracted a hospital acquired infection in the Hull and East Riding Hospitals Trust in each quarter since 1997.[97727]

    Jacqui Smith
    Data on hospital acquired infections are not routinely collected. However, collection of methicillin resistant staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) bloodstream infections data was commenced in April 2001. In the period April 2001 to March 2002 there were 106 cases of M RSA bacteraemias in Hull and East Yorkshire National Health Service Trust.

    Source:

    Hull and East Yorkshire Hospitals National Health Service Trust (MRSA table).

    Health Emergency Planning
    Mr. Burstow
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what safeguards he will put in place to maintain existing standards of health emergency planning during the transition of responsibilities from the(a) Public Health Laboratory Service, (b) National Radiological Protection Board and (c) Microbiological Research Authority to the Health Protection Agency. [96590]

    Ms Blears
    We are working with the Public Health Laboratory Service and the Microbiological Research Authority to provide for a smooth transfer of responsibilities from them to the Health Protection Agency (HPA), which we propose to create as a special health authority from 1 April 2003.

    We propose that, at a later stage, the HPA should also take responsibility for functions currently discharged by the National Radiological Protection Board and we shall ensure that that transfer is handled smoothly. We shall expect the HPA to maintain and, where possible, improve standards of health emergency planning.

    Health Protection Agency
    Dr. Evan Harris
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment was made of the model adopted by the National Assembly for Wales for a unified
    521W
    infection service for Wales when his Department decided on the establishment of the Health Protection Agency. [95869]

    Ms Blears
    The Department of Health and the National Assembly for Wales each took the other's proposals into account in developing proposals for England and Wales respectively.

    Health Service Ombudsman
    Mr. Burstow
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will ask the Health Service Ombudsman to report on the implementation of the Court of Appeal Judgment Rv. North and East Health Authority (Ex parte Coughlan) (1999) in cases already investigated. [97674]

    Jacqui Smith
    The Ombudsman is independent of the national health service and government. The Secretary of State is not able to ask the Ombudsman to report on particular issues.

    Heart Choice Scheme
    Dr. Fox
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what qualifications are required for a person wishing to become a patient care adviser for the Heart Choice Scheme. [97311]

    Ms Blears
    Patient care advisers (PCA) are expected to have an appropriate clinical background, and a majority of those in post come from nursing. Beyond this, PCAs need to combine clinical knowledge with excellent organisational and networking skills, and above all to be effective advocates for the patients they are supporting.

    Hepatoxicity
    Tim Loughton
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many cases of hepatoxicity have been reported in the United Kingdom in each of the last 10 years. [96175]

    Ms Blears
    Hepatoxicity may be caused by a number of external sources including the use or misuse of alcohol, certain drugs as well as infection and injury. The Department does not routinely collect figures on the number of cases of hepatoxicity reported in the United Kingdom.

    Table 1 provides data on the number of admissions to national health service hospitals in England where the reason for admission was alcoholic liver failure or toxic liver disease in the years 1995–96 to 2001–02. These figures are given in accordance with the derivation of hepatoxicity by NHS clinical coders.

    Table 1: Breakdown of hospital admissions related to alcoholic or toxic liver disease

    Alcoholic liver failure

    Toxic liver disease

    1995–96

    19,058

    652

    1996–97

    22,881

    690

    1997–98

    27,083

    757

    1998–99

    29,026

    787

    1999–2000

    33,571

    676

    2000–01

    36,923

    749

    2001–02

    39,896

    670

    522W
    The Yellow Card Scheme is a scheme by which health professionals in the UK can report suspected adverse reactions to medicinal products. Data are colleted and reviewed by the Medices Control Agency, with independent advice from the Committee on Safety of Medicines. Approximately 18,000 reports of suspected adverse reactions to medicines are received through the scheme each year.

    Table 2 provides a breakdown of the number of reports of hepatoxicity received in association with any medicine through the Yellow Card Scheme by year since 1993. These reports include all levels of severity of liver problems, from mild elevations of liver enzymes to liver failure. It is important to note that a report of suspected adverse reaction through the scheme does not necessarily mean that it was caused by the medicine.

    Data from the Yellow Card Scheme cannot be used to calculate the incidence of medicine-related liver injury as not all adverse reaction to medicines are reported.

    Table 2: Number of reports of hepatoxicity suspected to be due to medicines reported through the Yellow Card Scheme

    Year received

    Number of reports

    1993

    671

    1994

    675

    1995

    723

    1996

    712

    1997

    770

    1998

    820

    1999

    847

    2000

    861

    2001

    900

    2002

    785

    HIV/AIDS
    Tim Loughton
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the number of people infected by HIV/AIDS in(a) Brighton and Hove City, (b) West Sussex and (c) East Sussex. [96029]

    Ms Blears
    Information on the number of people infected with HIV/AIDS attending statutory services for HIV-related care is collected by the Public Health Laboratory Service's annual survey of prevalent HIV infections diagnosed.

    In 2001, the latest year for which these data are available, there were 800 HIV-infected residents in the East Sussex, Brighton and Hove health authority, of whom 628 were resident in Brighton and Hove local authority. There were 206 HIV-infected people living in West Sussex health authority.

    Hospital Managers
    David Davis
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many hospital managers there are in the Hull and East Yorkshire NHS Hospitals Trust. [96698]

    Jacqui Smith
    The information as at 30 September 2001 is shown in the table.
    523W

    Whole Time Equivalents

    Headcount

    All Managers

    165

    170

    of which:

    Administration and Estates

    136

    141

    Nursing

    23

    23

    Scientific, Therapeutic and Technical

    6

    6

    Notes:

    Figures are rounded to the nearest whole number.

    Source:

    Department of Health Non Medical Workforce Census(30 September 2001).

    Illegal Part-time Employment
    Mr. Hancock
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures he is taking to protect children aged 13 to 15 engaged in illegal part-time employment; and if he will make a statement. [98102]

    Jacqui Smith
    The Children and Young Persons Act 1933, as amended, is the primary legislation covering the employment of all children below the minimum school leaving age. Section 21 of the Act allows for those employing children and young people in contravention of the Act and any byelaws made under it to be prosecuted.

    In-patients
    Mr. Burns
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what his latest estimate is of the average length of stay for in-patients in an NHS hospital in England; and what the average length of stay was in February(a) 2002, (b) 2000, (c) 1998 and (d) 1996. [97839]

    Mr. Hutton
    The average length of stay for ordinary admissions to national health service hospital trusts in England over years from April to March is shown in the table.

    Average length of stay (days)

    2001–02

    8.1

    2000–01

    8.2

    1998–99

    8.7

    1996–97

    10.3

    Notes:

    1. Day cases are excluded. Figures relate to all admissions, including general and acute, mental health and maternity.

    2. Data in this table are adjusted for both coverage and unknown/invalid clinical data, except for 2001–02 which is not yet adjusted for shortfalls.

    3. The length of stay relates to spells finishing over the period; some bed days may have preceded the start of the year.

    Source:

    Hospital Episodes Statistics

    Internet Medical Companies
    Mr. Drew
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what controls he has introduced to ensure that doctors who service internet medical companies provide patient consultations. [97664]

    Mr. Hutton
    Doctors who service internet medical companies do so in a private capacity. A doctor has a duty of care towards patients, no matter how the service is provided. The General Medical Council (CMC)524W
    advises the profession that, in its view, advice and prescribing by e-mail may seriously compromise standards of care; where the doctor does not previously know the patient, where no examination can be provided and where there is little or no provision for proper patient follow-up care. A doctor in the United Kingdom who fails to discharge the duty of care towards patients is liable to investigation and disciplinary action by the GMC.

    Medical Procedures
    Tim Loughton
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many hospitals in the UK are equipped to perform flexible sigmoidoscopies;. [96070]

    (2) what the average cost to the NHS for a (a) rigid sigmoidoscopy and (b) flexible sigmoidoscopy was in the last 12 months. [96072]

    Ms Blears
    The national average costs of a rigid and flexible sigmoidoscopy are shown in the following table. These procedures can be undertaken in a variety of settings and the table reflects this. The costs shown are for the financial year 2001–02 ending on 31 March 2002.

    Full details of these costs can be found in the "Reference Costs 2002", which is available in the Library. They are available to the public via the Department of Health's website.

    £

    Patient type

    Rigid Sigmoidoscopy

    Flexible Sigmoidoscopy

    In-patient: Elective elective

    591

    591

    In-patient: Non-elective

    435

    435

    Day Case

    315

    315

    Out-patient

    98

    122

    Tim Loughton
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the average waiting time is for a flexible or rigid sigmoidoscopy procedure in each hospital trust in England. [96073]

    Ms Blears
    Information on waiting times for sigmoidoscopy procedures are not centrally available. Waiting times for consultant led inpatient elective admissions and consultant led first outpatient appointments following general practitioner referral are collected on the consultant's main speciality, not by procedure.

    Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency
    Dr. Gibson
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has for public consultation on the operation of the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency. [97950]

    Mr. Lammy
    The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, which is being created on 1 April this year, will have new governance arrangements, designed to ensure that the Agency is responsive to the views of its customers, beneficiaries and stakeholders. The Agency will be led by a Chairman and a Board of directors, including a majority of non-executive directors, which will be responsible for developing the
    525W
    policies of the Agency within the framework set by Ministers. The Agency's Chairman, Professor Alasdair Breckenridge, will be responsible for increasing its public profile and, in particular, for ensuring that the public is well-informed about issues concerning the safety of medicines and medical equipment. The Agency will also publish an annual report on its operations.

    Medicines Control Agency
    Dr. Gibson
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to act upon the recommendations made in the recent National Audit Office report on the Medicines Control Agency. [97951]

    Mr. Lammy
    The National Audit Office report was published on 16 January and officials of the Medicines Control Agency (MCA) are currently considering the recommendations of the report. The Board of the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency will take the recommendations fully into account when it considers the operation of the new Agency. Officials from the Department of Health and the MCA will be giving evidence to the Public Accounts Committee on the subject of the report in March.

    Mental Health
    Mr. Burstow
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessments have been made of the effectiveness of assertive outreach teams on the take up of aftercare services by mental health service users discharged from hospital. [97661]

    Jacqui Smith
    Although the Department has not undertaken a direct assessment of this, studies have reported that those receiving assertive community treatments were more likely to remain in contact with services than people receiving standard community care. People allocated to assertive outreach teams were less likely to be admitted to hospital than those receiving standard community care and spent less time in hospital, results show a 35 per cent. decrease in hospital admissions, hence reducing the use of in-patient beds.

    Studies have also shown that in terms of clinical and social outcome, significant and robust differences between assertive community treatment and standard community care were found on accommodation status, employment and patient satisfaction. More users were maintained in treatment longer than in routine case management, users experienced fewer admissions involving the police and there were fewer involuntary admissions.

    Mental Health NHS Trusts
    Tim Loughton
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many new posts of Development Manager have been created in Mental Health NHS trusts in the last year. [97874]

    Mr. Hutton
    Information is not collected centrally on posts which carry this description or title.

    Minor Injuries Units
    Dr. Fox
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the running costs of the(a) St Charles Hospital Minor
    526W
    Injuries Unit, (b) Soho Walk-In Centre and (c) South Westminster Minor Injuries Unit have been in each of the last three years. [95618]

    Mr. Hutton
    The running costs of the St Charles Hospital Minor Injuries Unit and the South Westminster Minor Injuries Unit are not held centrally. This information would be available by contacting the Chair of Westminster Primary Care Trust directly.

    In the first three years of their existence the Department provided specific additional funds to primary care trusts who host national health service walk in centres. For Soho walk in centre the central contribution is shown in the table.

    Year

    Contribution

    2000–2001

    616,000

    2001–2002

    683,000

    2002–2003

    620,000

    Mixed Sex Wards
    Mr. Burns
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress he has made over the last year to end the use of mixed sex wards in NHS hospitals in England; how many mixed sex wards there are in NHS hospitals in England; and how many there were in February(a) 2002, (b) 2001, (c) 2000, (d) 1999 and (e) 1998. [97835]

    Mr. Hutton
    I refer the hon. Member to the Written Ministerial Statement made on 14 January 2003,Official Report, column 24WS.

    Information on the number of mixed-sex wards is not available.

    National Institute for Mental Health
    Tim Loughton
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the proposed expenditure on each regional centre for the National Institute for Mental Health. [97875]

    Jacqui Smith
    Each regional development centre for the National Institute for Mental Health has been allocated £500,000 in each of the next three financial years. North Yorkshire and Humberside regional development centre will be getting an additional £100,000 per annum as it has a larger catchment than the others.

    Additional funding will be available for time limited projects undertaken by the development centres.

    National School Fruit Scheme
    Chris Grayling
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what his policy is on the future funding of the national school fruit scheme. [96515]

    Ms Blears
    The Government have made a commitment to introduce a National School Fruit Scheme for four to six-year-olds across England by 2004. It will be free to schools, parents and children. Region wide pilots for the scheme are being introduced in 2002–03 and 2003–04 with funding from the New Opportunities Fund.

    NHS Dental Care (North-West)
    Mr. Evans
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many dental practices are taking on new NHS patients in(a) the Ribble Valley and Fulwood, (b) Lancashire and (c) the North West of England. [97803]

    Jacqui Smith
    The information requested is not available centrally.

    Arrangements are in place to ensure that all patients can gain access to National Health Service dental services by calling NHS Direct.

    NHS Mental Health Trusts
    Tim Loughton
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the compensation payments to former directors of NHS Mental Health trusts not transferred to new Partnership NHS trusts for mental health. [97873]

    Jacqui Smith
    The information requested is not collected centrally.

    NHS Procurement Programme
    Chris Grayling
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the entry in the Guidance to the National NHS Procurement Programme on page 10 which states that contracts will be structured so that payments only start when value has been delivered. [97707]

    Mr. Lammy
    The guidance to the national National Health Service procurement programme explains the principles the national programme will use in its future contractual relationships with suppliers. It intends to structure contacts so that payment will only start once demonstrable value in terms of goods or services have been delivered.

    NHS Senior Managers
    Mr. Burns
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many senior managers employed by the NHS(a) had their employment within the NHS terminated rather than being moved to another job within the NHS and (b) were sacked and then re-employed in another capacity in the NHS in each of the last three years for which figures are available. [98317]

    Mr. Hutton
    [holding answer 24 February 2003]: The information requested on the termination of employment contracts of senior managers and their reemployment in another capacity in the National Health Service is not collected centrally.

    NHS Treatment (Europe)
    Tim Loughton
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the health establishments which have treated NHS patients on the Continent; and which other establishments he plans to use. [98155]

    Mr. Hutton
    [holding answer 24 February 2003]: Patients have received treatment in three hospitals in France and eight hospitals in Germany. The French hospitals are Polyclinique de la Louviere, Lille; Institute Calo-Hesdin, Berck sur mer; and Clinique Pasteur, St Chamond. The German hospitals are Lutherhaus, Essen; Eduardus Krankenhaus, Cologne;
    528W
    Henriettenstiftung, Hanover; Das Klinikum, Osnabruck; Gilead, Bielefeld; Endo Klinik, Hamburg; Ostseeklinik, Damp; and a clinic in Celle.

    The lead commissioners are currently conducting a procurement process to identify additional overseas capacity. It would be inappropriate to speculate about which other establishments are likely to be used in the future, as this may influence the contracting process.

    Tim Loughton
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to his answer of 5 February,Official Report, column 316W, on NHS treatment abroad, whether the figure includes payments for search agents identifying suitable health establishments to be used by NHS patients in (a) France and (b) Germany; and which search agents were used in each case and at what cost. [98157]

    Mr. Hutton
    [holding answer 24 February 2003]: The figure quoted in the answer of 5 February includes some payment for searches undertaken to identify health establishments. This refers to the hospital used in France, which was identified by the lead commissioner at Kent and Medway health authority. Three separate intermediaries were used to identify suitable hospitals in Germany: Guy's and St Thomas'Trust, Germedic and German Medicine Net.

    NICE Products
    Dr. Francis
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many National Institute for Clinical Excellence products increased their price above the accepted rate of inflation in 2002; and whether his Department issues guidelines to NICE on what action to take in such circumstances; [97301]

    (2) what provisions the National Institute for Clinical Excellence has in place to prevent the treatment producer from increasing the cost once NICE has conducted a cost qualitative assessment of a treatment and approved it. [97302]

    Mr. Lammy
    [holding answers 12 February 2003]: Companies which are members of the Pharmaceutical Price Regulation Scheme may not increase the price of any branded licensed National Health Service medicine Without the prior approval of the Department of Health. The Department's records show that none of the pharmaceutical products appraised by National Institute for Clinical Excellence were increased in price during 2002.

    The NHS Purchasing and Supply Agency negotiates contracts for other products on behalf of the NHS in England. The Agency is not aware of any products where the price has increased as a direct result of a positive appraisal by NICE.

    Non-UK Nationals (Treatment Costs)
    Chris Grayling
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the cost to the NHS of treating non-UK nationals in each of the last five years. [98841]

    Mr. Hutton
    The information requested is not collected centrally.

    Overseas Health Treatment
    Mrs. Lait
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what protocols are in place to clarify the responsibility and funding arrangements for the follow-up care of NHS patients sent abroad for treatment; how he has ensured that GPs and consultants are aware of them: and what advice he has given GPs and consultants on measures to take if they identify complications from the treatment or have concerns about the standard of care of those patients. [98104]

    Mr. Hutton
    The responsibility and funding arrangements for the follow-up care of National Health Service patients referred abroad for treatment are clarified in the contracts held with overseas providers. These contracts define the clinical and non-clinical service to be provided; normally these specify that the overseas provider will provider a complete package of care, requiring no further intervention by the NHS when the patients return to the United Kingdom.

    General practitioners and consultants are briefed by their local trust on the arrangements for the follow-up care of patients that have received treatment abroad. If a GP or consultant identifies complications following treatment abroad, or has any concerns regarding standards of care, they are advised to raise their concerns according to the same procedures that would apply to any other NHS patient. This would involve highlighting the concern with the trust, which can then pursue the matter with either the overseas clinician or the relevant lead commissioner.

    Oxfordshire Community Health Council
    Tony Baldry
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what organisations will replace the Oxfordshire Community Health Council. [95942]

    Mr. Lammy
    There will be patients'forums to monitor and review services from the patients perspective and to represent their views, overview and scrutiny committees that scrutinise health and independent support for patients wanting to complain against the national health service.

    Patient Care Advisers
    Dr. Fox
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list for each London NHS trust whether a patient care adviser has been appointed for(a) ear, nose and throat patients and (b) general surgery patients who will be eligible for the London pilot scheme extending patient choice from spring 2003. [97377]

    Mr. Hutton
    The London National Health Service trusts with patients on their waiting lists for more than six months who will be participating in the London scheme extending patient choice from spring 2003 are:

    Barnet and Chase Farm, Whipps Cross, Royal Free, Barking Havering and Redbridge, Barts and the London Hospital, Ealing, Hammersmith, North West London, Hillingdon, St. Marys, West Middlesex, Kingston, Mayday, St. Georges, Guys and St. Thomas', Hammersmith, Lewisham, Queen Mary's Sidcup, Whittington, Newham, Epsom and St, Helier and Bromley.
    530W
    The patient care advisers are appointed to manage a number of trusts from the list, rather than particular specialties. However all patients participating in the London patient choice scheme will be allocated an individual patient care adviser.

    Penalty Clauses
    Mr. Burstow
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the contracts entered into with private sector companies for the provision of goods or services in the NHS since 1998 which have included penalty clauses for non-performance. [97650]

    Mr. Lammy
    Records are not held centrally for all contracts entered into with private sector companies for the provision of goods or services in the national health service.

    Perinatal Deaths
    Tim Loughton
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many perinatal deaths there were in each of the last 10 years; what the most common causes of perinatal deaths are; what figures he has collated on the rate of perinatal deaths in the UK compared to European countries and the USA; and what he is doing to reduce the number of perinatal deaths. [99081]

    Jacqui Smith
    The number and rate of perinatal deaths (stillbirths plus deaths at ages up to six completed days of life) in each of the last 10 years for England and Wales and also causes of perinatal deaths in 2001, are shown in the tables. Eurostat, the Statistical Office Of European Communities collates statistics across Europe (Eurostat: Key data on health 2000 (1999) pg 170). However, due to differences in the definition of stillbirths, perinatal mortality figures are not completely comparable between the United Kingdom and the rest of Europe, nor with the USA.

    As part of the work on the maternity module of the children's national service framework, the Post Birth and Baby Sub Group is developing national standards to ensure the safety and well being of the baby and will cover issues such as resuscitation, need for assessment, and the immediate needs of the new born. The National Institute for Clinical Excellence will also draw up clinical guidelines.

    In addition we are increasing the number of doctors and midwives to provide better support for women in established labour and thereby improve outcomes for both mother and child, and we have invested an additional £100 million in refurbishment and equipment for maternity suites.

    Perinatal deaths England and Wales 1992–2001

    Number

    Rate per 1,000 total births

    1992⋆

    5238

    7.6

    1993

    6044

    9.0

    1994

    5958

    8.9

    1995

    5701

    8.7

    1996

    5605

    8.6

    1997

    5380

    8.3

    1998

    5261

    8.2

    1999

    5138

    8.2

    2000

    4956

    8.2

    2001⋆⋆

    4740

    8.0

    531W
    ⋆For data from 1993, the definition of a stillbirth changed from 28 weeks to 24 weeks gestation.

    ⋆⋆ Provisional

    Perinatal deaths by ONS cause groups England and Wales 2001 (provisional)

    ONS cause group⋆

    Number

    Rate

    All causes

    4740

    8.0

    Congenital anomalies

    826

    1.4

    Antepartum infections

    53

    0.1

    Immaturity related conditions

    976

    1.6

    Asphyxia, anoxia or trauma

    260

    0.4

    External conditions

    12

    0.0

    Infections

    10

    0.0

    Other specific conditions

    191

    0.3

    Antepartum stillbirths

    2333

    3.9

    Sudden infant death

    1

    0.0

    Other conditions

    78

    0.1

    Total births

    597,694

    ⋆2001 data based on ONS cause groups developed in ICD10.

    Source:

    Office for National Statistics (ONS)

    Pharmacists
    Mr. Rosindell
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what plans he has to consult local pharmacists regarding the proposed deregulation of pharmacists; [97703]

    (2) what recent discussions he has had with representative bodies of local pharmacies regarding the deregulation of pharmacies; [97702]

    (3) if he will make a statement on his plans for deregulation of local pharmacies. [97701]

    Mr. Lammy
    We are considering the report from the Director General of Fair Trading and its findings and recommendation carefully.

    We have invited views on the report and I have met representatives and officers of the Pharmaceutical Services Negotiating Committee, the National Pharmaceutical Association and the Association of Independent Multiple Pharmacies to hear their preliminary views as well as the Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain and many of the larger pharmacy contractors. The views of these and other interested parties will help inform the Government response which my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, is co-ordinating.

    Protection of Vulnerable Adults List
    Mr. Burstow
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the Protection of Vulnerable Adults list. [98725]

    Number of local authority residential places, independent sector residential places, NHS geriatric and elderly long-stay mental illness beds, and independent sector nursing home places in England at 31 March, for the years 1973, 1980, 1990 and 2000

    Rounded As at 31 March

    Residential home places1,2

    NHS geriatric beds3

    NHS elderly long-stay mental illness beds

    Nursing home places1.4 independent sector

    Local authority

    Independent sector

    1973

    6—

    6—

    56,180

    6—

    6—

    19805

    125,390

    76,130

    54,950

    6—

    34,790

    1990

    121,940

    206,010

    48,730

    18,880

    113,260

    2000

    55,500

    273,950

    27,860

    6,040

    193,620

    532W
    Jacqui Smith
    The implementation of the Protection of Vulnerable Adults list has been delayed until the Department is confident that the Criminal Records Bureau will be able to implement checks against the list. The list will be introduced at the earliest opportunity.

    Public Health Controls (Brazil)
    Mr. Lidington
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what analysis he has made of the EU Commission's report DG (SANCO)/8529/2002 on animal and public health controls in Brazil; what assessment he has made of the risk to public health in the United Kingdom from the import of Brazilian meat; and if he will make a statement. [95054]

    Ms Blears
    The European Commission has so far made no proposals to permit imports of pig meat from Brazil further to this report. If such a proposal were made, we would expect the shortcomings identified in the report to have been addressed before the United Kingdom could support it.

    Public Health Laboratory Service
    Mr. Burstow
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to maintain the benefits of bulk procurement in the Public Health Laboratory Service when laboratories are transferred to the National Health Service. [95674]

    Ms Blears
    We plan that the Purchasing and Supply Agency (PASA) should assume responsibility for bulk procurement during 2003–2004, as current contracts are completed. Before these transfers, PASA will be putting in place bulk procurement procedures which will be designed to provide equivalent benefits to the current arrangements for all the national health service microbiology laboratories.

    Residential Care
    Mr. Burstow
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) local authority residential places, (b)independent sector residential places, (c) national health service long-stay geriatric and psycho-geriatric beds and (d) independent sector nursing home places there were in (i) 1973, (ii) 1980, (iii) 1990 and (iv) 2000. [97660]

    Jacqui Smith
    The information available is shown in the table for England at 31 March for the years 1973, 1980,1990 and 2000.

    Reliable data on the number of residential home places for the years prior to 1980, and nursing home places prior to 1982, are not readily available. Information on national health service long stay mental illness beds is not available for 1973 and 1980.
    533W
    1Data include places in dual registered homes.

    2 Data for 1980 do not include places for the client group "other".

    3 Geriatric beds include long and short-stay beds. Long-stay beds are not collected as a separate category.

    4 Nursing home places include beds in general and mental nursing homes, private hospitals and clinics.

    5 Number of independent nursing home places are given as at 31 December 1982. Reliable data for years prior to 1982 are not available.

    6 Data not available

    Smoking
    David Taylor
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimates he has made of the number of people who have died in each of the last five years in England and Wales as a result of exposure to second-hand tobacco smoke. [93623]

    Ms Blears
    Information in not routinely collected on the number of people who have died as a result of exposure to second-hand tobacco smoke.

    The Scientific Committee on Tobacco and Health (SCOTH) in its 1998 Report concluded that, "exposure to environmental smoke is a cause of lung cancer and, in those with long-term exposure, the increased risk is in the order of 20 to 30 per cent. The numbers of people so exposed are not known precisely, but an estimate would suggest about several hundred extra lung cancer deaths a year are caused by exposure to passive smoking".

    SCOTH also concluded: "Exposure to environmental tobacco smoke is a cause of ischaemic heart diseases and if current published estimates of magnitude of relative risk are validated, such exposures represents a substantial public hazard".

    Paul Flynn
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people have died in each of the last five years as a result of passive smoking; and what measures are being taken to reduce exposure to passive tobacco smoke. [93684]

    Ms Blears
    Information in not routinely collected on the number of people who have died as a result of exposure to second-hand tobacco smoke.

    The Scientific Committee on Tobacco and Health (SCOTH) in its 1998 Report concluded that, "exposure to environmental smoke is a cause of lung cancer and, in those with long-term exposure, the increased risk is in the order of 20 to 30 per cent. The numbers of people so exposed are not known precisely, but an estimate would suggest about several hundred extra lung cancer deaths a year are caused by exposure to passive smoking."

    SCOTH also concluded: "Exposure to environmental tobacco smoke is a cause of ischaemic heart diseases and if current published estimates of magnitude of relative risk are validated, such exposures represents a substantial public hazard."

    We are working closely with the hospitality trade to implement the Public Places Charter, designed to provide customers with clear information on the type of smoking policy operating in a particular establishment and allow them to make an informed choice.

    We are also be increasing the visibility of health messages highlighting to smokers the risks environmental tobacco smoke presents. This is through regulations to transpose into UK law the European Union Directive on the Manufacture, Presentation and Sale of Tobacco Products. These regulations require
    534W
    tobacco products to carry larger and starker health warnings, on both the front and back of the packet. The dangers of passive smoking are highlighted in two of the new warnings, which include "Smoking seriously harms you and others around you" and "Protect children: don't make them breathe your smoke." The contents of tobacco smoke are also highlighted in a warning saying, "Smoke contains benzene, nitrosomines, formaldehyde and hydrogen cyanide".

    We are encouraging all employers to introduce smoke-free work places. All of the Department of Health's headquarter buildings will be completely smoke-free by 31 March 2003 and we are funding local tobacco control alliances across England to carry out projects in close co-operation with local employers to tackle passive smoking and to increase the number of smoke-free environments. These projects vary in nature from the production of smoke-free guides to pubs and restaurants to the provision of advice and support to managers wishing to introduce policies. We hope that many will be suitable for national application.

    Paul Flynn
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many regular tobacco smokers there are(a) in the UK and (b) in other Council of Europe countries; and how many there were in each case in 1980. [92573]

    Ms Blears
    The estimated number of smokers in the United Kingdom is shown in table 1. The available data on smokers in other Council of Europe countries as published by the World Health Organisation are shown in table 2.

    Table 1: Estimated percentage and number of current cigarette smokers, among adults aged 16 and over, United Kingdom, 1980 and 2000

    1980

    2000

    Percentage of cigarette smokers1

    39

    27

    Estimated number of cigarette smokers1,2,3

    17,200,000

    12,900,000

    1GB data on the prevalence of smoking have been provided for 1980 as Northern Ireland data are not available: these data were used for estimating the number of smokers in the UK in 1980.

    2The number of smokers has been calculated using the (aged 16 and over), 1971 census based UK population estimates for mid year 1980, and the 1991 census based UK population estimates for mid year 2000 (provided by the Office for National Statistics to the Department of Health).

    3Estimated number of smokers rounded to the nearest 100,000.

    Sources:

    Data on the prevalence of smoking derived from:

    1. Office for National Statistics: General Household Survey 2000, published as 'Living in Britain: Results from the 2000 General Household Survey'. Available from the internet at: http:// www. statistics. gov. uk/lib/index. html

    2. Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency: Northern Ireland Health And Social Wellbeing Survey 2001. Available from the internet at: http://www.nisra.gov.uk/whatsnew/wellbeing/ Smokine$20and$20drinking$20tables.pdf
    535W

    Table 2: Prevalence of smoking among adults aged 15 and over, Council of Europe countries (other than UK), 1980 and 2000

    Percentage Country

    1980

    2000

    Albania

    1—

    39

    Andorra

    1—

    1—

    Armenia

    1—

    1—

    Austria

    1—

    29

    Azerbaijan

    1—

    1—

    Belgium

    1—

    31

    Bosnia-Herceg

    1—

    1—

    Bulgaria

    1—

    1—

    Croatia

    1—

    30

    Cyprus

    1—

    1—

    Czech Republic

    1—

    29

    Denmark

    1—

    30

    Estonia

    1—

    29

    Finland

    26

    23

    France

    17

    27

    Georgia

    1—

    1—

    Germany

    1—

    35

    Greece

    1—

    38

    Hungary

    1—

    42

    Iceland

    1—

    23

    Ireland

    1—

    1—

    Italy

    1—

    25

    Latvia

    1—

    1—

    Liechtenstein

    1—

    1—

    Lithuania

    1—

    32

    Luxembourg

    1—

    30

    Malta

    1—

    1—

    Moldova

    1—

    19

    Netherlands

    43

    32

    Norway

    31

    32

    Poland

    1—

    1—

    Portugal

    22

    1—

    Romania

    1—

    1—

    Russia

    1—

    1—

    San Marino

    1—

    1—

    Slovakia

    1—

    1—

    Slovenia

    1—

    1—

    Spain

    1—

    1—

    Sweden

    32

    19

    Switzerland

    1—

    1—

    FYR Macedonia

    1—

    1—

    Turkey

    1—

    1—

    Ukraine

    1—

    34

    Yugoslavia FR

    1—

    47

    1Not available

    Former health authority

    Total

    Jan

    Feb

    Mar

    Apr

    May

    Jun

    Jul

    Aug

    Sep

    Oct

    Nov

    Dec

    Year 2002

    East Lancashire

    128

    9

    7

    7

    11

    13

    10

    20

    9

    8

    16

    7

    11

    Morecambe Bay (Lancaster)

    10

    0

    0

    2

    1

    1

    1

    1

    2

    0

    1

    1

    0

    NW Lancashire

    62

    6

    12

    6

    3

    4

    5

    4

    3

    8

    6

    2

    3

    S Lancashire

    14

    0

    0

    4

    1

    2

    2

    1

    1

    1

    2

    0

    0

    Total

    214

    15

    19

    19

    16

    20

    18

    26

    15

    17

    25

    10

    14

    Regional Total

    648

    47

    59

    55

    56

    69

    58

    57

    43

    47

    73

    43

    41

    Year 2001

    East Lancashire

    94

    6

    14

    4

    5

    7

    6

    11

    6

    9

    10

    12

    4

    536W
    Source:

    WHO 'European Health for all database'. Available from the internet at: http//www.who.dk/hfadb

    Surgical Instruments (Sterilisation)
    Tim Loughton
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many operations were cancelled last year in England because of a failure of surgical instruments to be properly sterilised. [96052]

    Ms Blears
    Quarterly data are collected on the number of operations cancelled by the hospital for non-clinical reasons at the last minute (for example, on the day patients are due to arrive or after arrival in hospital or on the day of their operation) and on the day of surgery. These data are available in the Library and on the Department's website at www.doh.qov.uk/ hospitalactivity/data requests.htm

    These data are not broken down into the reasons for cancellation.

    Teenagers
    Dr. Kumar
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans his Department has to recognise teenagers as a separate group within the National Health Service for all purposes; and if he will make a statement. [98470]

    Jacqui Smith
    Current guidance acknowledges that the recognition of teenagers as a separate group is good practice.

    The forthcoming national service framework for children, young people and maternity services will endorse this by promoting the need for services that are appropriate to the age and stage of development of the person receiving a service.

    Tuberculosis
    Mr. Evans
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many cases of tuberculosis have been reported in(a) Lancashire and (b) the North West of England in each of the last 36 months. [96726]

    Jacqui Smith
    The information required to answer the question is shown in the following table.
    537W

    Former health authority

    Total

    Jan

    Feb

    Mar

    Apr

    May

    Jun

    Jul

    Aug

    Sep

    Oct

    Nov

    Dec

    Morecambe Bay (Lancaster)

    7

    0

    1

    0

    1

    0

    1

    0

    1

    0

    2

    0

    1

    NW Lancashire

    57

    6

    4

    4

    5

    9

    7

    2

    2

    1

    5

    5

    7

    S Lancashire

    15

    0

    0

    4

    0

    0

    2

    2

    1

    1

    1

    4

    0

    Total

    173

    12

    19

    12

    11

    16

    16

    15

    10

    11

    18

    21

    12

    Regional Total

    650

    64

    59

    55

    43

    61

    55

    59

    57

    48

    44

    67

    38

    Year 2000

    East Lancashire

    117

    6

    4

    12

    12

    13

    10

    8

    9

    14

    14

    9

    6

    Morecambe Bay (Lancaster)

    7

    0

    0

    0

    2

    2

    1

    1

    0

    0

    0

    0

    1

    NW Lancashire

    46

    4

    1

    7

    12

    3

    3

    0

    5

    2

    5

    2

    2

    S Lancashire

    13

    2

    1

    2

    0

    1

    0

    0

    2

    2

    2

    1

    0

    Total

    183

    12

    6

    21

    26

    19

    14

    9

    16

    18

    21

    12

    9

    Regional Total

    640

    58

    32

    70

    55

    72

    51

    48

    53

    51

    66

    41

    43

    Notes:

    1. All data taken from notifications to the enhanced surveillance of tuberculosis programme organised by Communicable Disease Surveillance Centre (CDSC) Colindale and run on a regional basis by CDSC North West.

    2. All data are provisional.

    3. Data should not be used without express permission from CDSC North West.

    Vehicle Fleets
    Rev. Martin Smyth
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of vehicles each NHS trust renewed in their vehicle fleets, broken down by volume and percentage for each category of vehicle, type of power unit and/or type of fuel, in each of the last five years. [96594]

    Ms Blears
    [holding answer 10 February 2003]: Reducing vehicle emissions is a key transport issue, which has been agreed as a priority across Government. Against a baseline year of 2002–03, all Departments are aiming by 31 March 2006 to reduce road transport vehicle carbon dioxide emissions by at least 10 per cent. and requiring at least 10 per cent. of all fleet cars to be alternatively fuelled.

    Progress against these targets will be reported in the "Sustainable Development in Government" annual reports. The first full report against the Framework will be in 2003, reporting against the baseline year of 2002–03.

    The National Health Service has a vehicle fleet of more than 40,000 vehicles but information in the format requested is currently not available.

    Viagra
    Mr. Drew
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on prescribing practice for Viagra. [97097]
    538W
    Mr. Lammy
    In 1999 we decided to constrain the spend on drug treatments for impotence to the approximate amount that was being spent on these treatments before the first oral treatment became available.

    On 1 July 1999, regulations put into effect decisions made by the Government about the availability of drug treatments for impotence on general practitioner (GP) prescription on the national health service. GPs can write NHS prescriptions for patients with specific clinical conditions. These conditions are set out in Health Service Circular HSC 1999/148.

    Health Service Circular HSC 1999/177 provides guidance on the identification and management within specialist services of the men diagnosed to be suffering from severe distress on account of their impotence.

    Viagra and other drug treatments may be made available on private prescription from GPs for those men who do not meet the conditions specified in HSC 1999/148. As prescription only medicines they are subject to the legal controls on retail sale or supply which are set out in the Medicines Act 1968. They can only be sold or supplied at registered pharmacy premises by or under the supervision of a pharmacist in accordance with a doctor's prescription and they cannot be advertised to the public. The Medicines Control Agency's Enforcement Group investigates alleged illegal activity, including supply of prescription medicines via the internet.

    Victoria Climbié
    Mr. Burstow
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to his statement on 28 January,Official

    539W
    Report, column 740, on the Victoria Climbié inquiry, if the hospital standards for children form part of the national service framework (NSF) for children; and if he will list the remaining standards to be included in the NSF, with the date for their publication. [96704]

    Jacqui Smith
    The first phase of the national service framework (NSF) for children, young people and maternity services will be published shortly, and will cover hospital services for children and young people.

    The remaining areas to be covered in the NSF include services for disabled children, children in special circumstances, child and adolescent mental health, the health of all children and young people, medicines, maternity services and ill children which we are hoping to publish later this year.

    Waiting Times (Dewsbury)
    Ann Taylor
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the(a) average waiting times and (b) number of people waiting were for referral to (i) cancer and (ii) heart specialists in the Dewsbury area in the last 12 months for which figures are available. [98222]
    540W
    Jacqui Smith
    Information on waiting times is published quarterly on the Department of Health website. This is broken down into both inpatient and outpatient waiting times by National Health Service trusts by consultant specialty. This information can be accessed at http://www.doh.qov.uk/waitinqtimes/ index.htm

    Waiting Times (Hull and East Riding)
    David Davis
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of patients were seen by a doctor or consultant within one hour of their arrival at accident and emergency departments in Hull and the East Riding in each of the last three years. [92910]

    Jacqui Smith
    The Department does not collect data on the number of patients seen by a doctor or consultant within one hour of their arrival at accident and emergency (A&E).

    The NHS Plan set a new target for accident and emergency, to reduce the maximum wait in A&E from arrival to admission, transfer or discharge to four hours by 2004. In line with this target, data on total time in accident and emergency has been collected since August 2001.

    In Quarter 2,2002–03 64 per cent. of patients in Hull and East Yorkshire NHS Trust spent less than four hours total time in A&E.
    541W

  NORTHERN IRELAND

    Belfast International Airport (Security)
    Andrew Mackinlay
    To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if the Security Co-ordinating Committee at its meeting on 30 January endorsed the changed arrangements in relation to checkpoint 11 and checkpoint 3 at Belfast International Airport; and if he will make a statement. [99118]

    Jane Kennedy
    The proposal in relation to checkpoint 3 and checkpoint 11 at Belfast International Airport was endorsed by the Security Co-ordinating Committee on 30 January, subject to the outcome of a Department for Transport Cargo Inspection. It would not be appropriate to make any further comment as to the detail of the proposal.

    Andrew Mackinlay
    To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the distance in a straight line between(a) checkpoint 11 and checkpoint 3 and (b) Checkpoint 3 and the Airport cargo apron at Belfast International Airport. [99119]

    Jane Kennedy
    The distance in a straight line between checkpoint 11 and checkpoint 3 is 415 metres. Checkpoint 3 is situated right on the edge of the cargo apron.

    Consultancy
    Mr. Laws
    To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much(a) his Department and (b) each agency and non-departmental public body spent on external consultancy in each year from 1995–96 to 2002–03 (planned); and if he will make a statement. [92244]

    Jane Kennedy
    In the Northern Ireland Office the total reported expenditure on the use of consultants in each year from 1995–96 to 2002–03 (planned) is as follows:

    Northern Ireland Office expenditure on consultants

    £

    Department

    Agencies

    1995–96

    403,000

    185,000

    1996–97

    309,000

    253,000

    1997–98

    352,035

    99,303

    1998–99

    479,897

    469,271

    1999–2000

    702,223

    604,894

    2000–01

    463,569

    1,040,189

    2001–02

    2,248,572

    639,015

    2002–03

    2,588,864

    193,391

    1Full year estimate on spend to date.

    Note:

    Figures for NDPBs are not available.

    In the Northern Ireland Administration the total (reported) expenditure on use of consultants in each year from 1995–96 to 2002–03 (planned) is as follows:

    Northern Ireland Administration expenditure on consultants

    £

    1995–96

    26,191,196

    1996–97

    19,788,714

    1997–98

    10,458,511

    1998–99

    10,369,465

    1999–2000

    9,193,016

    542W

    Northern Ireland Administration expenditure on consultants

    £

    2000–01

    13,011,780

    2001–02

    16,958,809

    2002–031

    14,604,661

    1Planned

    Note:

    Agencies and NDPBs are included in the above figures which are based on returns from Departments.

    Decommissioning
    Stephen Hesford
    To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on decommissioning of terrorist weapons. [95775]

    Jane Kennedy
    I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, North (Helen Jones) on 5 February 2003,Official Report, column 260.

    Operation Ore
    Mrs. Iris Robinson
    To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many people in Northern Ireland are being investigated as a result of information received from Operation Ore; and how many have been arrested. [97639]

    Jane Kennedy
    There are currently 39 people being investigated by PSNI as a result of information received from Operation Ore. To date there have been four arrests and one person charged.

    Paper Supplies
    Sue Doughty
    To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland who the suppliers are of his Department's(a) paper and (b) paper products. [91911]

    Jane Kennedy
    In the Northern Ireland Office paper and paper products are supplied by the following contractors:

    Banner Office Supplies Ltd.

    Guilbert Niceday

    R. W. Pierce & Co.

    In the Northern Ireland Administration paper and paper products are supplied by the following contractors:

    Antalis Ltd.

    Banner Office Supplies Ltd.

    Bunzl Fine Paper (Europe) Ltd.

    DMS

    Donald Murray Paper

    Guilbert UK Ltd.

    Premier Paper

    Robert Horne Group plc

    United Paper Merchants Ltd.

    543W

    Paramilitary Crime
    Mr. Laurence Robertson
    To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, how many crimes have been committed by(a) Loyalist and (b) Republican paramilitary organisations in Northern Ireland, (i) since the signing of theBelfast Agreement and (ii) since 1January 2002, broken down by category of crime. [98394]

    Jane Kennedy
    The following table provide details of the number of crimes carried out by Loyalist and Republican paramilitary organisations since the Belfast Agreement to 12 February 2003 and from 1 January 2002 to 12 February 2003.

    Security situation statistics

    BY Loyalist

    By Republican

    Other/Not Known

    Total

    (i)10 April 1998 to 12 February 2003

    Number of deaths as a result of the security situation1

    50

    47

    1

    98

    Number of shooting incidents2

    809

    360

    146

    1,315

    Number of bombing incidents3

    678

    134

    36

    848

    Number of casualties as a result of paramilitary style assaults

    427

    243

    N/a

    670

    Number of casualties as a result of paramilitary style shootings

    417

    223

    N/a

    60

    1 January 2002 to 12 February 2003

    Number of deaths as a result of the security situation1

    12

    4

    —

    16

    Number of shooting incidents2

    250

    116

    25

    391

    Number of bombing incidents3

    151

    48

    3

    202

    Number of casualties as a result of paramilitary style assaults

    96

    51

    N/a

    147

    Number of casualties as a result of paramilitary style shootings

    136

    62

    N/a

    198

    1Includes all deaths due to the security situation.

    2The following types of incidents are included:

    —Shots fired by terrorists;

    —Shots fired by the Security Forces;

    —Paramilitary styl0e attacks involving shootings;

    —Shots heard (and later confirmed);

    —Other violent incidents where shots are fired (e.g. armed robbery).

    3An individual bombing incident may involve one or more explosive devices. The devices recorded include explosions and defusings. Incidents involving hoax devices, petrol bombings or incendiaries are excluded.

    Note:

    Statistics which include figures for 2002 and 2003 are provisional and may be subject to minor amendment.

    Police Complaints
    Mr. McNamara
    To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many complaints against the police were received by the ICPC and Police Ombudsman in each year since 1994; how many were upheld; how many case papers were sent to the Director of Public Prosecutions; how many prosecutions were initiated; how many were successful; how many internal disciplinary proceedings were initiated; and how many led to action being taken. [94420]

    Jane Kennedy
    I have asked the Police Ombudsman and the Executive to provide this information and once that is available I will write to my hon. Friend and place copies in the Libraries of the House.

    Police Service
    Lembit öpik
    To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether the Chief Constable of Northern Ireland may recruit differential numbers of Protestants and Catholics if a differential number of applicants succeed through to the final stage of the process; and if he will make a statement. [97892]

    Jane Kennedy
    Section 46(1) of the Police Northern Ireland Act 2000 requires the Chief Constable to appoint equal numbers of Catholics and non-Catholics from the pool of qualified candidates. This is the case regardless of whether there are differential numbers of Catholics and non-Catholics in the pool.
    544W
    However, on any occasion where he is satisfied that the number of trainees required by the Chief Constable could not otherwise be appointed, the Secretary of State is empowered, under sections 46(2) and 46(3) of the Act, to set aside the 50:50 arrangement, by order in Parliament. Before making any such order, the Secretary of State is obliged to consult the Northern Ireland Policing Board.

    Lembit öpik
    To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how the number of applications for employment in the Police Service of Northern Ireland changed in the year after the introduction of the 50/50 rule; what the figures were for the year immediately prior to the introduction of the 50/50 rule; and if he will make a statement. [97893]

    Jane Kennedy
    Two recruitment competitions for the Royal Ulster Constabulary were run in 1998. Applicant figures were as follows:

    Launch date

    Total applicants

    March 1998

    2,825

    November 1998

    3,359

    There was no further recruitment to the police until 2001. Applicant figures for the two recruitment competitions for the Police Service for Northern Ireland run in that year, in accordance with the 50:50 recruitment arrangements, were as follows.
    545W

    Launch date

    Total applicants

    February 2001

    7,517

    September 2001

    4,915

    In their first year of operation. the 50:50 recruitment arrangements enabled the appointment of over 500 police trainees, well in excess of the 370 recommended by the Patten Report.

    Written Questions
    Andrew Mackinlay
    To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he will reply to the questions 546W
    tabled on 27 January by the hon. Member for Thurrock, refs 94450 and 94503; and what the causes are of the delay in replying. [99116]

    Jane Kennedy
    The answer to parliamentary question ref. 95540 was issued on 11 February 2003, the named day specified by my hon. Friend, but it was not printed in the Official Report. It has now been printed —24 February 2003, Official Report, column 8W.

    On question ref. 94503 officials are currently endeavouring to trace the relevant records, some of which date back to 1994. I will reply as soon as possible.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Juvenile Reconviction Rates
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Hilary Benn)
  The Home Office is today publishing its second annual report on juvenile reconvictions. The report, prepared by Research, Development and Statistics Directorate, covers the reconvictions within one year of juvenile offenders dealt with between January and March 2001. The proportion reconvicted has been cut by 22.5 per cent. compared with 1997, and this exceeds the Public Service Agreement (PSA) target of a 5 per cent. reduction by 2004. I would like to congratulate the Youth Justice Board and the other services involved in youth justice for this excellent result. I am placing a copy of the report in the Library.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Duty of Care Regulations
  The Minister for the Environment (Mr. Michael Meacher)
  The Duty of Care Regulations 1991 have been amended to give waste collection authorities (WCAs) the power to serve notices on businesses, requiring them to furnish the WCA with their duty of care records. This will help WCA officers to check whether businesses are transferring their waste in accordance with the law. Businesses that do not have such arrangements could be prosecuted.

  This measure should help to reduce the level of commercial and industrial waste that is fly tipped. It will also assist waste collection authorities in pursuing fly tipping offences as, in some circumstances, it will be possible for the fly tipped waste to be traced back to the originator of the waste.

  The Environmental Protection (Duty of Care) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2003 came into force on 20 February.

  Vulnerable Groups Consultation Paper
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr. Elliot Morley)
  I have today issued a consultation paper "Reductions for vulnerable groups", which invites views from individuals and organisations on the Government's proposals for amending the protection offered to vulnerable metered water customers under the Water Industry (Charges) (vulnerable Groups) Regulations 1999.

  The current regulations offer assistance, in the form of a capped bill, to certain low-income households with water meters who need to use a great deal of water for essential household purposes. To qualify, a household
  10WS
  must be in receipt of an income-related benefit, and contain either a large family, or a person who has special water needs because of a medical condition. The current definition of a large family is three or more children under the age of 16 years, while a medical condition is defined in the regulations. The cost of this tariff is borne by other customers.

  The consultation paper discusses a range of options for amending the regulations to improve the protection of vulnerable households. The main recommendations are to extend assistance to include children up to the age of 18, instead of 16 as at present, and to extend the list of qualifying medical conditions.

  The consultation will run for twelve weeks and will end on Friday 9 May. Following this we shall consider all the responses and will publish the Government's response to consultation along with a regulatory impact assessment. Any changes made to the regulations as a result of the consultation will come into effect on 1 April 2004.

  Animal Movements
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr. Elliot Morley)
  The Government are publishing today the emerging findings from the risk assessment and cost benefit analysis of animal movement standstills. The studies were commissioned in response to the recommendations made in July 2002 by the Lessons Learned and Royal Society Inquiries and have been carried out for Defra by Risk Solutions and the Veterinary Epidemiology and Economics Research Unit (VEERU) at the University of Reading.

  On 23 January 2003, Official Report, columns 20–24WS, the Government announced the intention to reduce the standstill for cattle, sheep and goats to six days with effect from 4 March. A supporting document explaining that decision, and referring to the emerging findings from the Risk Solutions and VEERU studies, has already been placed in the Library and posted on the Defra website.

TREASURY

  Cash Ratio Deposits Review
  The Paymaster General (Dawn Primarolo)
  Cash Ratio Deposits (CRDs) are non-interest bearing assets deposited with the Bank of England by banks and building societies. They are used by the Bank to finance its unremunerated activities, in particular its efforts to secure price stability and the stability of the financial system in general, from which these institutions are key beneficiaries.

  The CRD scheme was extended to include building societies, and was placed on a statutory basis, when the Bank of England Act became law in 1998. At the time the Government, in the Treasury's response to consultation (published on 20 April 1998) made a commitment to review the new scheme within five years of its application. The Treasury, working closely with the Bank, will begin that review today.
  11WS
  The review will include an assessment of the detailed arrangements of the scheme as well as the continuing suitability of the scheme itself compared to alternative sources of funding. It will also address the impact of the scheme on the eligible institutions. The review will conclude in May, and we will publish the broad conclusions in a statement to the House shortly afterwards.

  Inheritance Tax
  The Paymaster General (Dawn Primarolo)
  The Inland Revenue's Extra Statutory Concession F7 allows exemption from inheritance tax for works of art when they are only chargeable under strict law because they have been brought temporarily to the United Kingdom for cleaning or restoration, or for loan to an exhibition. That reflects a longstanding judgement that the public interest would not be served if foreign owners of works of art were unwilling to send them to the United Kingdom for these purposes for fear of a potential inheritance tax charge.

  Similar disincentives can arise, outside the terms of the existing Concession, when foreign-owned works of art are kept in the United Kingdom for these reasons when they would otherwise have been taken elsewhere. That could occur, for example, where a work is already in the United Kingdom when it is first acquired by a foreign buyer, and the new owner allows a period of loan to a public collection here before taking it to a permanent home abroad.

  I have therefore agreed that the Concession should be extended to cover such circumstances.

  The revised concession (added words in bold) is as follows: "Where a work of art normally kept overseas becomes liable to inheritance tax on the owner's death solely because it is physically situated in the United Kingdom at the relevant date, the liability will—by concession—be waived if the work was brought into the United Kingdom solely for public exhibition, cleaning or restoration. The liability will similarly be waived if a work of art which would otherwise have left the United Kingdom to be kept overseas is retained in the United Kingdom solely for those purposes. If the work of art is held by a discretionary trust (or is otherwise comprised in settled property in which there is no interest in possession), the charge to tax arising under Section 64 IHTA 1984 will, similarly, be waived."

  Financial System (Major Operational Disruption)
  The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Ruth Kelly)
  I am today publishing a Green Paper, The Financial System and Major Operational Disruption. Copies are available in the Vote Office and in the libraries of both Houses. The document is available online at the Treasury website:www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/. The 11 September attacks on the United States caused terrible loss of life and physical damage. They also showed the problems that physical disruption on such a scale brings for the financial system—as exemplified by the four-day closure of the New York Stock Exchange.
  12WS
  Financial services play a vital role in the UK economy. This makes it particularly important to be sure that we have good arrangements to maintain the financial system's resilience during major operational disruption. While the main responsibility lies with the financial sector itself, HM Treasury, the Bank of England and the Financial Services Authority are working together, and with the private sector, to help strengthen resilience.

  This consultation asks if new statutory powers should be sought to assist in promoting order in the financial system in extreme circumstances of operational disruption. The Government are seeking views on whether such legislation would be justified by the nature and scale of the threat. The consultation also requests comments about additional ways in which the financil authorities could usefully assist the private sector's work in making financial markets more resilient.

  The consultation closes on 25 April. If the Government considers it appropriate to seek legislation, further consultation would follow.

  Self-Assessment Returns
  The Paymaster General (Dawn Primarolo)
  I can today publish figures for the number of Self-Assessment returns filed by the 2003 January deadline.

  The Inland Revenue has met its SDA target of 90.5 per cent. of SA taxpayers filing their 2001/02 tax return on time. The Department achieved 90.54 per cent.:
  8.371,251—returns were received, out of 9,246,131 issued The number of returns filed electronically rose significantly. At 31st January 2003, around 700,000 had been received electronically. 325,000 of these were received from Internet filers, compared with around 75,000 in the same period last year. The remainder were received from agents using the Electronic Lodgement Service (ELS).
  Activities that helped the department to meet the target were:
  an extensive media campaign, involving TV, radio and newspaper ads front-line staff reminding people about the deadline in day-to-day contact with customers phoning a quarter of a million (mainly new-to-SA) customers to remind them about the deadline, and offer help.a News Release in the run-up to the deadline, emphasising the message about late filing penalties, and interest and tax surcharges for late payment publicity on the Internet, promoting the Department's electronic services sending two mailshots to 1.4 million self employed customers on the back of an existing national insurance letter raising awareness amongst agents with publicity in the Department's Tax Bulletin publication using the Department's network of Local Radio Broadcasters to publicise the deadline message

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Business Rates
  The Minister for Local Government and the Regions (Mr. Nick Raynsford)
  I have today laid in Parliament new clauses by way of an amendment to the Local Government Bill which will provide for local authorities to retain some or all of growth in business rate revenues.

  These proposals will allow us to introduce a scheme, along the lines the Chancellor announced in his 2002 Pre-Budget Report. The scheme will increase the incentives for business and local authorities to work in partnership to maximise local economic growth and regeneration while at the same time generating additional resources to address local priorities.

  Any scheme introduced will generate additional revenues from increases in the tax base generated by local authorities successfully encouraging growth, and not from increasing the tax on existing business. The money raised would be genuinely additional to local authorities and they will be free to decide how to spend it.

  The scheme will only allow local authorities to keep revenues associated with any growth in the business rate tax base and will not replace the current business rate pooling system. The business rate pool acts to reduce the unfairness of business rates and ensure that revenues are distributed in a more equitable way.

  It is not the Government's intention that the new scheme should only serve to reward authorities that are already doing well at the expense of declining areas. We are looking at a range of options to get the best distributional fit, with each local authority receiving an incentive that is relevant to them, whilst keeping the scheme as simple as practical.

  We have also been clear that local authorities will not bear the downside risk of a declining business rate tax base. We are considering options that will allow local authorities to benefit from the scheme, even though they are in a situation of economic decline, should they manage to slow the pace of decline.

  We will be consulting on the options, including the distributional consequences, in the summer

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Cyprus
  The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Jack Straw)
  The Government's aim remains a comprehensive settlement in time for a reunited Cyprus to accede to the European Union on 16 April. For this to happen, the UN has set 28 February as the deadline for a decision on the Secretary-General's proposals. On Sunday 23 February Kofi Annan put forward ideas to the two sides on how he might revise his 10 December proposals, and is consulting the governments in Ankara and Athens before his historic visit to Nicosia tomorrow. President-elect, Mr. Tassos Papadopoulos, has made clear that the change of government underway in Cyprus will not impede the UN timetable. The UK has supported the UN 14WS
  throughout this process, and has welcomed the balanced and comprehensive settlement proposals tabled by the Secretary-General. We urge both sides now to secure a settlement.

  During the intensive negotiations which followed the Copenhagen European Council, it became clear that the issue of territorial readjustment was a key one, needing to be resolved if there was to be a settlement. In particular, it became clear that both sides attached great importance to adjustments which represented a relatively small percentage of the area of Cyprus. The Government therefore gave urgent consideration to whether it could in some way help to bridge the remaining gap. A decision was reached to inform the UN Secretary-General that Britain would be prepared to cede part of the UK's Sovereign Base Areas and this offer has now been included in the UN Secretary-General's ideas of 23 February.

  The offer consists of 45 square miles just under half of the total area of the SBAs. This makes up 1.2 per cent. of the area of the new state of affairs in Cyprus. The areas involved would bring a number of Cypriots living near Limassol, and in the Dhekelia Sovereign Base Area, within the administration of their respective constituent state. It will also open up areas of coastline for possible development. The areas involved do not contain military infrastructure, and this offer will not have any adverse impact on the functioning of the SBAs. The offer would only become valid if there were agreement by both sides to the UN's proposals. And, of course, legislation would be introduced to bring the transfer of territory into operation. In the event that either side in Cyprus rejects the proposals, or the proposals are rejected in a referendum by either side, the offer, along with the rest of the UN proposals, will become null and void.

  We urge both sides not to let this historic opportunity to heal the division of Cyprus slip away; and to go the last mile to conclude negotiations and secure the settlement.

HEALTH

  Medical Careers
  The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Hutton)
  I have today placed in the Library copies of "Modernising Medical Careers" the response of the four UK Health Ministers to the consultation on "Unfinished Business: Proposals for Reform of the Senior House Officer grade"

  The document sets out the results of our consultation which began last summer on the reform of training for senior house officers, who are doctors in the early stages of their specialist training. We received over 250 responses to our consultation and our proposals were broadly welcomed. The document we are publishing today sets the way ahead based on the results of the consultation and work which has been done since with the key stakeholders.

  Plans for reform will also extend to general practice training and will embrace the existing non-consultant career grades with easier routes back into training.
  15WS
  Partnerships will work to test these out in a variety of NHS environments. Pilot projects will start later on this year and with major implementation following in 2004.

TRANSPORT

  Railway Safety
  The Minister of State, Department of Transport (Mr. John Spellar)
  I am pleased to announce that today the Government has published its report on the management of the accidental obstruction of the railway by road vehicles. The report has been produced in response to the 19 separate recommendations made by the Health and Safety Commission1 and Highways Agency2 reports published in February last year.

  The report sets out the work of representatives of the highway authorities, railway infrastructure authorities and other organisations to identify the steps we consider should be taken jointly by railway infrastructure authorities and highway authorities to manage the risk of the accidental incursion of road vehicles onto the railway. It includes a protocol for apportioning responsibility and costs of mitigation measures. Also, following the adoption of an initial risk prioritisation framework a second stage assessment process has been produced for sites where the risk of a road vehicle accidentally getting onto the railway is not clear cut. Good practice guidance measures have been identified to help mitigate risk at specific sites. British Transport Police have agreed to collect the data about such incidents on a common basis. In order to update the standards for safety barriers on major roads in a clear and open procedure, the Highways Agency has let a contract and set up a technical project board to steer the update of standards for safety barriers on major roads in a clear and open procedure.

  Copies of the report will be sent to all local highway authorities and railway infrastructure authorities. Copies will be placed in the Library of the House. Details will be made available on the Department for Transport's website at http://www.roads.dft.gov.uk/ roadnetwork/bridgesites/index.htm
  1"Obstruction of the railway by road vehicles" ISBN 07176 2294 0 available from HSE books price £5.00 or to download at http://www.hse.gov.uk/railway/obstruct.pdf2"To review the standards for the provision of nearside safety fences on major roads" available to download at http://www. highways. gov.uk/

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Historic Environment
  The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Tessa Jowell)
  I would like to update the House on the progress made on implementing the recommendations 16WS
  contained in the Government's statement on the historic environment: A Force for Our Future during the past six months.

  Since August 2002 the following has been achieved:

  August

  English Heritage completed its programme of establishing a Historic Environment Forum in each of the Regions.

  October

  HM Treasury confirmed that the Listed Places of Worship grant scheme would continue until the review of the European Union VAT regime had been completed.The Government formally acceded to the 1970 UNESCO Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property.

  November

  English Heritage launched the first State of the Historic Environment Report, which set out a framework for establishing indicators to measure the contribution the historic environment makes to the economy, education and communities.

  I announced a review of current heritage protection legislation. This will also cover the ecclesiastical exemption and consider a range of options for enhancing Sites and Monuments Records.

  The Historic Houses Association (HHA) and the Black Environment Network (BEN) announced a joint scheme to identify new audiences for the historic environment by encouraging ethnic communities to become more involved with nearby historic attractions. Local community leaders will be invited to work with selected properties to extend involvement and enjoyment of these attractions within ethnic communities. Five pilot projects will be in place by Spring 2003. They will be closely monitored and evaluated with a view to extending the programme in 2004.

  December

  The Dealing in Cultural Objects (Offences) Bill was introduced into Parliament. The Bill will make it a criminal offence to trade in illegally removed cultural goods.

  The Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill was introduced into Parliament. It will take forward a number of commitments arising from the Planning Statement Sustainable Communities: Delivering through planning.

  Heritage Link was officially launched. It will be co-funded by English

  Heritage and The National Trust. Priority areas for action in 2003 are: the needs and potential of the voluntary sector; funding; inclusion:, and land-use planning.

  National Archaeology Days 2002, organised by the Council for British

  Archaeology, achieved a 5 per cent. increase in participating venues to 62, and a 66 per cent. increase in estimated visitors to 90,000.
  17WS
  January 2003

  The National Trust launched "Untold Story", a pilot project involving National Trust properties in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. It will involve people in exploring and interpreting the significance of local properties through the medium of the performing arts. The National Trust began work with Creative Partnerships in Cornwall to develop a number of projects involving artists, poets and writers workingwith local schoolchildren to develop ideas and activities inspired by National Trust properties in Cornwall.
  18WS
  February

  Responsibility for underwater archaeology will be transferred to English Heritage shortly.Management Plans are now in place for all but five of the World Heritage Sites in England.

  Management Plans for the Tower of London and the City of Bath are scheduled for completion by February and October 2003 respectively. Work on the Plans for Blenheim Palace and Westminster Palace and Abbey is ongoing, whilst work on Durham Cathedral and Castle will begin shortly.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Blackburn.

  Nepal
  The Earl of Sandwich askedHer Majesty's Government:
  How they can help to achieve multi-party democracy and poverty reduction in Nepal as a means of confronting the threat from Maoism.
  The Minister for Trade (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, the United Kingdom welcomes the cease-fire agreed between the Government of Nepal and the Maoists on 29th January. We remain committed, along with the Nepalese Government and our international partners, to seeking a lasting peace in Nepal. Yesterday a special UK representative for Nepal was appointed to help to co-ordinate UK and international efforts in support of the peace process. We also aim to strengthen state and non-state organisations in Nepal to allow civil society to grow. In the past financial year, UK support for Nepal totalled over £29 million, which was mostly focused on poverty reduction. We are reviewing areas for further support.
  The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her positive reply. But does she accept that it is the failure of successive governments of Nepal and the international community that supports them to address poverty in the rural areas of Nepal that has contributed to the rise of Maoism? In particular, are Her Majesty's Government aware of the case of the Kamaiya bonded labourers, who have been freed due to legislation but still have not had their conditions addressed by the Government as regards shelter and food? Are they doing something about it?
  Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, it is because we are aware of the very conditions that the noble Earl relates to the House that, at the Prime Minister's request, a group of FCO, MoD and DfID officials visited Nepal between 3rd and 7th February. I am aware of the plight of the Kamaiya. We are taking measures to assist them. The DfiD is contributing about £800,000 to a joint German development agency and World Bank programme to support the most vulnerable former Kamaiya families. The programme includes employment opportunities and training, which we hope will benefit about 7,000 families.
  Baroness Northover: My Lords, does the Minister not feel that it is shameful that Gurkhas who serve in the British Army are not accorded the same pension rights as their British counterparts? On a wider point,
  118
  will she tell us more about what the Government are doing to combat corruption and human rights abuses in Nepal so that aid can be delivered more effectively?
  Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, on the first part of the noble Baroness's question, the Gurkha terms and conditions of service are linked to the Indian army terms under the 1947 tripartite agreement. Pension payments for 22,500 British Gurkhas have been doubled in recent years. The MoD has welcomed the ruling made today by Mr Justice Sullivan in respect of the judicial review brought against it. It has noted that nearly all the claims originally brought against it have been dropped by the claimants or rejected by the court. The department will study carefully Mr Justice Sullivan's ruling or married accompanied service.
  Lord Campbell-Savours: My Lords, will my noble friend consider a request made three years ago that DfID fund the research departments, or a research department, in the library of the Nepalese Parliament, which Nepalese Members of Parliament greatly want? They would benefit in a major way if we were to fund it.
  Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I will certainly take note of that point and make sure that my colleagues in the Department for International Development are aware of it. As I indicated, some £29 million of aid was sent to Nepal in the past year. In addition, there have been substantial efforts to help the growth of civil society in the country; for example, help was given to the Advocacy Forum—the human rights NGO—and the National Human Rights Commission. Over £1 million was provided for police reform, which also has a strong human rights element. Money was also provided to support conflict resolution and the victims of torture. So a great deal is going on. The noble Lord has made another useful suggestion, which I will relay to my colleagues in the DfID.
  Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, can the noble Baroness explain the extent and nature of the support that Her Majesty's Government provide to Nepal under the Global Conflict Prevention Pool. Given Amnesty International's allegations of serious human rights abuses, as mentioned by the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, by the government security forces as well as the Maoist rebels, can she assure noble Lords that UK military aid will be linked only to improvements in Nepal's human rights record?
  Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, we are trying hard to ensure that the human rights issues in Nepal are addressed. It is always difficult when considering those matters to find the best means of doing so. But I hope that I have been able to make clear detailed specifications of aid to Nepal, and ways in which we are trying to help the growth of civil society. It is precisely because of the problems that the noble Baroness reiterated that the Prime Minister asked for

  119
  an inter-departmental team to go to Nepal earlier this month. They have recommended a broad-based package of support for 2003–04 for the emerging peace process, to accelerate the much-needed reforms there and to stabilise security. Those include development assistance, quick-impact service delivery and, very importantly, looking at how the security forces operate, which should be without such difficulties as the noble Baroness described.
  Lord Bramall: My Lords, first, does not the noble Baroness agree that the wonderful Gurkhas are treated immensely fairly? They get exactly the same take-home pay as a British soldier in this country; if they are killed on active service, they get exactly the same pension, and their pension rights are related to the tripartite agreement and conditions in Nepal.
  Secondly, does the Minister agree that, although it is wonderful to have a peace process with the Maoists, it is essential that they do not know that they can win by military means? Therefore, does she agree that it is important that the Nepalese Government can give protection to the people in the hills? Are the British Government doing all they possibly can to help the Royal Nepalese Army and the police to carry out this operation, of which we have had so much experience?
  Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, of course I agree with what the noble and gallant Lord says in relation to the Gurkhas. But, far more importantly, the courts—in the form of Mr Justice Sullivan—also agree with his judgment. There is one outstanding issue, which I have mentioned, of the brigade's service. The ruling on that is being looked at very carefully by the Ministry of Defence.
  In relation to the issue of the military in Nepal, there have been reports of human rights' violations. The RNA recognises that. It is a professional army with a good reputation. The United Kingdom is involved in encouraging greater respect for human rights. I hope that your Lordships noticed that I have announced the appointment of Sir Jeffrey James as our special representative. We very much hope that his role will provide a strong focal point in continuing much-needed reform and in co-ordinating our response to the needs of Nepal.
  Baroness Knight of Collingtree: My Lords—
  The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, I am afraid we are over time.

  Israelis and Palestinians
  2.44 p.m.
  Lord Hyltonasked Her Majesty's Government:
  In what ways they are assisting the non-violent majority among Israelis and Palestinians to express their views and to co-operate towards the settlement of outstanding issues.
  Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government are assisting in a number of
  120
  ways. They include the meeting on Palestinian reform, which was held in London on 14th January; participating in meetings in London last week on the Palestinian economy; support for the Alexandria process; funding projects which bring together Israelis and Palestinians in verification and enforcement of future agreements; and contributing to the Joint Vision for Peace project in the Ben Gurion University.
  Lord Hylton: My Lords, I welcome what the Foreign Office has been doing, particularly over the recent London conference. I also welcome what the Prime Minister said this morning about illegal settlements. Does the Minister agree that it is remarkable that, despite terrorism and military action, there is still a majority of people on both sides who want non-violent solutions? Will the Government help them both to express their own views and to collaborate in what may be termed "people's diplomacy"?
  Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I very much thank the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, for his welcome remarks. I heard what my right honourable friend the Prime Minister said about illegal settlements. They are illegal under international law. We believe that they are an obstacle to peace and that Israel should freeze all settlement activity.
  The noble Lord is entirely right. There is a majority among both communities—Israelis and the Palestinians—who want to find a peaceful way forward. I hope that the five substantial examples that I laid before your Lordships of ways in which Her Majesty's Government are helping that dialogue among a nonviolent majority will be of further encouragement to the noble Lord.
  Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, perhaps I may add to the compliments paid to the Government for their initiative with regard to the conference about the future of the Palestinian administration. What steps do the Government propose to take to alleviate what is now very close to being a total breakdown in the supply of food and other essentials to the Palestinians? In the past few days UNWA has warned that a complete breakdown of Palestinian society is very close and that the level of nutrition among children is now equivalent to that in the Congo or Zimbabwe. Does she agree that if that condition remains, the non-violent majority of Palestinians may well not remain non-violent for very long?
  Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I have a great deal of sympathy with what the noble Baroness has said. United Kingdom bilateral aid for the Palestinians in the period from 1996–97 to 2001–02 totalled more than £48 million. We also provided £65.9 million to UNWA for Palestinian refugees in that same period.
  There is also, unfortunately, a history of destruction of humanitarian aid on the part of the Israeli defence forces. We deplore such acts. We believe the action of the Israeli

  121
  defence forces must be proportionate. Together with our EU partners, we have raised concerns about those issues with the Israeli Government.
  Lord Lawson of Blaby: My Lords, looking a little further ahead, given that the two facts about this distressing situation are that the case for a successful Palestinian Arab state is unanswerable, but equally that the present Palestinian Authority is both corrupt and incompetent, is there not a strong case for Her Majesty's Government supporting a United Nations authority in a Palestinian Arab state until such time as an indigenous leadership emerges which is capable of leading the country?
  Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, our priority at the moment is to ensure that the Quartet working on the road map is given the best possible chance of success. Of course it is difficult to discuss that with the Israeli Government while the details of the government remain to be decided. We know that the Likud Party will join the National Religious Party and the secular party, Shinui, in forming the government, but as yet the disposition of which politicians will occupy which roles has not been decided.
  However, when it is decided, we will want to see rapid progress on the road map which has been formulated by the Quartet and which we believe should be supported.
  Lord Wright of Richmond: My Lords, does the Minister agree that one urgent and necessary way to assist the non-violent majority of Israelis and Palestinians is not only to dismantle the illegal settlements to which the Minister referred—on which I fear that the inclusion of the National Religious Party in the Israeli Government is not an encouraging prospect—but to dismantle the security fence, which has already absorbed a large amount of Palestinian territory into Israel and is causing massive human suffering day by day by separating Palestinians from their land and their livelihood?
  Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, settlement activity and the security fence are causes of great concern to Her Majesty's Government. Settlement activity has increased during the past year; it is important to keep that issue in the forefront of our minds. We are concerned about the 360 kilometre-long fence, to which the noble Lord referred, which takes up so much Palestinian land and separates families. Our embassy in Tel Aviv has raised with the Israeli Government our concern about the location and the impact of the security fence. We fully understand Israel's need to take steps within the law to protect itself from terrorist attack, but that must be achieved through a negotiated peace, not by measures such as the security fence.
  Lord Turnberg: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the horrendous anti-Israel propaganda
  122
  issued by the Palestinian Authority's state-sponsored media is unhelpful to the suffering Palestinians as well as the unfortunate Israelis?
  Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: Yes, my Lords, I strongly believe that. As we have discussed many times in your Lordships' House, this is a terrible situation in which the cycle of violence, fed by messages of hatred and misunderstanding on both sides, does nothing to help the majority among the Israelis and the Palestinians who, as the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, pointed out, want to co-operate towards a settlement of the outstanding issues. That constant cycle of rhetoric—violent rhetoric, if I may say so—is most unhelpful.

  Pharmacies
  2.52 p.m.
  Lord Clement-Jones askedHer Majesty's Government:
  Whether the Department of Health has taken a view on the report by the Office of Fair Trading into The control of entry regulations and retail pharmacy services in the UK.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath): My Lords, we are considering the report from the Director-General of Fair Trading carefully. We have invited views and are meeting key interests to hear their reactions. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry is co-ordinating that work.
  Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. As he will be aware, the issue of the abolition of entry controls for community pharmacies is of great importance. Does he agree that the future of pharmacies is not just about price competition but about healthcare, quality of service to the community and local people's access to pharmacy services? Will the Department of Health ensure that the debate is placed in the proper context and give robust evidence to the OFT about the healthcare issues involved?
  Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I understand the issues that the noble Lord has raised. It will be for the Government as a whole to respond to the OFT report. My department will play a full part in the discussions that will lead to an eventual decision.
  The Office of Fair Trading started from the premise that entry controls to any market lead to higher prices, less innovation and poorer quality of services. It also considered that abolition of entry controls would not lead to a substantial reduction in the number of pharmacies. We shall of course listen most carefully to those intimately concerned with community pharmacies to discover their views on the matter.
  Lord Fowler: My Lords, I declare an interest as the chairman of the largest group of community pharmacists

  123
  in the country. Given that there is no suggestion of profiteering by pharmacies, perhaps I may press the Minister to go one step further. Will he give an assurance that the Government will decide the issue essentially on the contributions that pharmacies make to healthcare? Will he confirm the message of his own excellent White Paper, published two years ago—that the Government want an enlarged role for community pharmacists inside the National Health Service?
  Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, we will need to consider many factors when examining the OFT report. The noble Lord is right about the White Paper: the Government envisage a greatly enhanced role for community pharmacies. We believe that they could be used much more by the public to give advice. Indeed, NHS Direct now routinely refers 3 to 5 per cent of all its callers to community pharmacists.
  Lord Borne: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that at present, patients—especially elderly patients, with whom we must be concerned—have ready access to a spread of pharmacies throughout the country, which is most helpful to healthcare? If entry regulations disappear and there is complete de-control, the ambition of supermarkets will be such that many pharmacies will be in difficulty and no longer viable, which will be seriously dangerous to people's health. That is a considerable matter that the department should take fully into account.
  Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, my noble friend raises some important issues, which my department and others will need to consider. The OFT concluded that, although access is generally good, there are a number of areas in which it could be improved. It also pointed out that there is a high concentration of certain pharmacy chains in some areas, which limits choice.
  Although I agree that the current network of community pharmacists is invaluable to this country, we do not have a perfect distribution of pharmacies. That must also be taken into account.
  Earl Howe: My Lords, in considering the matter, will the Government bear in mind the important role played by dispensing general practitioners in remote rural areas? I am sure that the Minister is aware that dispensing GPs frequently rely on dispensing income to support the continuation of medical services in country villages.
  Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I understand the noble Earl's point. Discussions between dispensing doctors and the pharmacy profession have always been of great interest and intensity over the years. We have received initial views from the British Medical Association and the Dispensing Doctors Association and expect them to comment formally to us in due course.
  Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, what will be the position if matters deteriorate in the way that has
  124
  been suggested and many local pharmacies are lost, but pharmacies are set up in supermarkets? Will the Minister and the Department of Health then be able to ensure that all the provisions that he said were so important, such as having a private, confidential area in which to consult patients, will apply, rather than simply have the Department of Trade and Industry deciding the matter on a non-medical basis?
  Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I have already told the House that the Government will need to take a great many factors into account. It is the Government who will respond to the OFT report. The DTI is the lead department, but my department will play a full part in the discussions.
  On the interesting point about private consulting areas, the noble Baroness knows that I especially support that prospect. Some pharmacies have now built separate, private facilities. However, that falls much more under the implementation of our pharmacy plan than under consideration of the OFT report.

  Post-mortems: Retained Organs
  2.58 p.m.
  Baroness Finlay of Llandaffasked Her Majesty's Government:
  When permission will be given by the Retained Organs Commission for the respectful disposal of unclaimed residual human material retained at post-mortem examination.
  Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the Retained Organs Commission is analysing the findings of its consultation into unclaimed and unidentifiable organs and tissue retained after post-mortem examinations. I understand that it aims to complete that process and provide advice to the Government by 31st March. We shall then be able to assess what further action may be required.
  Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. Is the Retained Organs Commission also defining respectful disposal? If cremation is deemed to be the mode of respectful disposal, how will that be effected with unclaimed organs, when no relative or executor is available to complete Form AA to comply with the Cremation (Amendment) Regulations 2000?
  Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, on the latter point, we will await the advice of the Retained Organs Commission. On the former point, I can reassure the noble Baroness that we will shortly publish a comprehensive interim package of guidance for the NHS. It will pick up the point that the noble Baroness raised about treating such matters with respect.
  Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, inevitably, the Alder Hey report and other inquiries have had a

  125
  damaging effect on public confidence in the post-mortem system. Can the Minister outline what is being done by the Department of Health and the Retained Organs Commission to increase public understanding of the post-mortem system, something that many parents of affected children are calling for?
  Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the noble Lord is right to refer to the Alder Hey report, which highlighted many weaknesses in the system and the need for advice to be given to parents, in particular, and the public, in general, about post-mortem procedures. Advice has already been given to NHS trusts in the interim. We are producing an interim package of guidance, under the leadership of the Chief Medical Officer.
  When parliamentary time allows, we seek to bring forward new legislation on human tissues and make amendments to the Human Tissue Act 1961. In addition, there will be ongoing work with the NHS to make sure that doctors, in particular, receive guidance on the law and issues to do with consent and on the way in which such matters should be approached—that is, as sensitively as possible.
  Lord Turnberg: My Lords, is my noble friend the Minister as concerned as I am about the deleterious effect of continuing uncertainty about retained tissue, such as microscope slides, on medical research, on the one hand, and on the recruitment of the pathologists who are so essential to clinical diagnosis, on the other?
  Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I understand those concerns. It is important that we get it right. That is why the Retained Organs Commission has undertaken two consultations on the matters that the noble Lord raised. We await eagerly its advice, which we hope to receive by the end of March. I understand the need to proceed sensibly and sensitively, without inhibiting properly governed research with proper consent.
  I accept that several cases have provoked fears that medical students will not be attracted into pathology specialisms. I hope that that will not be the case. We have seen an increase in pathology workforce figures since 1997, but we cannot be complacent. The interim guidance that we will issue shortly and the future legislation will provide greater certainty. In itself, that will boost confidence in the pathology profession.

  Middle East
  3.3 p.m.
  Lord Hoosonasked Her Majesty's Government:
  Whether it is their view that the United Nations, the European Union and others should take an even-handed approach to the Middle East conflict, and what would be their definition of the basic requirements of such an approach in present circumstances.
  Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government believe that an even-handed
  126
  approach is the best way to tackle the disputes between Israel and her Arab neighbours. Israel and the Palestinian Authority have a responsibility to prevent further bloodshed and to return to substantive negotiations. All parties must abide by international law.
  The Government support the Quartet's efforts to agree a road-map leading to a comprehensive settlement based on two viable states within secure borders and at peace with their neighbours in the region by 2005.
  Lord Hooson: My Lords, the noble Baroness has referred to the Government's present policy, as I understand it. However, she will have recognised the words that I used in my Question as emanating directly from the Prime Minister.

  That policy referred to other states. The Prime Minister has undoubted influence on President Bush. Has he drawn to his attention the need for the United States, in particular, to take an even-handed approach to the problems between the Palestinians and Israel? It is widely perceived that the United States has not done so and that it is the largest player in the problem.
  The influence that the United States could bring to bear would have more effect than anything that the European Union or any other body could do. At a time when we are likely to be involved in a war with Iraq, is it not important that that running sore in the Middle East should be dealt with effectively by the United States? Otherwise, the credibility of the United States in the Arab world and elsewhere will be undermined.
  Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, my right honourable friend the Prime Minister believes that the issue of Israel and the Palestinian Authority is important in itself. We should be clear about that. It is not important just because it is linked in some people's mind to a possible conflict with Iraq; it is a long-standing difficulty. My right honourable friend believes that, in its own terms, it must be prioritised.
  My right honourable friend does discuss the issue with the President of the United States. I refer the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, to an interesting speech made by Secretary of State Powell shortly before Christmas. That speech addressed some of the outstanding issues relating to Palestine. For example, it went into some detail about building a Palestinian state for the future and talked about the infrastructure that would be necessary in such a state. I regret to say that the speech did not get a great deal of attention in the press in this country, but it was an interesting speech, and I commend it to the noble Lord.
  Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, is the Minister aware of a speech made by the Israeli Defence Minister yesterday to American Jewish organisations? He said:
  "The United States should generate political, economic and diplomatic pressure on Iran, after the Iraq war has been determined".

  127
  Can the Minister say on behalf of Her Majesty's Government that we have no quarrel of that kind with Iran and would not see any issue as justifying a further military attack on any country, following the Iraq crisis, whatever its outcome?
  Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government have a number of outstanding issues with Iran. However, I do not recognise Her Majesty's Government's policy in the quotation that the noble Baroness used a moment ago.
  Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, has the noble Baroness seen reports that Saddam Hussein may seek to involve Israel at an early stage, widening the war in a desperate attempt to divert attention from himself? He will do that by helping to arm Hezbollah, which has Iranian connections as well, in southern Lebanon, with the aim of opening an attack on Israel from the north.
  Does the Minister agree that, in such circumstances, we must keep a clear mind about where the dangers and priorities lie? It could be, as the Prime Minister said this morning, I think, that, far from saying that the priority is Israel and Palestine or Iraq or ensuring that Iran does not get up to more trouble, we should tackle all those things simultaneously with the greatest vigour.
  Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I am sure, first of all, that the whole House hopes that there will be no war with Iraq. However, Saddam Hussein's history leads us to believe that, if that sad eventuality were to come about, he is capable of trying virtually anything.
  All eventualities must be considered, including everything from a direct attack on the state of Israel to the use of agents and terrorist organisations to perpetrate such attacks. I assure the noble Lord that, as he would expect, all those eventualities are being considered. I am sure that he will agree that it would be unwise for me to say anything further about planning for those eventualities.

  Iraq
  3.9 p.m.
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, with the leave of the House I shall repeat a Statement made in another place earlier today by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister.
  "With permission, Mr Speaker, I will make a further statement on Iraq.
  "Let me again briefly recapitulate the history of the Iraqi crisis. In 1991, at the conclusion of the Gulf War, the true extent of Saddam's weapons of mass destruction programme became clear. We knew he had used these weapons against his own people, and against a foreign country—Iran—but we had not known that in addition to chemical weapons he had
  128
  biological weapons which he had denied completely and was trying to construct a nuclear weapons programme.
  "So on 3rd April 1991, the United Nations passed the first resolution on Saddam and weapons of mass destruction, giving him 15 days to give an open account of all his weapons and to co-operate fully with the United Nations inspectors in destroying them. Fifteen days later he submitted a flawed and incomplete declaration denying that he had biological weapons and giving little information on chemical weapons. It was only four years later, after the defection of Saddam's son-in-law to Jordan, that the offensive biological weapons and the full extent of the nuclear programme were discovered. In all, 17 United Nations resolutions were passed. None was obeyed. At no stage did he co-operate. At no stage did he tell the full truth.
  "Finally, in December 1998, when he had begun to obstruct and harass the United Nations inspectors, they withdrew. When they left they said that there were still large amounts of weapons of mass destruction unaccounted for. Since then, the international community has relied on sanctions and the no-fly zones policed by the United States and United Kingdom pilots to contain Saddam. But the first is not proof against Saddam's deception and the second is limited in its impact.
  "In 2001, the sanctions were made more targeted. But around three billion dollars a year is illicitly taken by Saddam, much of it for his and his family's personal use. The intelligence is clear: he continues to believe that his weapons of mass destruction programme is essential both for internal repression and for external aggression. It is essential to his regional power. Prior to the inspectors coming back in, he was engaged in a systematic exercise in concealment of weapons. That is the history.
  "Finally, last November United Nations Resolution 1441 declared Saddam in material breach and gave him a 'final opportunity' to comply fully, immediately and unconditionally with the UN's instruction to disarm voluntarily. The first step was to give an open, honest declaration of what weapons of mass destruction he had, where they were, and how they would be destroyed. On 8th December, he submitted the declaration denying that he had any WMD—a statement that not a single member of the international community seriously believes. There have been two UN inspectors' reports. Both have reported some co-operation on process. Both have denied progress on substance.
  "So, how to proceed? There are two paths before the United Nations. Yesterday, the UK, along with the US and Spain, introduced a new resolution declaring that,
  'Iraq has failed to take the final opportunity afforded to it in Resolution 1441'.
  "But we will not put it to a vote immediately. Instead, we will delay it to give Saddam one further final chance to disarm voluntarily. The UN inspectors are continuing their work. They have a

  129
  further report to make in March. But this time Saddam must understand. Now is the time for him to decide. Passive rather than active co-operation will not do. Co-operation on process, not substance, will not do. Refusal to declare properly and fully what has happened to the unaccounted for weapons of mass destruction will not do. Resolution 1441 called for full, unconditional and immediate compliance: not 10, not 20, not even 50 per cent, but 100 per cent compliance. Anything less will not do. That is all we ask: that what we said in Resolution 1441 we mean, and that what it demands Saddam does.
  "There is no complexity about Resolution 1441. I ask all reasonable people to judge for themselves. After 12 years, is it not reasonable that the UN inspectors have unrestricted access to Iraqi scientists—that means no tape recorders, no minders, no intimidation, and interviews outside Iraq as provided for by Resolution 1441? So far, this simply is not happening.
  "Is it not reasonable that Saddam provides evidence of destruction of the biological and chemical agents and weapons that the United Nations proved he had in 1999? So far he has provided none.
  "Is it not reasonable that he provides evidence that he has destroyed 8,500 litres of anthrax that he admitted possessing, and the 2,000 kilos of biological growth material, enough to produce over 26,000 litres of anthrax?
  "Is it not reasonable that Saddam accounts for up to 360 tonnes of bulk chemical warfare agent, including one and a half tonnes of VX nerve agents, 3,000 tonnes of precursor chemicals, and over 30,000 special munitions?
  "To those who say that we are rushing to war, I say this. We are now 12 years after Saddam was first told by the United Nations to disarm; nearly six months after President Bush made his speech to the UN accepting the UN route to disarmament; nearly four months on from Resolution 1441; and even now, today, we are offering Saddam the prospect of voluntary disarmament through the United Nations.
  "I detest his regime, but even now he can save it by complying with the United Nations demand. Even now, we are prepared to go that extra step to achieve disarmament peacefully.
  "I do not want war. I do not believe that anyone in this House wants war. But disarmament peacefully can only happen with Saddam's active co-operation.
  "Twelve years of bitter experience teaches that. And if he refuses to co-operate—as he is refusing now—and we fail to act, what then? Saddam in charge of Iraq; weapons of mass destruction intact; the will of the international community set at nothing; the UN tricked again; and Saddam hugely strengthened and emboldened—does anyone truly believe that that will mean peace? And when we turn to deal with other threats, where will our authority
  130
  be? And when we make a demand next time, what will our credibility be? This is not a road to peace but to folly and weakness that will only mean the conflict, when it comes, is more bloody, less certain and greater in its devastation.
  "Our path laid out before the UN expresses our preference to resolve this peacefully; but it ensures that we remain firm in our determination to resolve it.
  "I have read the memorandum put forward by France, Germany and Russia in response to our UN resolution. It is to be welcomed at least in these respects. It accepts that Saddam must disarm fully. It accepts that he is not yet co-operating fully. Indeed, not a single member of the EU who spoke at the summit in Brussels on 17th February disputed the fact of his non-co-operation.
  "But the call is for more time—up to the end of July at least. They say that the time is necessary 'to search out' the weapons. At the core of this proposition is the notion that the task of the inspectors is to enter Iraq to find the weapons, to sniff them out, as one member of the European Council put it. That is emphatically not the inspectors' job.
  "They are not a detective agency. And even if they were, Iraq is a country with a land mass roughly the size of France. The idea that the inspectors could conceivably sniff out the weapons and documentation relating to them, without the help of the Iraq authorities, is absurd. That is why 1441 called for Iraq's active co-operation.
  "The issue is not time. It is will. If Saddam is willing genuinely to co-operate, then the inspectors should have up to July, and beyond July; as much time as they want. If he is not willing to co-operate, then, equally, time will not help. We will be just right back where we were in the 1990s.
  "And, of course, Saddam will offer concessions. This is a game with which he is immensely familiar. As the threat level rises, so the concessions are eked out. At present he is saying that he will not destroy the al-Samoud missiles that the inspectors have found were in breach of Resolution 1441. But he will, under pressure, claiming that this proves cooperation. Does anyone think that he would he making any such concessions, that indeed the inspectors would be within 1,000 miles of Baghdad, were it not for US and UK troops massed on his doorstep? What is his hope? Is it to play for time, to drag the process out until the attention of the international community wanes, for the troops go, and the way is again clear for him?
  "Give it more time, some urge upon us. I say we are giving it more time. But I say this: it takes no time at all for Saddam to co-operate. It just takes a fundamental change of heart and mind.
  "Today the path to peace is clear. Saddam can co-operate fully with the inspectors. He can voluntarily disarm. He can even leave the country peacefully. But he cannot avoid disarmament.

  131
  "One further point. The purpose in our acting is disarmament. But the nature of Saddam's regime is relevant in two ways. First, weapons of mass destruction in the hands of a regime of this brutality is especially dangerous because Saddam has shown that he will use them. Secondly, I know the innocent as well as the guilty die in a war. But do not let us forget the 4 million Iraqi exiles, the thousands of children who die needlessly every year due to Saddam's impoverishment of his country—a country which in 1978 was wealthier than Portugal or Malaysia but now is in ruins, 60 per cent of its people on food aid. Let us not forget the tens of thousands imprisoned, tortured or executed by his barbarity every year. The innocent die every day in Iraq, victims of Saddam, and their plight should also be heard.
  "And I know the vital importance in all of this of the Middle East peace process. The European Council last week called for the early implementation of the Roadmap. Terror and violence must end. So must settlement activity. We welcomed President Arafat's statement that he will appoint a Prime Minister, an initiative following from last month's London conference on Palestinian reform. I shall continue to strive in every way for an even-handed and just approach to the Middle East peace process.
  "At stake in Iraq is not just peace or war. It is the authority of the United Nations. Resolution 1441 is clear. All we are asking is that it now be upheld. If it is not, the consequences will stretch far beyond Iraq. If the UN cannot be the way of resolving this issue, that is a dangerous moment for our world. That is why over the coming weeks we will work every last minute we can to reunite the international community and disarm Iraq through the United Nations. It is our desire and still our hope that this can be done".
  My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
  3.22 p.m.
  Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House for repeating the Statement. I begin on a slightly sour note. The House will remember that at the beginning of last week the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House refused a Statement on the European Union Council meeting on the basis that, if we had taken it, it would have pre-empted the Prime Minister. Can the noble and learned Lord tell us why there is nothing in the Statement on that meeting of EU members and candidate countries? Indeed, this morning in another place the Prime Minister was silent on those matters. Thus the noble and learned Lord and the House have been ill served. Would the noble and learned Lord be willing to lay a document before the House setting out the Government's reactions to the EU summit, the statement of the Vilnius 10 and the other diplomatic events of that weekend?
  Governments are strengthened when they come to Parliament and have Parliament behind them. That is why, as we move inexorably, I fear—in the light of
  132
  Saddam's intransigence—towards conflict, it is essential that this House and another place have the opportunity to debate what is and will be a crisis of major international importance. Tomorrow, thanks to Back-Bench day, we shall have an opportunity for a debate, but we should not rely on the opposition parties in the weeks and months ahead. I hope that the noble and learned Lord can give the House an assurance that he will get a grip on the government timetable so that time is made available for further debate if and when troops are committed during any conflict and in the difficult days of reconstruction that will follow.
  Today the noble and learned Lord has repeated a grave Statement, but we on these Benches at least support the stand that the Government are taking. Saddam's defiance of the United Nations has lasted far too long, while his appetite to secure and hold weapons of mass destruction is proven. He is still hungry for them. Saddam's brutality and his willingness to attack others and then to use such weapons is a matter of record. The world community cannot bury its head in the sand and evade those truths. They should be as evident in Paris today as they are bitterly remembered in Tehran and Kuwait.
  I respect greatly the fears of those who oppose war. No one wants war, with all its ugliness and uncertainty. But the cost of peace on Saddam's terms is too high. War will be less likely if the international community shows a united resolve and draws a line under some of the self-indulgent divisiveness of recent weeks.
  We agree with the Prime Minister that the issue is not a matter of time; it is a matter of huge substance. It is a question of disarmament and peace or of defiance and war. That choice is for Saddam. If he makes the wrong choice, it is a matter in which, in the name of world order, we must prevail. If Saddam successfully defies the UN; if he successfully faces down the resolution of the United States, the United Kingdom, Spain, Italy and all the other nations that have called on him to disarm, where then is world stability and the authority of the United Nations?
  The Prime Minister is right to ask those questions. We shall support him so long as he acts resolutely against terrorism and weapons of mass destruction. Does the noble and learned Lord agree that he can take great satisfaction in the praise of the Prime Minister from President Bush and Prime Minister Berlusconi who so closely share his sense of what needs to be done?
  Does the Leader of the House also share my disappointment that the Prime Minister's lead here—given with great integrity in the face of the many doubts that exist—has not been matched by Chancellor Shröder in Germany? Does he accept that the divisions displayed in Brussels last week and the arrogant dressing-down of 10 sovereign European democracies by M. Chirac render any idea of a common European diplomatic policy increasingly an utter pipe-dream?
  The proposals by France and Germany for more time for the inspectors to pursue detective work offer no further way forward. Does the noble and learned

  133
  Lord appreciate that we on this side of the House agree that it is not for the inspectors to search weapons out? Their job is to validate co-operation, not to play cat-and-mouse games with Saddam and his lackeys.
  Is there any recent evidence of active links between Saddam and the regime in North Korea? Can the noble and learned Lord tell the House what is the latest position on the resolution of the Turkish Government on facilitating and supporting operations in Iraq, should they be needed? In the event of war, are agreements in place with Iran and Syria for the proper treatment of military personnel should they wish to seek refuge in those countries? When do the Government expect the resolution tabled with the United States and Spain to come to a vote, and can he report on any initial reactions from Security Council members?
  If the noble and learned Lord cannot answer those questions today, perhaps the noble Baroness, Lady Symons of Vernham Dean, will be able to take them up in the debate which is to take place tomorrow. Perhaps she will also consider whether it is worth setting out the provisions that will be made for humanitarian aid in the event of war.
  Over the next weeks and months, how will the Government advance the search for a solution to the Palestinian problem, in our view an indispensable strand of policy alongside any conflict with Iraq? Finally, does the noble and learned Lord share President Bush's view that if Saddam's defiance continues, no further United Nations resolution, however desirable, is strictly necessary and that Resolution 1441 gives us the power to act even in the event of a French veto?
  I welcome the careful and cautious approach of the Prime Minister. Saddam has been given time, plenty of time, to opt for peace. He must take the chance and I hope that he does so. But if he does not, we must be prepared to face the difficult and dangerous days that will follow. As we speak, far away, our Armed Forces are training for an eventuality that both we and they hope will never come. They must know of the confidence that this House places in them. I ask the noble and learned Lord, through his colleagues, to send to them a message of our good wishes and support. The House may be divided on many things, but never on that.
  3.29 p.m.
  Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I too wish to thank the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House for repeating the Statement made in another place. We are glad that the Government have decided to take up the offer made from these Benches of time from their own allocated debates for the purpose of a debate on Iraq which we believe to be well timed and extremely important. We are also grateful that the Government have decided to take the opportunity for a debate in both Houses.
  We on these Benches agree that Iraq has in the past developed weapons of mass destruction and that there may well still be precursors for such weapons in that
  134
  country. We also recognise that military pressure by the United States, the UK and others has helped to bring Saddam to the point where he is now beginning to co-operate seriously with the inspectors. But, while we completely share the view that disarmament must be the first and primary objective of the pressures brought to bear on Saddam Hussein's government in Iraq, we do not believe that all other measures short of war have been exhausted.
  In that respect we share the view, not only of France and Germany but of Russia and China, that it is still possible to give a little more time for the inspectors to reach a conclusion about the work that they are doing. We are concerned that the placing of this resolution at this time will go some way towards pre-empting the report from Hans Blix and Mr Muhammad al-Baradi scheduled for 28th February. We believe that it would have been better for that report to have beer allowed to come forward, especially given some of the indications that Iraq is beginning to move.
  Among those indications is the acceptance by Iraq, at long last, of air surveillance on a regular basis across the whole of Iraq. The noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House will know that that air surveillance has only recently been put in place and that some of the measures for using and assessing the data from it have not yet been completed. Many people do not fully recognise how slowly the full sophistication of the measures of inspection has been put in place. It is fair to say that it is probably only over the past couple of weeks that the full resources have been made available to the inspectors to complete their work.
  In that context, the Russian Foreign Minister recently said:
  "the inspectors are being subjected to very strong pressure in order to provoke their departure from Iraq … The international community should offer them all vital political assistance and not put pressure on them".
  The Russian Foreign Minister, together with Mr Putin, sent a special envoy to Iraq, who has reported back that in his view, given what has been said by its Government, Iraq will now co-operate fully with the United Nations. I do not know if that is true. All I know is that a serious representative of a serious country has reported his belief that that may well be possible. We on these Benches believe that the implications of a war are so grave that we should take every conceivable step to bring about disarmament in Iraq without resort to military action.
  There has been some confusion which I hope the noble and learned Lord will help to clear up. It is still not absolutely clear whether the UK Government's major objective is disarmament—a view that we fully share—or whether it is regime change, which is not an objective recognised under international law. I mention this because two sets of justifications have been referred to—one in regard to regime change and one in regard to disarmament. Important and welcome as it would be to see a change of government in Iraq, we believe that it is important to stick to a single message so that people are not confused.

  135
  Perhaps I may ask the noble and learned Lord one or two questions. Does he, as a distinguished lawyer, regard the combination of the first and second resolutions as endorsing future military action without any further resolution being required?
  Can the noble and learned Lord say anything about the proposed command structure under which United Kingdom troops would operate? In that context, the former leader of the Conservative Party in another place today implied that the United States had been the sole command structure since the end of the Second World War. That is not correct. Joint command has been the pattern in NATO and in the wars fought by or within the structures of NATO since the Second World War. It is therefore of vital importance that we learn whether a United States command or a joint command would operate in the case of any military action against Iraq.
  Can the noble and learned Lord say anything about the future administration of a defeated Iraq and whether it would be a United Nations administration or an administration conducted by either the United States or by what is sometimes called, rather oddly, the coalition of the willing?
  Does the noble and learned Lord regard the use of financial incentives such as the refusal of aid or an increase of aid as being valid ways of persuading other countries to support a resolution with which, in other circumstances, they might not be in agreement? Can he say whether or not the United Kingdom Government would wish to see such measures used by themselves?
  3.36 p.m.
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, for offering, without any shred of party advantage, good wishes and support for the Prime Minister in what is, on any judgment—agree or disagree with him—an exceptionally difficult time. I respond in this way. Agree or disagree with him, it is perfectly plain to any independent, fair-minded commentator that he is basing his stand on principle and not on political advantage. Agree with him or not, many would consider that to be a rather attractive aspect of his tenure of the post of prime minister at this time.
  The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, asked a perfectly reasonable question about various documentation. As always, my right honourable friend Jack Straw has not pre-empted but pre-thought about the question. There is a useful Command Paper, No. 5769, in the Printed Paper Office where one can find a number of the documents referred to by the noble Lord, and more, at pages 89 to 91 inclusive. There is the European Council declaration in Copenhagen in December 2002; the General Affairs and External Relations Council conclusions in Brussels on 27th January this year; and then there is the European Council conclusions on Iraq in Brussels on 17th February, which the noble Lord particularly asked for.
  It is right that what was being asked for last week was a Statement limited to the European Council discussions. That was going to be on Monday. When
  136
  the date was altered, I know that the usual channels were notified last Thursday. The Prime Minister took the judgment—I respectfully suggest rightly—that the better way forward was to deal by way of a Statement with a rapidly changing picture, added to the fact that these documents were produced in the Command Paper. As the noble Baroness has frequently said, with which I agree, things are changing so rapidly. The Prime Minister is trying to give the fullest, most appropriate update.
  Of course tomorrow was supposed to have been a Liberal Democrat Back-Bench day. We were perfectly happy to have the debate, making it plain, as I repeat now, that the day given up is not lost forever; it will have to be repaid. So the Government have been a shade more generous than the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, and the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, may have hinted.
  I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde—I hope that in doing the work that I do for your Lordships I demonstrate this—that it is very important that Parliament is kept fully informed, first because it is Parliament and, secondly, because any government in these circumstances would want, if at all possible, the willing, freely-given support of a Parliament that is as well informed as it is practical to make it.
  The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, asked me to comment on Chancellor Schröder and President Chirac. All their actions, statements, devices and stratagems are essentially a matter of taste and judgment. The Prime Minister of this country has shown immaculate taste and impeccable judgment.
  Noble Lords: Oh!
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, no expression is to be found upon my face. I simply repeat that our Prime Minister has acted on the basis of principle and expedience.
  The noble Baroness asked whether incentives in terms of increased aid were legitimate. Of course they may be in some circumstances. If some countries feel that they will be damaged financially or in other ways—Turkey may be one—it seems to be a legitimate weapon of international diplomacy to seek to give financial assistance to those from whom we seek mutual assistance. Not all inducements are financial, of course. Sometimes pressure on a historic, traditional or cultural basis—even on a post-colonial basis—may be deployed. The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, asked about the Turkish Government. My understanding, which may be imperfect but which I think is right, is that the Turkish Parliament will be coming to a conclusion on the governmental proposals in the next few days.
  The noble Lord and the noble Baroness both asked me to offer a view. The noble Lord asked whether a further resolution was needed and the noble Baroness kindly referred to my previous activity. But I gave that up two years ago and, seductive though her invitation is, on this occasion I must decline it. I remind the House of the convention that the Attorney's advice is not disclosed, nor is it disclosed whether that advice has been taken. I

  137
  repeat what the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary have said. The British Government wish to act in conformity with the rules of international law.
  The Middle East peace process was also referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde. Jack Straw made a full statement on 20th February this year calling for the early publication of the Quartet road map. He said:
  "There is an urgent need for progress towards a resolution of the Israeli/Palestinian dispute. I am glad that the UK has been able to contribute … The Quartet, Task Force on Reform and AHLC"—
  ad hoc liaison committee—
  "meetings addressed the essential requirements for a renewed peace process: publication of the roadmap on which the Quartet envoys are engaged; Palestinian reform, on which the Task Force has built on progress made at last month's London Conference; and economic support for the Palestinian Authority and people, on which the AHLC has a vital co-ordinating and facilitating role".
  He was very much echoing the theme behind the questions put by the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, earlier this afternoon. It is a lengthy statement—I have given the point of reference to it, and I do not read any further from it.
  The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, again generously pointed out that my noble friend Lady Symons will be dealing with these matters tomorrow. She will be dealing with command structures in particular, if that is convenient to your Lordships.
  The noble Baroness, Lady Williams, asked about the U2 surveillance—quite an interesting text for the next part of my sermon. Saddam has agreed in principle. It would be unfair to double glazing salesmen to make any invidious comparisons. He agrees in principle, but it has not begun. He is a deceitful, deceptive man. It is idleness and folly to believe that a proved liar will change his spots according to his present convenience. When we see the intelligence data from any successful U2 overflights, I will be a little more content to rely on his alleged bona fides.
  The noble Baroness asked about the future administration. At the moment, I must repeat—I hope without undue caution—that the Prime Minister has said quite unambiguously, as has the Foreign Secretary, our purpose, aim, hope and plan is to avoid a war. Our duty, however, is to support 1441 and any necessary consequences. It is not simply the supporting of a resolution which was passed, I remind your Lordships, unanimously, including the vote of Syria; it is to support the principle, concept and continuing virtue and value of the United Nations. There is no alternative to international governance through the United Nations as our preferred policy objective. I reiterate that as strongly as I can.
  We shall have the opportunity to debate these matters tomorrow. I think, as it happens, that our debate will be longer than in another place. I look forward, as does my noble friend Lady Symons, to the contributions and value that will come from tomorrow's debate.
  3.45 p.m.
  Lord Bramall: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for that apparently eminently reasonable Statement. Although it may not be strictly the job of the inspectors to find these weapons—to sniff them out, as the Statement says—does he agree that if they were to do that, based on all the intelligence that we can give them, this would be much the easiest and cheapest way of disarming Saddam Hussein"
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the noble and gallant Lord makes a good point. If Saddam co-operated, would not that be the best way forward? My Lords, abundantly yes. Over the past 12 years there has been no effective sign of willingness to co-operate at all. Iraq is a country the size of France. Any intelligence report will demonstrate the ease with which weapons and components are dispersed. In the very nature of things, the precursor chemicals are a first step towards the manufacture of a particularly vile chemical weapon.
  No one would be happier than the British Prime Minister and the British Government if the inspectors were able to detect, but their job is not to act as detectives. Their job is to see that 1441 is complied with. 1441 insists, through the legitimate organisation of international government—the United Nations Security Council—that there should be substance, not simply process. If I remember rightly, Dr. Blix's first report said that there had been rather grudging acquiescence towards process, but virtually none towards substance. So I think the noble and gallant Lord and I are absolutely at one. My conclusion, however, is that, lamentably, Hussein has had no intention of complying with substance.
  Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, I have two questions for the noble and learned Lord. First, has he any news of the two Iraqi ships which were reportedly sailing round and round the Indian Ocean incommunicado, carrying a cargo of goodness knows what? Is it proposed to take any action about this? Secondly, I have been informed by a source which I prefer not to name at present, until I have cleared it with them, that during the time sanctions were imposed on Iraq as regards exports of oil, the Iraqis were signing contracts with the French, the Germans and the Russians to export oil to them, and were doing so. Does the noble and learned Lord have any information about that?
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I have also received the reports that Iraqi vessels are sailing in the Indian Ocean. I do not know what is aboard them—I know what the suspicions are—and I have no detail about any imminent action to be taken in respect of them. I simply do not know whether the reports are accurate.
  In respect of the sanctions regime, I agree with the noble Lady that those sanctions have been evaded. The vast income that Saddam has been in receipt of—I earlier mentioned the 3 billion dollars—has plainly come in significant part by sanctions breaches.

  139
  Regarding the particular documents relating to exports—I do not have any precise details. If the noble Lady feels able to provide them, either to me, or perhaps more helpfully to my noble friend Lady Symons, then of course we will investigate.
  Lord Richard: My Lords, can my noble and learned friend tell me specifically what is the present and immediate threat to the United Kingdom posed by Saddam Hussein, which cannot be dealt with by a policy of containment and deterrence? If one looks back at the history of this dispute in the United Nations over the past decade or so, one sees a mass of resolutions in 1990 and 1991. Then there are no resolutions for a short while. Then there is one, I think, in 1995, and then three or four years with no others. In 1997 there may have been one—and then another three or four years with no resolutions. I do not understand. If it was such a great threat to the integrity of the United Kingdom or the peace of the world, why did it become apparent only when President Bush won the election?
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, it did not. The United Kingdom's national interests are irretrievably and rightly bound with the construction and the maintenance of international governance. My noble friend knows much better than I of the part that the United Nations has had to play over the past 50 years or so. If the United Nations fails because it is treated with effective contempt, without consequence or sanction, that is to my mind self-evidently a significant, grave and continuing threat to the interests of the United Kingdom.
  The alternative is to do effectively nothing—to shake Saddam Hussein metaphorically by the hand, or at least look the other way. The time for looking the other way has passed.
  Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House's Statement the decisive reason why action has to be taken? Have the reasons that have been given of co-operation with Al'Qaeda, a moral duty, or regime change now been completely set aside? After 12 years, and a hiatus of four years, Iraq has not, as far as anyone can see, attacked its neighbours or been a threat to them. Why is it suddenly so essential that we should attack Iraq within the next few weeks? After 15 years why can we not give the inspectors more time?
  Finally—in relation to failing to agree or comply with United Nations resolutions—why is only Iraq apparently going to be punished? There are other nations, particularly one in that area, which have consistently ignored strong United Nations resolutions over a long period.
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the legal—though not, I hope, over-legalistic—answer to the last question is that 1441 is in a different legal category, pursuant to the United Nations Charter. It falls in Chapter 7, not Chapter 6. Whatever criticisms can be levelled against Israel—and many of them have
  140
  validity—let us not forget that the resolutions require not simply action by Israel, but action by neighbouring states or organisations such as Palestine. The requirement is not simply for Israel to give up the settlements and withdraw from them, or for Israel to conform with international law, but for its immediate neighbours, who have challenged the right of the state of Israel to exist ever since its founding after the Second World War, to recognise that Israel has a right to peaceful and secure existence. If one asks why Israel is in breach, I accept that she is in breach, and have never suggested otherwise, but so are the neighbouring countries in breach. That is completely different from the legal status of 1441.
  My noble friend Lord Stoddart asked whether the Statement was the decisive reason. Have we abandoned moral duty or regime change? I should have answered this earlier, when I was asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams. If the Prime Minister is challenged on the moral case against war, he is right to answer with the moral case for war. If he is asked, "Would you be happier, would you be more contented discharging your burdens on behalf of the United Kingdom if there were a different regime?", of course he is going to say "Yes". However, 1441 is the basis of this Government's policy. If as an advantageous consequence that brutal, cruel, wicked man is removed, so much the better. There has been no change. The Prime Minister responds to questions appropriately and rightly.
  The noble Lord asked why have we done nothing, and why action is necessary now. Since the inspectors left in 1998—I paraphrase the Statement—there is no serious international observer who does not believe that Saddam has been developing his weapons of mass destruction. It is possible, though it would take a more innocent mind than mine, to think that he is developing them just to make a point. He is not. He is developing them to use them. He has used them already. He murdered 5,000 innocent people in a village called Halabja, because they were Kurds who objected to his brutality.
  Lord Renton: My Lords, is not a further answer to that which the noble and learned Lord has just given to his noble friends, that the events in the United States on 11th September 2001 alerted the whole world to the possibility of the spread of terrorism? Saddam Hussein is one of those who are qualified to spread it. The Government and the United States are justified for that reason, among others, in being cautious in trying to prevent a further spread of terrorism in that way.
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, plainly the noble Lord is right in that we are dealing with a context, post- September 11th, which none of us could have contemplated, even in our wildest imaginations. The United Kingdom Government's policy is to uphold the status of 1441, and to do our utmost to seek a peaceful outcome. That is in Saddam's own hands.

  141
  We are intent on maintaining the authority of the United Nations, and that is a legitimate interest of the United Kingdom.
  Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, will the noble and learned Lord take this opportunity to comment on the widely held view that the consequences of a war against Iraq may well be worse than the consequences of trying to contain Saddam Hussein?
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, as always, the noble Lord makes a perfectly valid point. These are difficult political, and international geopolitical questions. Those are the judgments that the Prime Minister has to make. They are anxious decisions indeed. I am sure that point was deployed when Abyssinia was invaded, and when a small country far away, of which we knew nothing, was invaded.

  Crime (International Co-operation) Bill [H.L.]
  3.59 p.m.
  Report received.
  Baroness Anelay of St Johns Baroness Anelay of St Johns moved Amendment No. 1:
  Page 1, line 14, at end insert "or"
  The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No.1 I speak also to Amendments Nos. 2 to 7. I hope that it is convenient that I take three groups in one. It gives me an opportunity to explain the general approach that we have taken on these Benches to the amendments on Report. In so doing, I hope to save us a substantial amount of time later.
  There can be no doubt about the importance of international co-operation on the exchange of information on criminal matters, especially on terrorism. The discussions that we have just had on the Statement show that to be especially important now. The Government have said that many provisions in the Bill must be adopted because they are part of international agreements that have already been reached and been subject to parliamentary scrutiny through the EU Select Committees of both Houses. It is a nightmare for all of us, but particularly for those outwith the House, to track down the various comments on the various parts of this Bill in the mountain of paperwork that those committees have so assiduously produced.
  While debating the Bill, it has been important to ensure that Parliament has helped by having clarity about how the Bill will be effected when put into practice. We need to know what the real impact of the changes will be and to ensure appropriate safeguards against the misuse of systems that we are setting up under the Bill. The underlying issue is the question of trust in other judicial and police systems throughout the world.
  I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, for his willingness to discuss his views between Committee and Report. I particularly welcome the Government's response to the work that we did in the Grand Committee by tabling significant amendments, which will be introduced by the Minister later today and next week. The Government have gone a long way to meet the concerns expressed from these Benches and the Liberal Democrat Benches in Grand Committee. In moving those amendments, the Minister will contribute to reducing the time that we need 10 take on the Bill at this stage.
  Opposition spokesmen always have to say, "There is always a but". We need to examine some matters further, and may even have to press them, but those matters have been reduced in number.
  I turn to the amendments, which seek clarification as to the administrative proceedings that are referred to in the Bill, and what type of documents may be served under Clause 1. After all, we do not have administrative proceedings, as such, in this country, and some other European Union countries also lack them.
  Amendments Nos. 1, 5 and 7 look rather odd, as they merely insert the word "or", but they give the Minister an opportunity to say why he believes that the subsection has sufficient clarity. I tabled the amendments because of questions asked him in Committee. My noble friend Lady Carnegy asked whether,
  "paragraphs (a) to (d) are all separate and mutually exclusive, or do they overlap? Are administrative proceedings … different from the proceedings outlined in paragraphs (a) to (c), or has that been included to ensure that the list covers all possibilities?"
  In response, the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, said:
  "One may … imply an 'or' between"—
  each paragraph, and that,
  "in other words, a document could be covered by one or more. The provisions are self-standing or could be dealt with in conjunction".
  I thought that was confusing, so I tabled the amendment to ask the Minister whether he has reflected further on the drafting since Grand Committee., and whether he might accept our amendment as a way of ensuring that the meaning that he attributed to the clause at Grand Committee is made plain in the Bill.
  Amendments Nos. 2 and 6 go to the heart of the question: what are the administrative proceedings covered by the subsection? My noble friend Lord Carlisle of Bucklow particularly probed that point. We had a useful debate in Committee, which I would not dare to repeat on Report. The noble Lord, Lord Filkin, offered to write to noble Lords, which he did; in his letter he addressed that question and others, too. I hope that he will take the opportunity, in responding to the amendments, to put on record at the Dispatch Box the Government's view on these matters and give further clarification.
  Will the Minister confirm that the key requirement is that there must be a judicial phase of the proceedings, but mutual legal assistance may be sought at an earlier stage of proceedings, provided that it may at a later

  143
  stage be brought before a court with criminal jurisdiction? That may not sound much like clarity, but I believe that I understand it. I hope that it is right. Will the Government require the participating country that makes the request to the UK to state that the proceedings concerned will be before a court with a criminal jurisdiction at a later stage, before our authorities accede to the request?
  My noble friend Lord Renton suggested a drafting solution, in his usual helpful way. He said that the problem might be solved,
  "if … we were to leave out the expression 'by an administrative authority' and, in the next line, refer not merely to 'administrative proceedings' but to 'judicial proceedings'—which would of course include criminal proceedings.".—[Official Report, 13/01/03; col. GC 10]
  My noble friend said that that might give us a clearer picture of what is covered. Therefore, I have also tabled Amendments Nos. 3 and 4. Has the Minister had an opportunity to reflect further on that drafting solution?
  Finally, in the helpful letter sent by the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, on 6th February, he said that the Government were still trying to obtain further concrete examples of proceedings brought by administrative authorities that were covered by the Mutual Legal Assistance Convention 2000. He said that they would let us know if they received any further information. Have they received any information, and which countries did they approach for it? I beg to move.
  Lord Renton: My Lords, my noble friend Lady Anelay has done a lot of work since Grand Committee, and I warmly support the views that she expressed. The noble Lord, Lord Filkin, has been very receptive.
  The Bill breaks new ground, not merely in the protection of the country but in the application and extension of the law. We are breaking into unusual legal provisions. The first group of amendments is essential in our effort to get those legal provisions right. I hope that the Minister will regard them sympathetically, for the reasons given by my noble friend Lady Anelay.
  Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, my noble friend Lady Anelay congratulated the Minister on the changes that he has made since Committee stage, in response to our discussions. In my experience of working on Bills in this House, I do not remember a Minister who had such clout with his right honourable friend in another place, and was able to persuade him of so many things after the Committee stage. I do not know what the Minister does to achieve that, but it should give this House a good deal of satisfaction, because it clears up many issues that it is then unnecessary to go on discussing at later stages, here or in another place. I, too, congratulate the Minister.
  Like my noble friend Lady Anelay, I was hoping that there would be concrete examples to illustrate the difficult concept of the administrative authority. The
  144
  problem is probably created by the fact that we are trying to make legislation that dovetails with the systems of so many other countries, and with two parts of our own country, all at the same time. That is not easy.
  Any illustration that clarified what precisely we were talking about would be a great help. Perhaps it might still be possible to seek out those examples. It would be interesting to have them, not only for us but for another place, where they will have to struggle with these concepts as we have. I support my noble friend's amendment.
  The Attorney-General (Lord Goldsmith): My Lords, it is perhaps a pity that my noble friend Lord Filkin is not responding to this group of amendments so that he could express his satisfaction at the comments of the noble Baronesses, Lady Carnegy and Lady Anelay.
  Before turning to the amendments, like the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, I should like to make two points. First, she was absolutely right when moving the amendment to emphasise the importance of international co-operation in these areas. If I may say so, her allusion to the preceding debate was entirely apposite. Secondly, I entirely agree with her—as I think would those who took part in the Grand Committee proceedings—about the extent to which those proceedings added clarity to what is inevitably a technical, albeit important, matter.
  The amendments in this group break down into three categories. The first set, Amendments Nos. 1, 5 and 7, seek to make minor changes to the drafting to signify that the clause applies to a document falling into any one of the four listed categories. I confirm that the Government's very clear view, and my clear view as well, is that the current drafting is perfectly sufficient. It is clear that Clause 1 applies to all and any of the types of process that can be described as one of the types listed in one of the paragraphs (a) to (d). Those are drafted so as to encompass all relevant procedural documents. Almost all relevant documents will fall into one of the categories, but, if it happened that a document fell into more than one, then that would also be covered by the current drafting. So we see no need to accept amendments that seek to make those small changes. The matter is clear enough without them.
  I turn to Amendments Nos. 2 and 6. As the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, said, these amendments are intended to probe somewhat further on what is meant by administrative proceedings and administrative authorities. We are obliged to provide assistance in connection with proceedings brought by these authorities where the decision may give rise to proceedings before a court with criminal jurisdiction. We have accepted that obligation by signing up to the mutual legal assistance convention, and so removal of those references would render us unable to assist in such circumstances. The amendments as drafted cannot therefore be accepted.
  We have not identified equivalent domestic proceedings, which is why there is no provision enabling the United Kingdom to serve such documents

  145
  overseas. As those who spoke to the amendments indicated, we had quite a lot of discussion in Grand Committee on the meaning of administrative proceedings. The letter of 6th February from my noble friend Lord Filkin offered further clarification. I am glad to say that I can go even further today, as I have been asked to do.
  We are informed that in Germany, Austria and Belgium certain traffic offences that would be criminal offences here have been reclassified as administrative offences. That is almost saying that it is a less serious classification. We also understand that the Scandinavian countries classify certain environmental claims as administrative although, again, they would be regarded as criminal here. Not all EU countries have proceedings of this nature; as I said, we do not. As we would classify such offences as criminal, we can already—under existing mutual legal assistance agreements and our own domestic legislation—request and be provided with mutual legal assistance in relation to them. However, as the same acts are "decriminalised" in those countries, those countries are unable to seek such assistance from us. The extension of Schengen and the MLAC to cover administrative proceedings is designed to ensure that those countries can obtain like assistance for like offences. I hope that that additional clarification, by giving examples and putting them into that context, will help explain and provide reassurance on the point.
  Amendments Nos. 3 and 4 would change the text of paragraph (b) to read as follows:
  "to any document issued or made in that country in administrative proceedings and judicial proceedings recording a decision of that authority".
  Those appear to be drafting amendments. However, we wish to retain the explicit reference to administrative authority in this clause because that is the expression used in Article 3(1) of the MLAC. That is the obligation which we must meet, and the clause as drafted satisfies it.
  Notwithstanding the provenance of the suggestion, we would not accept that the insertion of "judicial proceedings" clarifies the matter. If anything, it is likely to extend the basis under which we can provide assistance to administrative authorities, as other judicial proceedings undertaken by those authorities may have no criminal nexus whatever. As I said, our obligations under Article 3 of the convention are to provide assistance in cases where, ultimately, there is a criminal nexus by being,
  "punishable under national law … by being infringements of the rules of law and where the decision may give rise to proceedings before a court having jurisdiction in particular in criminal matters".
  I recognise that that is technical, but I hope that it has provided some reassurance to those who have spoken.
  4.15 p.m.
  Lord Renton: My Lords, one is not allowed to make a second speech on an amendment at Report stage. I therefore put it this way. Before the noble and learned Lord sits down, would he be so good as to explain how
  146
  and why it is that a motoring offence in one of the countries he mentioned is regarded as a purely administrative offence whereas we still regard it as a criminal offence? What kind of criminal offences here would then be treated as administrative offences? The noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General must remember that we are legislating in this country for our own people as well as in respect of offences committed abroad. I think that we are getting into a state of some confusion.
  Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, I shall treat the noble Lord's intervention, which I am happy to take, as a request for clarification. The position is this. Certain countries choose—it is their choice, to which they must be entitled—to classify certain matters that we would classify as criminal as administrative. That applies to certain road traffic offences in some countries and to certain environmental offences in others. We would be within our rights if we chose to "decriminalise" in the same way. However, the nature of the conduct and the offence remains the same. Not only is there an obligation, noble Lords may think it entirely appropriate that, as we can request the assistance of those countries in relation to, for example. a road traffic offence that we regard as criminal, they should be able to require our assistance in the same sort of case albeit they classify it differently. In any event, that is our obligation. I hope that that is of some assistance.
  Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General for his response on those three mini-groups of amendments within the larger group. I entirely accept his explanation with regard to Amendments Nos. 1, 5 and 7. He has clarified the point even further. I also thank him for his explanation with regard to Amendments Nos. 2 and 6 and for the examples concerning traffic offences in Germany and Belgium. However, my noble friend Lord Renton made an important intervention which highlighted the differences not only across the European Union but even further overseas.
  I have to say that I listened to the noble and learned Lord's reply with bated breath, wondering how he would pick his way across the minefield of whether this country would decriminalise road traffic offences. Had he made such an announcement, he might have found himself, at one fell swoop, the most popular of people in this country—but perhaps not just yet. I am grateful for the noble and learned Lord's response. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  The Deputy Speaker (Lord Haskel): My Lords, before I call Amendment No. 2, I have to tell your Lordships that if Amendment No. 2 is agreed, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 3, 4 and 5 for reasons of pre-emption.
  [Amendments Nos. 2 to 7 not moved.]
  Baroness Anelay of St Johns Baroness Anelay of St Johns moved Amendment No. 8:
  Page 2, line 12, at end insert—

  147
  "( ) The Secretary of State shall make regulations prescribing the circumstances in which a document is (or is not) to be deemed as having been served for the purposes of subsection (3)."
  The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 8, I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 10 and 11. What constitutes good service and proof thereof? Amendments Nos. 10 and 11 to Clause 4 probe the nature of the arrangements that will apply when United Kingdom criminal process is served overseas otherwise than by post.
  The Explanatory Notes tell us that, following the entry into force of the Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters (MLAC), most procedural documents will be sent directly by post from the issuing authority in countries which participate in MLAC or the Schengen Convention to persons in the United Kingdom. Subsection (3) replaces Section 1(2) of the Criminal Justice (International Co-operation) Act 1990, giving the Secretary of State, or, in Scotland, the Lord Advocate, discretion as to how to serve the document. Under subsection (3), it may be served by post or the chief officer of police in the relevant area may be directed to serve it personally where a request has been made for personal service.
  In Committee, I used these amendments as a device to ask questions about what would constitute good service and why the Government would consider it important in certain circumstances to serve a document in person rather than by post. Today, I use them as a device to ask the Minister to put on the record the helpful response that he gave in his letter of 6th February. In that letter he rejected my idea that the arrangements made by the Secretary of State should be specified in the Bill or in secondary legislation on the usual plea of retaining flexibility for the Government. Sometimes flexibility can be misused by government, but on this occasion I believe that the Minister has justified the Government's stance. I invite him to put on the record the very helpful examples that he gave in writing of how different arrangements might be suitable in different countries. I beg to move.
  Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, I am happy to respond to what is really an invitation to put on record the explanations given by my noble friend Lord Filkin in his letter of 6th February.
  Amendment No. 8 would introduce a power to make regulations setting out when a document issued from an overseas authority is deemed to have been served on the recipient. We do not regard such a power as either necessary or appropriate. It is not necessary because the arrangements for service of overseas process under the 1990 Act have worked well for the past decade without such a power. It is not appropriate because what constitutes effective service under Clause 1 is ultimately a matter for the issuing state, not for the United Kingdom. In this clause we are dealing with documents issued by judicial authorities overseas. The law of that country will determine whether the document has been served (or not served), not the law of the United Kingdom.
  148
  Issuing authorities may request a particular means of service. In practice we expect most documents from EU countries to bypass the central authority entirely. Clause 1 applies only when documents are not sent directly, but are sent via the Secretary of State. In those circumstances, the issuing state will request a particular form of service: either postal or personal. Such proof of service as is obtained, whether a recorded delivery receipt or a receipt from the police, will be returned to the issuing authority, but it is for that authority to establish whether the form of service effected and any proof of such service constitutes effective service under its law.
  The other amendments in this group, Amendments Nos. 10 and 11, would require arrangements for the service of process from the United Kingdom to be set out by order. As the noble Baroness indicated, although the issue has been considered carefully since Grand Committee, the Government remain of the view that it is unnecessary.
  In response to the noble Baroness's invitation, I set out what the letter of the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, stated. We think that specifying arrangements in an order has the potential to cause problems. Not specifying them has the advantage of flexibility, which it is important to retain. Different arrangements might be suitable in different circumstances.
  Documents destined for countries not designated as participating countries for the purposes of this clause will be sent to the Secretary of State, who will send them to the central authority in the other country, which will serve them on the recipient. But there may also be other arrangements. For instance, in the case of EU-bound documents, the issuing authority may send them to the overseas central authority for onward transmission, either by post or personal service, depending on its particular requirements. Alternatively, the issuing authority might send documents to the Secretary of State who will then send them to the overseas central authority, again for onward transmission from that authority either by post or personal service.
  There will inevitably be occasions when an issuing authority will send documents to the Secretary of State in error when direct service would have been the correct route. We intend that in such circumstances the Secretary of State will then simply forward the documents directly to the recipient overseas. We would not want a situation where a statutory provision required him to send the documents back to the issuing authority because they had been sent incorrectly, when it would be a simple and clearly far more sensible solution for him to forward them himself. However, to set out such an option in an order risks giving the impression to issuing authorities that it is quite acceptable to send all documents to the Secretary of State because he will do the work of routing them overseas for them. That could encourage issuing authorities not to bother using the correct procedure, which would clearly be undesirable. Those are some

  149
  examples of circumstances in which specifying arrangements in an order could lose flexibility and could give rise to problems.
  Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for putting that explanation on the record and for making it clear that it is a matter of common sense, which makes the requirement for flexibility nothing sinister. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 2 [Service of overseas process: supplementary]
  Lord Goodhart Lord Goodhart moved Amendment No. 9:
  Page 2, line 28, after "a" insert "party or"
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, Clause 2 applies to any process served in the United Kingdom requiring a person to appear as a party or attend as a witness in foreign proceedings. Under subsection (3)(c) of Clause 2, service of the process must be accompanied by service of a notice indicating that under the law of the foreign state in question, the person who has been served may not be accorded the same rights and privileges as a witness as would be accorded to him in proceedings in the United Kingdom. The notice is not required to say anything about the rights of that person as a party to the proceedings. The effect of Amendment No. 9 would be to require the notice to refer to the rights and privileges of the person served as a party or as a witness.
  It is not clear why the omission of reference to a party occurs. On the face of it, the rights of a party, particularly the right not to give evidence—a party under English law, for instance, cannot be subpoenaed by the other side to give evidence and cannot be required to give evidence by the court—are at least as important as those of a witness. When this issue was raised in Grand Committee, the Government's explanation was that the present drafting simply repeats the drafting of an earlier Act, and that that has caused no problems. I do not think that the apparently defective drafting of a previous statute justifies the omission of words which, so far as I can see, should obviously be included in the clause. I beg to move.
  4.30 p.m.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Filkin): My Lords, I thank noble Lords who have acknowledged the responsiveness of the Government to some amendments tested in Grand Committee. I can only hope that members of the Opposition will keep that highly quiet, otherwise I am done for, as they can well imagine.
  Since Grand Committee, we have considered the amendment carefully, in great detail and at length, but remain of the view that it is not necessary. I will try to provide an explanation to give reassurance that the drafting is accurate and that the clause provides equal safeguards for defendants and witnesses, as is, I believe, the good intent behind the amendment.
  150
  When a defendant takes the stand, he does so as a witness. There is no reason to read the word "witness" in Clause 2(3)(c) as excluding the defendant. I think that that is the crucial point. The meaning given to "witness" in the concise Oxford English Dictionary is a,
  "person giving sworn testimony in lawcourt or for legal purposes".
  The word may be used in statutory provisions as including defendants. For example, Section 51 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 governs intimidation of witnesses, and the provision, of course, covers the intimidation of defendants in respect of their evidence.
  We therefore see no reason why Clause 2(3)(c) is any different. There is no reason why it should be read as not requiring a notice to be given to a defendant; rather the reverse is true. The notice must be given to persons both where they appear as a party to the proceedings and where they attend as a witness. That is because subsection (1) provides that subsections (2) and (3) apply to both parties and witnesses. A notice will always be given to a party to the proceedings as well as a witness. That explains why subsection (1) refers to both a party to the proceedings and a witness, so as to ensure that the notice given under subsection (3) is given to both categories. However, we need only refer to a witness in subsection (3) because—I would like to stress this point when a defendant takes the stand, he will do so as a witness.
  Two types of privileges afforded to defendants were mentioned in Grand Committee, which were those against self-incrimination and spousal immunity. However, both are privileges afforded to the party as a witness. It is true that a party could not be compelled to give evidence, whereas a witness could, subject to the right not to incriminate himself. However, that is a privilege afforded to the party as a witness. Similarly, for example, under Section 80(4) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, a spouse who is also charged in proceedings is not compellable. Again, that is a privilege afforded to the party as a witness. We have identified no rights and privileges which would he accorded to a party, in addition to those which would be accorded as a witness. For that further reason, we believe that the amendment is not necessary.
  As the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, indicated, the current drafting follows the 1990 Act. The notice given under Section 1(4) of that Act covered the rights and privileges of a witness only. We are following that approach. Clause 2 of the Bill is different from the 1990 Act only in that it refers to a party to the proceedings, as opposed to a defendant. However, that is to cover different Scottish nomenclature of persons appearing before a Scottish court and the fact that some of the proceedings in question are not purely criminal. There is no difference of substance between the 1990 Act and the Bill.
  The amendment would mean that Clause 2(3)(c) would be incorrectly drafted, for the reasons that I have given. Despite having spoken at rather considerable

  151
  length, I hope that I have explained that we believe that no mischief needs to be remedied by the amendment. I hope that that sets the noble Lord's mind at rest.
  Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I must confess that I have some difficulty in seeing how a right not to be a witness can be a right of a witness. Having said that, the amendment is clearly very minor and I do not propose to take it any further. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 4 [Service of process otherwise than by post]:
  [Amendments Nos. 10 and 11 not moved.]
  Clause 5 [General requirements for effecting Scottish citation etc.]:
  Baroness Carnegy of Lour?Baroness Carnegy of Lour? moved Amendment No. 12:
  Page 3, line 43, at end insert "and"
  The noble Baroness said: In moving the amendment, I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 15, 16 and 19, tabled in my name and that of my noble friend. Also in the group are government Amendments Nos. 13, 14, 17 and 18. No doubt the Minister will speak in a moment to his amendments, but it is my duty to speak first because of the way in which the group is arranged.
  Before I speak to the amendment, I have one general comment. The amendments concern some of many changes that the Bill is making to the law of Scotland. It is interesting that that is happening despite the fact that many issues with which we are dealing are devolved to Scotland. The Scottish Parliament wished the Westminster Parliament to deal with them, and one understands why. It is very important that the arrangements in the Bill are the same in Scotland as they are in the rest of the United Kingdom, and that is easier to do in this way.
  It has been pointed out to me, however, that there is another reason why that is desirable. When the Scottish Parliament legislates in relation to human rights, should any legislation that it has passed prove incompatible with the convention on human rights and the Human Rights Act, a whole Bill may be challenged in court and struck down completely, even if it has had Royal Assent. Should a Bill of the Westminster Parliament be proved to contravene human rights in court, the Government have the ability to put the Bill right by a fast-track process, if I remember, and the Bill stands. Therefore, it is convenient for Scotland that Westminster should legislate sometimes in such a way. I do not know whether the Scottish Parliament considered that matter when it made the decision to ask Westminster to do the job for it, but it is an interesting point that noble Lords might care to remember for future occasions.
  I shall return to the amendment. In a way, the issue is a bad-news story followed by a very good-news story for the law of Scotland. In Grand Committee on 13th January, the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, moved an
  152
  amendment to insert a new paragraph into Clause 5. That can be found at col. GC 30 of Hansard. The paragraph related to the arrangements for effecting a citation in Scotland. He said that he had tabled it at the request of the Scottish Executive.
  The paragraph seemed to me, as a layman, somewhat incomprehensible. My noble friend Lady Anelay agreed. The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, was sympathetic and suggested an improvement. The Minister was advised that there might be a misprint. He said that he would speak to the amendment and insert it into the Bill, but would reflect on the clarity in the meantime and make an improvement, should one be possible. When the paragraph appeared in Hansard, the matter had been clarified as it was more clearly laid out.
  My noble friend and I looked at the Bill as it stood and thought that it still required clarification, which is why we tabled Amendments Nos. 12, 15, 16 and 19. To our delight government Amendments Nos. 13, 14, 17 and 18 appeared, and they seem to do the job even better than we have. I am certainly of a mind to withdraw my amendment in due course and accept the government ones, because we think that they are better. I beg to move.
  Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I support what has been said by my noble friend Lady Carnegy. The original amendment was perhaps a cautionary tale of how one may work in Grand Committee, where we are of course not allowed to vote and any amendments must be made with the agreement of the whole Committee. It made me think carefully about when I might try to persuade Ministers in future not to proceed when there is some discontent about government amendments.
  Like my noble friend I completely welcome the government amendments, which I see as superior to my own. My noble friend Lady Carnegy referred to the fact that when the government amendment was printed in the Bill as a reprint after consideration in Grand Committee, the format was different from that presented to us in Committee because sub-paragraphs had been added. I have no complaint about that; I simply did not know that one could print in the new version of a Bill an amendment laid out differently from the way it appeared in the amendment agreed in Committee. As my noble friend said, it lent greater clarity but it still left some gobbledegook. It has now been rescued from that state by the Minister. I shall inquire in the Public Bill Office about how formats may be changed between the presentation agreed to by Committee and that printed in the Bill.
  Lord Filkin: My Lords, I shall not speak at length because the House appears to be at one on this matter, although we tend to prefer the phrase, "less than transparent", to "gobbledegook", for reasons that noble Lords will understand. The noble Baronesses, Lady Anelay and Lady Carnegy, remarked that the paragraphing changes, which were undertaken in preparation for the Bill's next stage, offered greater clarity. Like the noble Baroness, I did not know that that

  153
  approach was part of our process. It appears to be a helpful part. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, I had not known of the point about the ECHR; I shall take it away and reflect on it. Without more ado, I shall move the government amendments at the appropriate point.
  Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I thank my noble friend and the Minister for their comments. My noble friend amplified the point that I was trying to make about this interesting procedure, which appears in Hansard. We will need to watch it in future and ensure that if there is a rearrangement of paragraphs, the wording is the same, which it was in this instance. There was nothing wrong with the wording, as the noble Lord said. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Lord Filkin Lord Filkin moved Amendment No. 13:
  Page 4, line 1, at beginning insert "the citation".
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  The Deputy Speaker: My Lords, before I call Amendment No. 14, I have to tell noble Lords that if that amendment is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 15 for reasons of pre-emption.
  Lord Filkin Lord Filkin moved Amendment No. 14:
  Page 4, line 1, after "document" insert "issued is"
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  [Amendments Nos. 15 and 16 not moved.]
  Lord Filkin Lord Filkin moved Amendments Nos. 17 and 18:
  Page 4, line 10, at beginning insert "the citation"
  Page 4, line 10, after "document" insert "issued is"
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  [Amendment No. 19 not moved.]
  4.45 p.m.
  Baroness Anelay of St Johns Baroness Anelay of St Johns moved Amendment No. 20:
  After Clause 9, insert the following new clause—
  "FREEZING ORDERS: ANNUAL REPORT
  The Secretary of State shall lay annually before Parliament a report on the use of freezing orders."
  The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this new clause would require the Secretary of State to make a report on an annual basis on the use of freezing orders. The amendment is slightly different from that which I moved in Grand Committee when I sought an arrangement under which the Secretary of State would appoint an independent person to make an annual report. The Minister sought to persuade me that having an independent person would involve an unnecessarily cumbersome procedure. After listening to the debate and the reasons proposed, I agreed with him. However, I believe that we should take stock of the fact that the Government are introducing a new provision into United Kingdom law, the use of which should be considered in light of operational experience as well as that of developments throughout the
  154
  European Union once the Bill is enacted. I still believe therefore that there is room for an annual report in these matters.
  At Second Reading, the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, said:
  "The Bill will also introduce mutual recognition of orders to freeze evidence, as provided for by the EU's draft framework decision on the execution of orders freezing evidence. That is a major step forward that will significantly speed up the process of securing valuable evidence. Mutual recognition takes MLA one step further by recognising directly, as between EU member states, a request made by a court, so enabling a direct response with the minimum of formality".—[Official Report, 2/12/02; col. 973.]
  That seems a very constructive step forward. So far, the Government cannot say how often they anticipate that these orders will be used because we are moving into uncharted territory.
  We have discussed the provisions on freezing orders, which are new and potentially an important element of the Bill. It is important that when new provisions are introduced into our domestic law, particularly those depending on the actions of authorities in other countries, they are kept under scrutiny in order to ensure that they are operating for the benefit of the United Kingdom and its citizens.
  In Grand Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, advanced the view that if other countries did not have an annual report on these matters, perhaps we should not; he asked the Minister various questions about that. Very rarely do I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, but on this occasion I dare to do so because it is not always the case that if the EU does something differently from us, it is right and we are wrong. At this stage, we are going into uncharted territory and we do not yet have a full view of how other countries will approach the matter. They may end up with an annual report; we simply do not know
  It is important for us to know how this new system will operate and whether it is unduly burdensome. As the Minister said at col. GC 50, the framework decision has not yet been adopted across the EU. We are having to take much on trust. The Minister said that the parliamentary procedure of tabling Written Questions would suffice. Well, that may perhaps he the case in some circumstances but written Quest ions are a very blunt tool and are normally used only as a method of garnering information preparatory to a debate; they are not really the best way to hold the Government to account. I recognise that they are also used by governments to make announcements that they may not be able to make in other ways. I do not want to leave this important matter to the risk of a Written Question.
  I am asking the Government through the amendment whether they have now discovered the answers to the questions raised in Committee. For example, the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, asked: will the information be contained in the annually published judicial statistics in terms of orders made and breakdowns of the other countries concerned? The Minister said that he could not

  155
  answer the question at that time but that he would make inquiries and let us know. This is his chance. I beg to move.
  Lord Renton: My Lords, I regard this as a very important amendment. I hope that the Government will agree to it. As my noble friend Lady Anelay pointed out, in dealing with freezing orders in Clauses 10, 11 and 12 we are dealing with something that has so far been considered to be unusual in our law; the arrangement will introduce an entirely fresh system. Its importance must be considered by the Government and a report laid before Parliament annually, as my noble friend said. That is not a great obligation on the Government.
  I realise that the new clause could come after Clause 12 instead of before Clause 10. In previous legislation, when requiring the Secretary of State to report to Parliament, we generally required it to be done after we had set out the obligations. Here, we are doing so before the obligations are mentioned. However, either way, I believe that this clause should be inserted into the Bill, and there is no harm in its going in before Clause 10.
  I suppose it is arguable that, in his annual report, the Secretary of State might refer to what happens in other countries. But, frankly, I do not believe that that is relevant in relation to our law. The people of this country—dare I say, especially the lawyers—should be informed about the development of this process.
  The only other point that I wish to add is that Clause 10(2) clearly sets out a definition of a "domestic freezing order". It is described as,
  "an order for protecting evidence which is in the participating country pending its transfer to the United Kingdom".
  Again, that is a very unusual situation. But it is one which our courts will need to know about and which the British people who will be affected by the operation of the Bill should also have in mind.
  Therefore, I hope that the Government will be very sympathetic and accept the amendment. It is not controversial. When three important new clauses introduce in some detail new legal factors into this country, surely there should be a report to Parliament. I hope that the Government will accept that.
  Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I hope that the Minister who is to reply will not say, "Here we go—another annual report". As both my noble friends have said, this is an entirely new arrangement. The passing of evidence between different countries for actions in different courts is a very complex arrangement. It will be important that it works from all ends of the operation in all countries. It will also be important for this country to know whether it is working for us as well as for other people.
  Perhaps there need not be an annual report for ever—my noble friend did not include such a requirement in the amendment. It may be needed only for the first four or five years or for however long the Government consider necessary. But it seems to me
  156
  that Parliament should know what is going on in this respect and consider the matter carefully. The Government should be required to find out exactly what is happening in order to make the report. Therefore, I hope that the Minister will view the amendment kindly.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, for retabling an amendment, which, as she said, is not completely dissimilar to one debated in Grand Committee. I believe it has provided a useful opportunity for your Lordships' House to remind the Government of our requirement to ensure that everyone is fully informed about the impact of important pieces of legislation that are put into the statute book, especially where they concern important issues such as the freezing of evidence.
  This is not the first time that amendments to this Bill—or other Bills—have required annual reports to be produced. We have previously debated and discussed that matter cheerfully and helpfully. I do not believe that it will come as a great surprise to your Lordships when I say that we do not see great merit in the amendment, although, rightly, we understand the spirit in which it is moved. It is important to hold the Government to account and to ensure that we provide information on these matters on a regular basis.
  The amendment differs from the one that we debated in Grand Committee in that, as the noble Baroness said, the original amendment would have required an independent person to prepare the report. If this amendment is successful in any form, it will not be so very different because someone will have to prepare the information and bring forward a report.
  The arrangement for executing and requesting evidence freezing orders from our EU partners is new. It is right that Parliament has a continuing interest in their use and operational experience. However, we consider the proposed new clause to be unnecessary. The information contained in an annual report would be readily available to MPs and Members of this House, who would be able to obtain it by tabling parliamentary Questions, whether Written or Oral. Therefore, Parliament will have the opportunity to scrutinise the use of freezing orders without the need to appoint someone formally to prepare a report.
  Our view is that the proposed new clause would be overly bureaucratic and unnecessary, although we understand what is behind it. It is possible that in the first few years, while we were feeling our way with freezing orders, it would be desirable to hold an occasional debate on the issue. However, we do not believe that we require an annual report and do not consider it to be the correct way to proceed.
  As to the question of whether the information will be available as official statistics, my suspicion is that it will be tucked away somewhere in judicial statistics. That is a matter for the Lord Chancellor's Department. I fully understand the point made in posing the question, and I shall ensure that the noble Baroness and other noble Lords who have participated in the discussion are

  157
  informed. We shall write to them on that point. As to the question of whether member states have annual reports, again, I cannot give your Lordships an answer but clearly we need to carry out further research on that matter.
  I believe that the information will be available. Of course, it can be requested on a regular basis through the use of parliamentary Questions. We understand at the outset the concern to ensure that freezing orders operate well but, ultimately, we are not convinced that they require the full effect of an annual report.
  Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down and with the leave of the House, in view of what my noble friend on the Front Bench said, perhaps I may ask what makes the Minister think that Parliament can scrutinise this complicated system of freezing orders through parliamentary Questions? Can he tell us why that would work?
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I was rather convinced by the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, in Grand Committee. In response to the point about Written Questions, she said:
  "That is one of the battery of weapons that we have and it is one that I certainly do not underestimate. Particularly in this House, it has brought about some very fruitful and careful responses from the Government. I give my word that I shall try to find the energy and the time to ensure that we continue to hold the Government to account wherever possible".—[Official Report, 13/1/03; col. GC 51.]
  I considered that to be a fairly ringing endorsement of the use of parliamentary Questions. No doubt the noble Baroness's energy will ensure that we are properly held to account on this point.
  Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the Opposition, or anyone in this place or the House of Commons, could put forward not only an Oral but also a Written Question and that the information could be prolific? Does my noble friend also agree that, far from being defenceless in this matter, the use of Questions has a real effect on the Government?
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I entirely agree with my noble friend.
  Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, it is always pleasant to have a Minister quote what I said and find that I still agree with myself. In politics, that is even more of a surprise these days. There are, indeed, occasions when Written Questions are the right avenue to follow and there are occasions when they are not.
  I am grateful to my noble friends Lord Renton and Lady Carnegy for their support for the amendment. As the noble Lord, Lord 13assam, recognised, it is something of a "Bassam special". As he said, he and I have had cheerful and helpful debates about annual reports over the past eight, nine or 10 months.
  I agree that it is important to hold the Government to account. So information should be provided. As the noble Lord said, the difficulty is that that has to be done on a regular basis. Unless there is an annual
  158
  report it is not certain that one will be able to obtain information in a form that can be used to hold the Government fully to account.
  Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, it is possible for any Member at a specific time to interrogate the Government. That is one point and there are many more. Does the noble Baroness agree with that or not?
  Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I remind noble Lords that this is Report stage.
  Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis. As I said earlier, Written Questions can be a useful part of the battery of weapons, not just for the Opposition, but for all noble Lords. In this House we are aware that we have an advantage with Oral Questions to which the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, referred. We changed our rules so there is greater opportunity for individual Members to put their names to Oral Questions.
  If one were to follow the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, and the Minister to its logical conclusion, there would never be need for an annual report. I cannot believe that that is the case. This provision is new; it needs to be tested. And the Government need to be held to account I wish therefore to test the opinion of the House.
  5.1 p.m.
  On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 20) shall be agreed to?
  Their Lordships divided: Contents, 83; Not-Contents, 159.

  Division No. 1

  CONTENTS

  Ampthill, L.

  Goschen, V.

  Anelay of St Johns, B.

  Gray of Contin, L.

  Baker of Dorking, L.

  Hanham, B.

  Blackwell, L.

  Henley, L.

  Blatch, B.

  Higgins, L.

  Bridgeman, V.

  Hogg, B.

  Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, L.

  Hooper, B.

  Brookeborough, V.

  Howe, E.

  Brougham and Vaux, L.

  Howe of Aberavon, L.

  Burnham, L.

  Howell of Guildford, L.

  Buscombe, B.

  Hylton, L.

  Campbell of Alloway, L.

  Kimball, L.

  Carnegy of Lour, B.

  King of Bridgwater, L.

  Colwyn, L.

  Knight of Collingtree, B.

  Cope of Berkeley, L. [Teller]

  Laird, L.

  Cox, B.

  Lucas, L.

  Craigavon, V.

  Luke, L.

  Dean of Harptree, L.

  Lyell, L.

  Denham, L.

  McColl of Dulwich, L.

  Dixon-Smith, L.

  MacGregor of Pulham Market, L

  Dundee, E.

  Elliott of Morpeth,L.

  Marlesford, L.

  Elton, L.

  Mayhew of Twysden, L.

  Fookes,B.

  Montrose, D.

  Fowler, L.

  Moynihan, L.

  Freeman, L.

  Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

  Gardner of Parkes, B.

  Newton of Braintree, L.

  Geddes, L.

  Northbrook, L.

  Glenarthur, L.

  Northesk, E.

  159

  O'Cathain, B.

  Sheppard of Didgemere, L

  Park of Monmouth, B.

  Skelmersdale, L.

  Peel, E.

  Stallard, L.

  Perry of Southwark, B.

  Stodart of Leaston, L.

  Rawlings, B.

  Stoddart of Swindon, L.

  Reay, L.

  Strathdyde, L.

  Rees, L.

  Swinfen, L.

  Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, L.

  Vinson, L.

  Renton, L.

  Waddington, L.

  Roberts of Conwy, L.

  Wakeham, L.

  Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

  Wilcox, B.

  Seccombe, B. [Teller]

  Willoughby de Broke, L.

  Selborne, E.

  Windlesham, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS

  Acton, L.

  Graham of Edmonton, L.

  Addington, L.

  Greaves, L.

  Ahmed, L.

  Greenway, L.

  Alli, L.

  Gregson, L.

  Andrews, B.

  Grocott, L. [Teller]

  Archer of Sandwell, L.

  Hardy of Wath, L.

  Ashton of Upholland, B.

  Harrison, L.

  Avebury, L.

  Haskel, L.

  Barker, B.

  Hayman, B.

  Barnett, L.

  Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

  Bassam of Brighton, L.

  Holme of Cheltenham, L.

  Beaumont of Whitley, L.

  Howarth of Breckland, B.

  Berkeley, L.

  Howells of St. Davids, B.

  Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

  Howie of Troon, L.

  Billingham, B.

  Hughes of Woodside, L.

  Blackstone, B.

  Hunt of Chesterton, L.

  Blease, L.

  Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

  Borrie, L.

  Janner of Braunstone, L.

  Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

  Jeger, B.

  Brookman, L.

  Jones, L.

  Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

  Judd, L.

  Bruce of Donington, L.

  King of West Bromwich, L.

  Burlison, L.

  Kirkhill, L.

  Campbell-Savours, L.

  Lea of Crondall, L.

  Carter, L.

  Lockwood, B.

  Chan, L.

  Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

  Chandos. V.

  Ludford, B.

  Chester, Bp.

  Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

  Christopher, L.

  Mclntosh of Haringey, L.

  Clarke of Hampstead, L.

  [Teller]

  Clement-Jones, L.

  MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

  Clinton-Davis, L.

  Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L

  Colville of Culross,V.

  Mackie of Benshie, L.

  Corbett of Castle Vale, L.

  McNally, L.

  Crawley, B.

  Maddock, B.

  Dahrendorf, L.

  Manchester, Bp.

  David, B.

  MarandKellie, E.

  Davies of Coity, L.

  Marsh, L.

  Davies of Oldham, L.

  Mason of Bamsley, L.

  Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

  Massey of Darwen, B.

  Dholakia, L.

  Merlyn-Rees, L.

  Dixon, L.

  Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.

  Dubs, L.

  Milner of Leeds, L.

  Erroll.E.

  Mitchell, L.

  Evans of Parkside, L.

  Morris of Aberavon, L.

  Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

  Newby, L.

  Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

  Nicholson of Winterbourne, B.

  Faulkner of Worcester, L.

  Nicol, B.

  Filkin, L.

  Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, L.

  Fitt, L.

  Orme, L.

  Fyfe of Fairfield, L.

  Patel of Blackburn, L.

  Gale, B.

  Paul, L.

  Geraint, L.

  Pendry, L.

  Gilbert, L.

  Peston, L.

  Golding, B.

  Phillips of Sudbury, L.

  Goldsmith, L.

  Pitkeathley, B.

  Goodhart, L.

  Plant of Highfield, L.

  Gordon of Strathblane, L.

  Prys-Davies, L.

  Goudie, B.

  Radice, L.

  Gould of Pottemewton, B.

  Ramsay of Cartvak, B.

  160

  Randall of St Budeaux, L.

  Temple-Morris, L.

  Rea, L.

  Tenby, V.

  Rendell of Babergh, B.

  Thomas of Macclesfield, L.

  Rennard, L.

  Thomas of Walliswood, B.

  Richard, L.

  Thomson of Monifieth, L.

  Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

  Thornton, B.

  Rooker, L.

  Tordoff, L.

  Roper, L.

  Tumberg, L.

  Russell, E.

  Turner of Camden, B.

  Russell-Johnston, L.

  Varley, L.

  Sandbeng, L

  Walker of Doncaster, L.

  Sawyer, L.

  Warner, L.

  Simon V

  Weatherill, L.

  Slim, V

  Whitaker, B.

  Smith of Clifton, L.

  Whitty, L

  Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

  Wilkins, B.

  Smith of Leigh, L.

  Williams of Crosby, B.

  Stone of Blackheath, L.

  Williams of Elvel, L.

  Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

  Williams of Mostyn, L. (Lord

  Taylor of Blackburn, L.

  Privy Seal)

  Woolmer of Leeds, L.

  Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
  5.12 p.m.
  Clause 11 [Sending freezing orders]:
  Baroness Anelay of St Johns Baroness Anelay of St Johns moved Amendment No. 21:
  Page 7, line 27, at end insert—
  "( ) The Secretary of State may by order prescribe, in respect of freezing orders made in England and Wales or Northern Ireland, time limits within which such orders must be sent or forwarded under the provisions of this section.
  ( ) The Scottish Ministers may by order prescribe, in respect of freezing orders made in Scotland, time limits within which such orders must be sent or forwarded under the provisions of this section."
  The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I tabled the amendment so that I may have the opportunity to thank the Government for tabling Amendment No. 22 in response to the amendment that I moved in Committee. The noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General said then that he was sympathetic to the idea that there should be a time limit on sending freezing orders. He said that he would consider the point in the drafting and bring back a proposal. He has done precisely that. I will not take up time by going into detail on the previous debate.
  My noble friend Lady Carnegy asked in Committee—as reported at col. GC 63 of Hansard—whether the Government had consulted the Lord Advocate. Will the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General take the opportunity to put the answer to that question on the record? I am speaking slowly to give the Government the opportunity to hear from the Box whether the question was asked and answered.
  I have no intention of pressing my amendment, which I shall move for technical reasons. I welcome the fact that the Government adopted our period of 14 days as the appropriate time limit. I observe the fact

  161
  that the Government's drafting is far superior to mine and properly meets the objective that I sought. I beg to move.
  Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I find the English used in the Attorney-General's amendment, Amendment No. 22, rather peculiar. It states:
  "The judicial authority is to send the order to the Secretary of State or the Lord Advocate before the end of the period of 14 days beginning with its being made".
  The word "its" could refer to the judicial authority, the order or the period. Is that good drafting? The noble and learned Lord may wish to look at it. It is not very felicitous.
  Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment No. 21, which the noble Baroness moved, and Amendment No. 22, which is tabled in the name of my noble friend Lord Filkin. I said in Grand Committee that we would consider imposing a time limit for the transmission of freezing orders in the Bill, and that we agreed that they should be transmitted with a degree of urgency. I am grateful for what the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, said about Amendment No. 22. The amendment addresses the issue and would impose a time limit of 14 days for the judicial authority to send the freezing order to the Secretary of State. The vast majority of freezing orders probably will be transmitted immediately. There is unlikely to be any reason for the court to hold on to the order once it has been made. But including a 14-day time limit sends a clear message that orders must be dealt with as a matter of urgency.
  I listened carefully to what the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, said about the drafting of the amendment. It is clear from the wording that the only thing capable of being "made" is the order—"its" cannot relate to the Secretary of State, the Lord Advocate or the judicial authority. I suggest that the matter is sufficiently plain.
  I was also asked whether the Lord Advocate or the Scottish Executive had been consulted. I indicated in Grand Committee that the matter would be taken up. I am told that the Scottish Executive have been consulted and are content.
  Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 21.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Lord Goldsmith Lord Goldsmith moved Amendment No. 22:
  Page 7, line 35, at end insert—
  "( ) The judicial authority is to send the order to the Secretary of State or the Lord Advocate before the end of the period of 14 days beginning with its being made."
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Baroness Anelay of St Johns Baroness Anelay of St Johns moved Amendment No. 23:
  Page 8, line I, at end insert—
  "(6) The provisions of this section shall cease to have effect ten years after the day on which they are brought into effect by virtue of provision made under section 93."
  The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I tabled this amendment after listening to the points made in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, and my noble friend Lord Carlisle of Bucklow, as reported at cols. GC 64 and 65 of Hansard. I agreed with the thrust of their argument.
  During the clause stand part debate, the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, asked the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, whether the Government had in mind any procedure by which to ensure that within a reasonable period the whole system introduced by the clause would be reviewed. It is, after all, a novel procedure. The Explanatory Notes make the point that Clause 11 departs from the new procedure for general direct transmission in Clause 8. Under Clause II, the freezing orders will be sent to the relevant foreign state via the Secretary of State, or via the Lord Advocate in Scotland.
  The new procedure of direct transmission has not been adopted because the mutual recognition of freezing orders is completely new, and the format and conditions that apply will be unfamiliar to those issuing and receiving them. That is true now; but, as the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, pointed out, it will not be so for long. He said:
  "People will become more aware of their responsibilities".—[Official Report, 23/1/03; GC 65.]
  He is absolutely right.
  Does the Minister agree that it would be sensible to build into the Bill a method by which that position could be dropped after a reasonable period so that we could adopt the direct transmission that is a feature of other parts of the Bill? Surely that would ultimately prove more effective and efficient.
  There was some banter in Grand Committee between the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, and my noble friend Lord Carlisle on the length of time after which the position could be reviewed, and on what is reasonable or not. Being the gentle compromiser as ever, I proposed the limit of 10 years. It is a reasonable period after which we should be able to assess the effectiveness of the clause. I beg to move.
  Lord Renton: My Lords, I warmly support the amendment. We are entering a realm of uncertainty. This is an important mass of legislation, but Clause 11—sending freezing orders—is an experiment. When we legislate for an experiment, which could lead to great confusion and which could be dealt with by different countries in different ways, surely we need to assess it after a specific period. I think that 10 years is a very generous period. It might well have been five years, but my noble friend Lady Anelay has put forward 10 years, which is generous and reasonable.
  I hope that the Government realise the uncertainties that may arise under Clause 11 and will enable these provisions to be brought to an end after 10 years so that we can assess them and introduce fresh legislation. I have no doubt that in 10 years' time matters will have changed

  163
  and some amendments may be necessary. Therefore, it is a serious amendment which well deserves the Government's support.
  Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, am I right to think that if the provisions cease to have effect, freezing orders will be exchanged directly between those concerned and so fresh legislation would not be needed? As time goes on it may become natural to exchange freezing orders across borders and people will become used to it. It would be nice not to have to continue with this very elaborate arrangement indefinitely. I do not know whether the noble and learned Lord is interested in that idea. I rather hope that he is because it would be a pity to have to continue with such a complicated measure for ever, when it would very likely be unnecessary.
  Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, I have more than a little difficulty with the amendment. The specific point which arose was whether the method of transmission of freezing orders should be via the Secretary of State or directly. As I indicated, and as the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, has repeated, the reason for taking this different procedure from the rather speedier process in other areas is its newness.
  In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Renton, I should make plain that it is only the method of transmission which is under consideration. There is no experiment regarding whether freezing orders should be made at all. If made, of course they will need to be transmitted. We are signing up to them, and they will be of benefit. Therefore, the only question is the issue of transmission.
  I am intrigued by the proposal of the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, that if we removed the section it would leave us free to exchange freezing orders directly. I fear that that would not be the result, but that they would be left in a legal limbo with no method for their transmission being provided at all.
  While the Government are prepared to review the effectiveness of new systems—indeed it is very much in their interest so to do—I do not think that a sunset clause of this nature, which automatically brings the measure to an end, is an appropriate way to achieve that. After all, when the review takes place, the result may indicate that the system is working well, it is not causing delay, it is the best system and we should stick with it. It would be odd in those circumstances to have to legislate to put back into the statute something which has been taken out automatically.
  The noble Baroness asked the direct question: would it be sensible to build into the Bill a provision taking the clause out of the Bill altogether? The Government believe that it would not be sensible, nor would it be a desirable precedent to set. I therefore urge the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment.
  Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord sits down, perhaps he will answer a question which may prevent me from returning with the matter at Third Reading. I have no
  164
  intention of pressing the amendment today. When talking about the Government reviewing the matter, the Minister used the words "when the review takes place". At what stage is it intended that that first review should take place?
  Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, I cannot say. I was talking in general terms because, as with other new systems, the Government will want to keep the matter under review. They will do so at an appropriate time and having regard to experience. I cannot put down any date for that.
  Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I am grateful for the contributions to the debate from my noble friends Lord Renton and Lady Carnegy. Having listened to them, I believe that although my amendment had a laudable objective it missed its mark. I accept the contribution by the noble and learned Lord, which showed that my aim was out. At this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 13 [Requests for assistance from overseas authorities]:
  Lord Goodhart Lord Goodhart moved Amendment No. 24:
  Page 8, line 19, at end insert—
  "( ) The authority may, if it thinks fit, refuse a request for assistance except on condition that the evidence obtained in pursuance of the request shall not be used or disclosed (except in a public, judicial or administrative hearing related to the request) for any purposes other than for the criminal proceedings or criminal investigation in connection with which the request has been made."
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 24 allows the United Kingdom authority to impose a restriction on the use of evidence provided to a foreign country in response to a request for assistance for purposes other than those for which the request was made. If the amendment is incorporated, it would reflect a restriction applied by Clause 9(2) to the use of information, which has been obtained by the UK court from abroad. Amendment No. 24 is the reverse situation: it is the imposition of a restriction on evidence which is supplied by the United Kingdom to a foreign court.
  The United Kingdom is not obliged to comply with the request. It can do so under the clause only if it is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that an offence has been committed, that proceedings have been commenced or that an investigation is being carried on.
  Once that test has been satisfied and the United Kingdom has decided that it would like to supply the information for that purpose, it has no control over the use to be made of evidence by the requesting state.
  The concern is that it might lead to a fishing expedition which would enable the evidence to be used for purposes beyond those for which it was sought and which would not in themselves have justified making a separate order.
  A similar amendment was tabled in Committee. In reply, the noble and learned Lord said:
  "The Government consider that the requirement imposed by that amendment would be unduly restrictive. We cannot legislate for overseas authorities. If we made such a requirement, we would have no way of enforcing it in the absence of a binding international agreement".
  He went on to say:
  "We do restrict the use of material obtained using Section 2 powers of the SFO. Those are particularly powerful powers".—[Official Report, 23/1/03; col. GC 83.]
  That reference is to Section 2 of the Criminal Justice Act 1987.
  It is, however, plainly possible to provide for a restricted use of material by treaty. For example, Article 7(2) of the UK/USA Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty provides:
  "The requesting party shall not use or disclose any information or evidence obtained under this Treaty for any purposes other than for the proceedings stated in the request without the prior consent of the requested party".
  It then states in Article 7(3) that consent is implied, unless it has been expressly refused, to the use of contents after they have been disclosed in a public hearing.
  The approach adopted in the treaty is right. The United Kingdom authorities should have power to withhold evidence if it is likely to be published to the world at large and should in appropriate cases be able to impose a condition—perhaps as a result of treaty—on how evidence is handled by the requesting state to which the United Kingdom supplies it. I beg to move.
  5.30 p.m.
  Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, in responding to the amendment, I shall go somewhat further then I did in Grand Committee. I hope therefore to be helpful to the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart.
  The general position in relation to mutual legal assistance—and the general position under the Bill and the 1990 Act—is, as I think I heard the noble Lord say, a matter for the discretion of the state that receives the request. I am told—something of which I was not aware when I responded previously, and which may be helpful—that on occasion, by relying on that general discretion, conditions are imposed in relation to particular requests where there is concern that a fishing expedition may be being conducted. There are examples where that has taken place.
  There is therefore a general ability to impose a condition in certain cases. We would not want as a matter of policy and practicality to establish a general power to do so in relation to incoming requests. Indeed, in certain cases that would be impossible. The noble Lord rightly referred to the bilateral treaty with the United States, which contains restrictions, but there are international obligations that, in a sense, go the other way. Article 23 of MLAC states that certain personal data communicated under the convention can be used for specific purposes that go beyond the proceedings to which the particular request applies. So there would be a problem with the provision contained in the amendment.
  166
  However, I hope that what I have said gives the noble Lord the reassurance that he seeks on the particular problem, and that he will therefore not feel it necessary to press the amendment.
  Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his reply. It is somewhat different from that which he gave in Grand Committee and—from the perspective of our amendment—more helpful. In the circumstances, while the Minister's reply does not go so far as does our amendment, it certainly goes some way towards it. I recognise that there are circumstances in which the amendment could not be used. I therefore beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 19 [Seized evidence]:
  Baroness Anelay of St Johns Baroness Anelay of St Johns moved Amendment No. 25:
  Page 11, line 29, after "sent" insert "within such time as the Secretary of State may by order prescribe"
  The noble Baroness said: I tabled the amendment in response to our debate in Grand Committee on Clause 16 at cols. GC 79 to 80.
  The Explanatory Notes explain that the clause deals with the treatment of any evidence seized under the procedures set out in Clauses 16 to 18. The evidence is to be sent directly to the overseas authority that made the request. That meets the requirements of Article 6 of MLAC, which is in itself a departure from the procedure established by the 1990 Act. We all hope that that will speed up the provision of evidence by cutting out central involvement once evidence has been obtained. But surely one useful element of central involvement would be the setting of a time limit by the Secretary of State to ensure good practice across the system nationally. My amendment would require that any evidence seized by a constable by virtue of the provisions in Clauses 16, 17 and 18 would have to be delivered to the court or authority that made the request for assistance within such time as the Secretary of State may by order prescribe.
  As ever, I am wary of giving the Secretary of State more powers, but in this context it seems reasonable to do so to ensure that the system works effectively and efficiently. In rebutting the need for my amendment, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, said that the 1990 Act did not contain a time limit and that, because he thought there had been no problems in practice, he did not want a time limit now. However, my noble friend Lord Renton pointed out that the Bill represents an extension of procedures. As he said,
  "The kind of proceedings that we must envisage are entirely new situations so far as concerns this country".
  He then said that he believed that it was worth including the expression:
  "within such times as the Secretary of State may by order prescribe".
  It will come as no surprise to the House that I agree with my noble friend. As he said:
  "I do not consider that we can simply live optimistically in relation to the matter. We must ensure against unnecessary delays".—[Official Report, 23/1/03; col. GC 80.]
  My noble friend then asked the noble and learned Lord to consider the matter further between Committee and Report. I have tabled the amendment so that I can ask the Minister whether he has done so, and, if so, with what result. Of course, I appreciate that the Government took the views of noble Lords on board with regard to another time limit and have tabled their own amendment. I hope that we may have success with this one, too, I beg to move.
  Lord Renton: My Lords, I support the amendment. I am grateful to my noble friend for tabling it. Under Clause 19, if evidence were seized by a constable but not used within a reasonable time, that could lead to injustice. Delays are always a nuisance, especially in the administration of criminal law. I suppose that whether the amendment is the best way to prevent that is a matter of argument, but I think that it is a good, effective way to do so. I hope that the Government will consider it carefully. Something must be done about the provision for seized evidence in Clause 11. The amendment provides a sensible way of handling the matter.
  Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, I have no doubt that something will be done with seized evidence. It is of no value to those who seize other than as something to be forwarded to those who requested it. But there is no obligation on the United Kingdom to return evidence within a specific time limit. As the noble Baroness reminded us, current legislation does not include time limits. It will certainly be a matter of good practice that evidence is generally returned as soon as possible. In practice, police tend to transmit such evidence almost immediately.
  However, we can think of cases where it would not be best practice to return evidence immediately, or where that may not happen for other reasons. For example, a request may involve multiple searches. It may be practical and sensible, in such cases, to wait for all of the searches to be conducted, gather the material together, consolidate it and send it on to the relevant authority, rather than sending pieces of information back at different times.
  Another situation that has occurred in practice arises with an application for judicial review or some other judicial intervention before the evidence is transmitted. In those circumstances, one either ends up with a period that, in order to allow for that possibility, is so long that it does not achieve the objective of speeding up the process or so short that it creates a problem by putting someone in breach of a statutory provision or a provision in an order when it makes good sense not to send the information back at that stage or it is not possible to do so because of judicial review.
  I am grateful to noble Lords who have spoken. I hope that they do not doubt the desirability of quick transmission of such material. However, it is not necessary to put it in the Bill.
  Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, it is open to the defence to be involved in the process as well, is it not? The defence may have some reason that I cannot think of at the moment not to embark on the course that the noble Lord, Lord Renton, is disposed to do. Is that right?
  Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, thinking on my feet, I am not sure exactly what my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis has in mind. I agree that there may be circumstances—judicial review would be an example—in which the defence or the people who held the evidence could be involved in trying to affect the order that had been made. I agree with my noble friend that there could be circumstances in which the material could not be transmitted immediately because of something that had been done by or on behalf of the defendant or someone who is holding the material.
  Lord Renton: My Lords, I shall read Hansard carefully tomorrow to follow exactly what the noble and learned Lord said. I am trying to understand what he said, especially in his opening phrases. He gave me the impression that something must be done in order to ensure that we do not have indefinite delays in such matters. I hope that the noble and learned Lord will consider the matter further.
  Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, it is not a question of "Something must be done": something will be done. The police will send the material back. They have no need for it, and it is there only for the purpose of responding to the request. As a matter of fact at the moment, they send it back fairly quickly, and I have no doubt that, as a matter of good practice, they will. However, for the reasons that I gave, I will resist the suggestion that we should put a time limit or a power to set one into the Bill.
  Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Renton for his support and for that intervention. I took a note of the noble and learned Lord's words when he said that something will be done. The question of what is to be done is at the heart of the questions that we have asked. The noble and learned Lord said that it would be a matter of good practice. What is good practice? Before he intervenes again, I can tell the noble and learned Lord that he has persuaded me that good practice may encompass such a range of time limits for different purposes that it might be unwieldy to have in the Bill a provision that there should be particular time limits.
  The Minister's answers, particularly his answer to the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, deserve closer attention than one can give them now. Between now and Third Reading I shall read what he has said. I am convinced that the approach that I took today is not, perhaps, the most appropriate. I was particularly interested in what he said about the impact of applications for judicial review and the delays that might occur as a result.

  169
  I will read Hansard carefully between now and Third Reading on 17th March. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  5.45 p.m.
  Clause 21 [Considering the order]:
  Baroness Anelay of St Johns Baroness Anelay of St Johns moved Amendment No. 26:
  Page 13, line 11, at end insert—
  "(5A) The first condition is that, if the person whose conduct is in question were charged in any part of the United Kingdom with an offence equivalent to the offence to which the overseas freezing order relates, he would be entitled to be discharged under any rule of law in that part of the United Kingdom relating to previous acquittal or conviction."
  The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 26, I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 27 and 30, in my name, and Amendments Nos. 28 and 29, which are in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Elkin. I thank the Government for responding to the amendments that I tabled in Committee with the amendments tabled today. They cover the issue of the rules on double jeopardy that should apply.
  In Grand Committee, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, said:
  "it should be possible to refuse cases in which prosecution would violate our own rules on double jeopardy and we will further consider bringing forward our own amendment to provide for refusal in cases in which prosecution would violate United Kingdom rules of double jeopardy".—[Official Report, 23/01/03; col. GC 88.]
  The noble and learned Lord objected to my drafting. Today, again, I must accept that the Government's drafting is better than mine and achieves the objective that I sought to achieve.
  To some extent, I am rubber-stamping the Government's amendments today, but I look forward to hearing the noble and learned Lord give a full explanation of how and why they arrived at their particular drafting solution. I beg to move.
  Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, in Grand Committee, I undertook to consider the double jeopardy point in more detail. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for what she said.
  The clause, as amended, would give a judge in the United Kingdom the ability to consider the double jeopardy rule under United Kingdom law, with which he would be familiar, or under the law of the requesting country. That represents a correct interpretation of Article 7(1)(c) of the framework decision as meaning that an order is not to be given effect, if it would infringe the ne bis in idem principle in the requesting or requested state.
  I hope that that answers the noble Baroness's invitation to explain the amendment for the benefit of the House. I will formally move the amendments in due course.
  Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I formally thank the noble and learned Lord for that explanation. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 27 not moved.]
  Lord Goldsmith Lord Goldsmith moved Amendment No. 28:
  Page 13, line 14, after "relates" insert "or in the United Kingdom with a corresponding offence"
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Goldsmith Lord Goldsmith moved Amendment No. 29:
  Page 13, line 15, leave out "in that country"
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  [Amendment No. 30 not moved.]
  Clause 22 [Giving effect to the order]:
  Lord Goodhart Lord Goodhart moved Amendment No. 31:
  Page 13, line 28, at end insert—
  "( ) A production order may only be made by the Crown Court.
  ( ) A production order may only be made if the court is satisfied that one or other of the sets of access conditions set out in Schedule 1 to the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (c. 60) is fulfilled."
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendment raises a new issue that was not dealt with in Grand Committee. I put it down for today because the matter was drawn to my attention after we had passed this point in Grand Committee by a practitioner who was concerned with it.
  The amendment is of some importance, at any rate. It takes us back to the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, better known as "PACE". Under PACE, there are certain types of material to which a police officer can obtain access only by special order. Such material is described in PACE as "excluded material" or "special procedure material". Those two categories include certain business records and journalistic material. In particular, "excluded material" includes confidential journalistic documents, so that any material that might identify a journalist's source would be excluded and, under PACE, could be obtained only by use of the special procedure.
  The special procedure was that material in those two categories could be made available only on the order of a circuit judge and only if one or other of two sets of access conditions set out in Schedule 1 to the Act is satisfied. What happens under the Bill if an overseas freezing order involves access to excluded material or special procedure material? That is dealt with under Clause 22 which states:
  "in relation to England and Wales and Northern Ireland, so far as the overseas freezing order relates to excluded material or special procedure material the court is to give effect to the order by making a production order".
  The rest of Clause 22 provides for the way in which a production order operates. I do not think that I need refer to that.
  On the face of it, Clause 22 does not repeat the safeguards in PACE. A production order can be made by the nominated court, which does not have to be a Crown Court. Therefore, the order does not have to be made by a circuit judge or another judge having

  171
  authority to sit in the Crown Court. Furthermore, there is no reference here to the access conditions. The question arising is: do the PACE access conditions and the condition as to the judge apply to access to material under a production order?
  If it is intended that the PACE requirements apply, the Bill is extremely obscure. It should be far clearer than at present. As I read it, the requirements do not apply. If the PACE requirements are not intended to apply, access to the excluded or special procedure material—for example, documents which would disclose a journalistic source—could be provided under the production order in circumstances under which they could not be made available to an applicant in the United Kingdom. There would be no justification for that occurring. This is an important issue. I beg to move.
  Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, the noble Lord made an interesting point which, as a non-lawyer, I follow with difficulty. Clause 22(2) and (3) do not mention Scotland. In Scots law, is there such a measure as a production order and does excluded material or special procedure material exist in Scotland? I cannot spot any reference elsewhere. It might be that there is a valid question to ask here. I hope that I am not wasting the time of the House in so doing.
  Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, said, this is an important matter. I am pleased that he has raised it. The Law Society was kind enough to brief me just before Committee, but unfortunately too late for amendments to be laid, because the Bill had already passed that stage.
  As the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, said, on the face of it, Clause 22 does not repeat the safeguards of PACE. We accept his arguments that there must be clarity in those matters. I am interested in the question posed by my noble friend Lady Carnegy. I hope that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, is able to answer that today. If not, perhaps he could answer at a later stage.
  The amendment is important, despite the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, was unkind enough not to find it in himself to support me on a previous occasion when I pressed an amendment. However, if he were minded to press this, he would find me in the Lobby supporting him.
  Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, in answer to the question posed, I indicate straightaway that I cannot give the information about Scotland. I believe that I know the answer but I prefer not to give an answer which is inaccurate. Therefore, I shall ensure that that information is provided to all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate.
  The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, raised two points. As the matter was not dealt with in Grand Committee, it might help to say a little more about the warrants and orders that will be issued to give effect to overseas freezing orders. Overseas freezing orders will not be
  172
  uniform documents. But they will contain specified information and be accompanied by a properly completed certificate. They will vary in form from one member state to another. Those issued from this country will resemble search warrants, but that will not necessarily be the case in other countries. Each member state will execute freezing orders, having regard to its own domestic procedures.
  As regards who makes the production order, the noble Lord indicated that that ought to be by a judge of the Crown Court. That is a reasonable point. The Government, too, think that in those circumstances a production order should be made by the Crown Court. I want to give further consideration to whether that is something which should appear on the face of the Bill. I hope that is of assistance to him.
  The second question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, is whether precisely the same conditions will apply to the making of a production order in relation to an overseas freezing order as apply domestically to a PACE request. He asked: if that was not the intention, was not the Bill obscure? That is not the intention. The clauses relate to giving effect to overseas freezing orders and therefore will not be made in the same circumstances that apply in domestic cases. For example, the offence does not have to be a serious arrestable offence. Therefore, the definition of offences which would give rise to these orders is different from those which would apply under PACE. It was not intended that precisely the same circumstances should apply. Thus, it was not the intention that they should be made only if the conditions in Schedule 1 to PACE were met. They would be required in a wider range of circumstances.
  I think that the noble Lord would agree with me that, when one is concerned with an order which relates to excluded material or special procedure material—and for both he has given helpful explanations—it is to be dealt with by way of a production order rather than by a more immediate effect. The noble Lord did not indicate in his remarks—but it is a matter I shall be happy to consider if he so wishes—precisely what aspect of the schedule conditions, having regard to the circumstances in which overseas freezing orders would be made, he is concerned to see applied. He spoke generally about the conditions in PACE, having regard to the conditions under which we would give effect to the overseas freezing orders, but he did not indicate which aspect of the conditions that troubled him might not apply. I am happy to consider that but at the moment I do not know what it is that he has in mind. I do not know whether the noble Lord is able to assist on that matter.
  6 p.m.
  Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I would prefer to take it as an issue of principle. At this point I do not want to indicate any particular aspects.
  Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, of course that is the noble Lord's prerogative, but, with respect, to take something as a matter of principle when he is not prepared to indicate what is the issue of principle—that is, what aspects of the safeguards he is concerned

  173
  do not apply, having regard to the overall framework of the Act—seems to me not to be a satisfactory situation.
  If the noble Lord will not tell me what aspects he is concerned are not in place, I cannot take the matter any further and cannot accept the amendment.
  Lord Goodhart: My Lords, what I am concerned with is the second set of conditions relating to matters which include excluded material. I refer in particular to the question of journalistic material. While I was not involved at the time, I know that there were extremely long arguments during debates on PACE as regards the question of using these powers to obtain access to confidential sources. It is clear that there must be a strong case to justify the disclosure of excluded material.
  I tabled the amendment to enable the issue of principle to be debated. We believe that restrictions must be placed on the disclosure of special procedure and excluded material which correspond, so far as they serve a useful purpose, to those in PACE. Frankly, I do not think that this is the occasion on which to discuss them as matters of detail.
  What is the noble and learned Lord prepared to offer in the way of looking at the matter? Is he prepared to accept the idea that there may be restrictions?
  Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving me the opportunity to deal with that. While I cannot give any kind of commitment because I do not know what it is that requires a commitment, I am prepared to look at which aspects of the "safeguards" which, having regard to the totality of the safeguards provided under the Bill, the noble Lord thinks do not apply but which ought to apply in relation to the execution of overseas freezing orders.
  However, the noble Lord will forgive me for saying that this does not appear to be a matter of detail. Without knowing what his objection of principle is, I cannot say what my attitude to it would be. I am prepared to look at it without commitment, but I cannot give a commitment because I do not know what the detail is.
  Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I would put it the other way round. The Bill excludes the protection given by PACE to the special procedure material and excluded material. It is a judge who has to decide whether the requirements are satisfied. That appears to me to be the starting point from which we should proceed.
  I ask the House to accept as a principle that there should be restrictions which are equivalent to those in PACE. If the Government respond by saying that some of the PACE requirements are not necessary or appropriate, we can look at them again. At the moment, however, I think that the noble and learned Lord is putting it the wrong way round. He is saying, "Tell us what you do not like about it and we shall see what we can do". The answer is that we do not like the
  174
  principle. We believe that the point of principle here is that the PACE protection should apply. The Government could then come back to us and say, "There are some ways in which the full PACE principle should be modified".
  I think that it is important to establish the principle and therefore I wish to take the opinion of the House.
  6.6 p.m.
  On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 31) shall be agreed to?
  Their Lordships divided: Contents, 73; Not-Contents, 112.

  Division No. 2

  CONTENTS

  Addington, L.

  Ludford, B.

  Allenby of Megiddo, V.

  Mackie of Benshie, L.

  Anelay of St Johns, B.

  McNally, L.

  Avebury, L.

  Maddock, B.

  Barker, B.

  Mancroft, L.

  Biflen, L.

  Mar and Kellie, E.[Teller]

  Blatch, B.

  Methuen, L.

  Bridgeinan, V.

  Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.

  Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, L.

  Montrose, D.

  Burnham,L.

  Newby, L.

  Carnegy of Lour, B.

  Nicholson of Winterbourne, B.

  Chan, L.

  Norton of Louth, L.

  Clement-Jones, L.

  Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, L.

  Colwyn, L.

  O'Catnain, B.

  Cope of Berkeley, L.

  Park of Monmouth, B.

  Cox, B

  Phillips of Sudbury, L.

  Craigavon, V.

  Rennard, L.

  Crathorne, L

  Renton, L.

  Dahrendorf, L.

  Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

  Denham, L.

  Roper, L.

  Dholakia, L.

  Russell, E.

  Dundee, E.

  Seccombe, B.

  Freeman, L.

  Selborne, E.

  Gardner of Parkes, B.

  Shutt of Greetland, L.

  Goodhart, L.

  Smith of Clifton, L.

  Gray of Contin, L.

  Stodart of Leaston, L.

  Gray of Contin, L.

  Stoddart of Swindon, L.

  Greaves, L.[Teller]

  Thomas of Walliswood, B.

  Hanham, B.

  Tordoff, L.

  Higgins, L.

  Vinson, L.

  Hooson, L.

  Waddington, L.

  Howe, E.

  Wade of Chorlton, L.

  Jenkin of Roding, L.

  Wallace of Saltaire, L.

  Kimball, L.

  Walmsley, B.

  Knight of Collingtree, B.

  Wilcox, B.

  Laird, L.

  Williams of Crosby, B.

  Lang of Monkton, L.

  Windlesham, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS

  Acton, L.

  Blease, L.

  Ahmed, L.

  Borrie, L.

  Alli, L.

  Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

  Ampthill, L.

  Brookman, L.

  Andrews, B.

  Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

  Archer of Sandwell, L.

  Burlison, L.

  Ashton of Upholland, B.

  Campbell-Savours, L.

  Barnett, L.

  Carter, L.

  Bassam of Brighton, L.

  Christopher, L.

  Berkeley, L.

  Clarke of Hampstead, L.

  Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

  Clinton-Davis, L.

  Bhatia, L.

  Corbett of Castk Vale, L.

  Billingham, B.

  Craig of Radley, L.

  Blackstone, B.

  Crawley, B.

  175

  David, B.

  McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller]

  Davies of Coity, L.

  Davies of Oldham, L.

  MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

  Dixon, L.

  Mason of Barnsley, L.

  Dubs, L.

  Massey of Darwen, B.

  Eatwell, L.

  Merlyn-Rees, L.

  Elder, L.

  Milner of Leeds, L.

  Evans of Parkside, L.

  Mitchell, L.

  Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

  Morris of Aberavon, L.

  Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

  Nicol, B.

  Faulkner of Worcester, L.

  Orme, L.

  Filkin, L.

  Patel of Blackburn, L.

  Fyfe of Fairfield, L.

  Paul, L.

  Gale, B.

  Pendry, L.

  Gilbert, L.

  Peston, L.

  Golding, B.

  Pitkeathley, B.

  Goldsmith, L.

  Plant of Highfield, L.

  Gordon of Strathblane, L.

  Prys-Davies, L.

  Goudie, B.

  Radice, L.

  Gould of Potternewton, B.

  Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

  Graham of Edmonton, L.

  Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

  Grocott, L. [Teller]

  Rea, L.

  Hardy of Wath, L.

  Rendell of Babergh, B.

  Harris of Haringey, L.

  Renwick of Clifton, L.

  Harrison, L.

  Richard, L.

  Haskel,L.

  Rooker, L.

  Hayman, B.

  Simon, V.

  Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

  Slim, V.

  Hollis of Heigham, B.

  Smith of Leigh, L.

  Howie of Troon, L.

  Stone of Blackheath, L.

  Hoyle, L.

  Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

  Hughes of Woodside, L.

  Taylor of Blackburn, L.

  Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

  Temple-Morris, L.

  Jones, L.

  Thornton, B.

  Judd, L.

  Turnberg, L.

  Kilclooney, L.

  Varley, L.

  King of West Bromwich, L.

  Walker of Doncaster, L.

  Kirkhill, L.

  Whitaker, B.

  Layard, L.

  Whitty, L.

  Lea of Crondall, L.

  Williams of Elvel, L.

  Lockwood, B.

  Williams of Mostyn, L. (Lord Privy Seal)

  Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

  Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

  Woolmer of Leeds, L.

  Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
  6.15 p.m.
  Clause 28 [Interpretation of Chapter 2]:
  Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 32:
  Page 16, line 9, leave out from "(c. 60)" to "or" in line 10 and insert "Chapter 3 of Part 8 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (c. 29)"
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendments in this group are all technical amendments. Amendment No. 32 relates to the repeal of Sections 31 and 32 of the Criminal Law (Consolidation) (Scotland) Act 1995. Subsection (1) of Clause 28 (Interpretation of Chapter 2) includes a definition of "premises" which for Scotland picks up on the definition in Sections 31 and 32 of the Criminal Law (Consolidation) (Scotland) Act 1995. However, Sections 31 and 32 in Part V of that Act were repealed on 24th February 2003 by the relevant commencement of Schedule 12 to the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002.
  The same definition of "premises", with a slightly different layout, is to be found at Section 412 in Chapter 3 of Part 8 of the 2002 Act. Therefore reference to this definition should more appropriately now be made to the 2002 Act.
  Amendment No. 33 allows the provisions of Clause 29, which concerns the types of proceedings in which evidence may be given by TV link, to be extended to Northern Ireland. This is necessary because we would want any change made in respect of England and Wales to apply also to Northern Ireland. Scotland is catered for separately under Clause 29(2).
  Amendment No. 66 relates to paragraph 36 of Schedule 5 on page 74. It is a consequential amendment so that the new subsection (3A) inserted into Section 5 of the 1990 Act has effect in relation to warrants issued under Clause 47. The amendment in Schedule 5 is to allow service personnel sentenced to detention by courts martial to be transferred overseas. If the amendment is not made, provisions of the Army and Air Force Acts 1955 and of the Naval Discipline Act 1957 could prevent the removal from the United Kingdom of persons serving sentences of detention imposed by courts martial.
  Service personnel who are sentenced to a term of imprisonment, as opposed to detention, by a court martial are automatically dismissed from the services. These periods of imprisonment are served in civilian prisons and not in military institutions, so the relevant provisions of the Bill relating to civilians would apply.
  Amendment No. 68 is a correction. Article 49(a) of Schengen is repealed under Article 2(2) of M LAC and the appropriate reference should therefore be to Article 3(1) of MLAC, which replaces the Schengen provision. I hope that these wholly uncontroversial amendments meet with the agreement of your Lordships' House. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 29 [Hearing witnesses abroad through television links]:
  Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 33:
  Page 17, line 5, after "(c. 33)" insert "or Article 81(1A) of the Police and Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1989 (S.I. 1989/1341 (N.I. 12))"
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 30 [Hearing witnesses in the UK through television links]:
  Baroness Anelay of St Johns Baroness Anelay of St Johns moved Amendment No. 34:
  Page 17, line 21, at end insert—
  "( ) A request under subsection (1) must specify—

  (a) the reason why it is not desirable or possible for the witness or expert to attend in person; and

  (b) the name of the judicial authority and the names of the persons who will be conducting the hearing."

  The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment raises issues of giving evidence by television link. Clause 30 is significant in that it introduces arrangements whereby courts can take video evidence of witnesses for transmission abroad, the first time that this will have been permitted. In breaking new ground, we must ensure that witnesses are fairly treated and that overseas countries do not abuse this opportunity to take evidence by video link.
  I tabled a similar amendment in Committee to insert a new subsection adding extra protections for the witness. I stipulated that requests from the overseas authority should specify the reason why it was not desirable or possible for the witness or expert to attend in person, and that it should give the name of the judicial authority and the names of the persons who would be conducting the hearing. I added another protection in Committee—that the request should also state that the witness was willing to give evidence by television link. I dropped that extra protection from the amendment I now propose, having listened to the Minister's explanation in Grand Committee and accepting that imposing such a condition would run counter to the provisions of the mutual legal assistance convention to which the United Kingdom is party.
  However, I am not yet persuaded that the Government are right to reject my request that the first two protections should be on the face of the Bill. I have not dreamt these up—I have no authorship. They are the requirements of Article 10 of the convention. The noble Lord, Lord Bassam, acknowledged that in Committee. Very helpfully for my case, he went further, saying that,
  "we considered including the first two requirements on the face of the Bill",
  but added:
  "We concluded, however, that it would make the clause unnecessarily restrictive".
  It seems odd to me that putting the rules as agreed in the convention into the Bill could somehow make the Bill wrong and unnecessarily restrictive.
  The Minister went on to argue that things might change, that the Government might sign up to new agreements. He then conceded that the two principles in this amendment would have to stay anyway. He said that,
  "in practical terms, we would expect these conditions to be met in order to be able to make the necessary administrative arrangements to set up the hearing".—[Official Report, 23/01/03; col. GC107.]
  I found that very helpful; it reinforced my view that it was important that these two protections should be on the face of the Bill. If we need to keep to these principles, putting them on the face of the Bill adds clarity so that those who are called upon to give evidence know what protections they have. These protections would be for their benefit and for the benefit of those who might he required to advise them, too. I beg to move.
  Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, with great respect, I think the amendment is misconceived, for the best possible motives. First, it mirrors Clause 29, which relates to overseas courts. I think it is an obligation that we have to fulfil in that regard. Secondly, can the Minister instance a provision where a witness who gives evidence in this way would not enjoy exactly the same rights and privileges as anybody else? It is important for the witness to be protected, and he or she will continue to be protected by the court in the criminal proceedings which are envisaged. I do not
  178
  think that the provision is in any way wrong in law. The witness who provides evidence thereby will enjoy exactly the same privileges as apply in a normal court.
  It is incumbent upon the court to ensure that we make the best use of the technologies currently in use. The Minister will correct me if I am wrong, but I think the inconvenience and the disruption caused by travelling vast distances to attend court will be obviated.
  All in all, I think that the provision is correct. I do not believe anything would be advanced by the amendment, so ably moved by the noble Baroness.
  Lord Renton: My Lords, with great respect, the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, has overlooked the important reasons for the amendment. After all, Clause 30 breaks new ground in an important way. It provides for the hearing of witnesses on television, a most unusual situation. If I understand the matter properly, the Schengen rules require reasons why witnesses cannot attend to be put on the face of the Bill. That is what the amendment would do. It is very simple:
  "A request under subsection (1)—
  the provisos dealing with television links—
  must specify

  (a) the reason why it is not desirable or possible for the witness or expert to attend in person; and

  (b) the name of the judicial authority and the names of the persons who will he conducting the hearing".

  Paragraph (a) is even more important than paragraph (b). My noble friend Lady Anelay was right to table the amendment. I hope that she will receive good support from the Government.
  Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I support the amendment. The principal government argument against it was that if these requirements were included in the Bill, future agreements containing provisions on television evidence might not be expressed in precisely the same terms as in the convention. They do not want the Bill to be drafted so narrowly as to exclude the granting of assistance under other agreements. It seems likely that if an agreement of substance is entered into, it will require, as the MLAC has done, new primary legislation in this country. It would be perfectly possibly simply to amend these provisions if they were put on the face of the Bill.
  Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I was going to ask the same question. I hope the Minister will give a very clear reply to the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, because I did not understand what he said in Grand Committee on this subject.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am grateful to everyone who has taken part in this debate. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay of St Johns, for honing the scope of her amendment. It has usefully focused our attention on what she sees as the key issues.

  179
  Our position has not changed since Committee. We do not think it would be helpful to include these requirements on the face of the Bill. We are content that the current drafting gives the Secretary of State sufficient ability to refuse to nominate a court for the hearing if the conditions of Article 10 of the MLAC are not met. His decision will be made with the MLAC requirements very much in mind.
  Requests from non-EU countries, for practical reasons, will always have to include details of the authority conducting the hearing, and the reasons for requesting a video hearing. However, future agreements that cover these types of hearing might not have explicit requirements—a point that has been aired before, and that I made in Committee.
  These are not the only matters that must be specified in a request for a hearing by video link. It is worth recalling that MLAC states that requests must contain this information, in addition to the information referred to in Article 14 of the European mutual assistance conventions. Those requirements are not listed here, but it is worth saying that MLAC states other conditions. Requests must make clear which authority is making the request, as well as stating the object or the reason for the request—and, where possible, the identity and nationality of the person concerned.
  I think that meets at least some of the points that the noble Baroness was seeking in the amendment. The provision on possible future agreements is not restricted to participating countries. There is no agreement yet with Australia, but if we thought it was appropriate to assist them, we would seek to act within this framework.
  We do not anticipate that we will need future primary legislation in order to give practical assistance. We think this Bill will allow that. It is for that sort of reason that we will continue with a less restrictive provision, as set out in the Bill. If we agreed to this amendment, that flexibility would be lost, and we would not have the scope to develop this in the future.
  I understand why the noble Baroness wants to pin us down, but we do not believe she is right. We think we need additional flexibility, and to ensure that we have something which is workable. We think this amendment will make it less workable, and more restrictive. I hope the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment, given the additional information that I have provided.
  Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his response. I thank my noble friends Lord Renton and Lady Carnegy for their support, and the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, in this matter. All my noble friends agree entirely with the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, about the importance of television links. It is right that this new venture is being tried. Anything that can be used
  180
  properly to speed up judicial processes must be welcomed, as long as they are fair in their treatment of witnesses. Our thrust throughout this and previous amendments has been to ensure that witnesses are treated fairly, and that they know what they will face.
  I part company from the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, when he said he could not support my amendment. He was talking rightly about protection for witnesses in the court room. Those protections apply before one even gets into the court room. They explain to the witness what is about to happen to them so that they feel well armed before they give evidence. This could include a witness who is being given advice by a legal adviser. We are into new territory that does need clarity. The Minister came back to an argument that was used in Committee that there may be future agreements, and that one needed the flexibility to take account of them.
  None the less I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, that if there were future agreements which meant that an amendment to the law had to take place, then by all means amend the Bill. After all, the 1990 Act was not without amendment. One of my first duties as a Front Bench Opposition spokesman was to speak in the twilight hours of the day when the Government had their hands on one of their own Back Benchers to bring an amendment to the 1990 Act. So I have been there, seen that and done that. I have been around and can see that it can be done. The Government can find time when it is appropriate. That may well be the case, but if so, Parliament should have scrutiny of an agreement that the Government had made. That is a plus sign against my amendment, not a minus sign.
  I do think that there are occasions when good practice and clarity need to be on the face of the Bill. This is such an occasion, and I wish to test the opinion of the House.
  6.36 p.m.
  On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 34) shall be agreed to?
  Their Lordships divided: Contents, 83; Not-Contents, 100.

  Division No. 3

  CONTENTS

  Addington, L.

  Cope of Berkeley, L. [Teller]

  Allenby of Megiddo, V.

  Cox, B.

  Anelay of St Johns, B.

  Arran, E.

  Craig of Radley, L.

  Astor of Hever, L.

  Dahrendorf, L.

  Avebury, L.

  Dean of Harptree, L.

  Barker, B.

  Denham, L.

  Blatch, B.

  Dholakia, L.

  Bridgeman, V.

  Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, L.

  Dixon-Smith, L.

  Brougham and Vaux, L.

  Dundee, E.

  Burnham, L.

  Elton, L.

  Campbell of Alloway, L.

  Fearn, L.

  Carney of Lour, B.

  Freeman, L.

  Chan, L.

  Colwyn, L.

  Geddes, L.

  181

  Goodhart, L.

  Rawlings, B.

  Goschen, V.

  Razzall, L.

  Greaves, L.

  Rennard, L.

  Hanham, B.

  Renton, L.

  Higgins, L.

  Roberts of Conwy, L.

  Hogg, B.

  Roper, L.

  Howe, E.

  Russell, E.

  Howe of Aberavon, L.

  Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

  Howe of Idlicote, B.

  Seccombe, B. [Teller]

  Hunt of Wirral, L.

  Selborne, E.

  Kimball, L.

  Shutt of Greetland, L.

  Knight of Collingtree, B.

  Slynn of Hadley, L.

  Ludford, B.

  Smith of Clifton, L.

  Lyell, L.

  Stodart of Leaston, L.

  Mackie of Benshie, L.

  Stoddart of Swindon, L.

  Maddock, B.

  Thomas of Gresford, L.

  Mancroft, L.

  Thomas of Swynnerton, L

  Mar and Kellie, E.

  Thomas of Walliswood, B.

  Marlesford, L.

  Tordoff, L.

  Mayhew of Twysden, L.

  Vinson, L.

  Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.

  Waddington, L.

  Montrose, D.

  Wakeham, L.

  Newby, L.

  Wallace of Saltaire, L.

  Newton of Brain tree, L.

  Walmsley, B.

  Northesk, E.

  Williams of Crosby, B.

  Norton of Louth, L.

  Windlesham, L.

  Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, L.

  Worcester, Bp.

  NOT-CONTENTS

  Acton, L.

  Harris of Haringey, L.

  Ahmed, L.

  Harrison, L.

  Alli, L.

  Haskel, L.

  Ampthill, L.

  Hayman, B.

  Andrews, B.

  Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

  Archer of Sandwell, L.

  Hollis of Heigham, B.

  Ashton of Upholland, B.

  Howie of Troon, L.

  Bassam of Brighton, L.

  Hoyle, L.

  Berkeley, L.

  Hughes of Woodside, L.

  Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

  Judd, L.

  Blease, L.

  King of West Bromwich, L.

  Borrie, L.

  Kirkhill, L.

  Brennan, L.

  Layard, L.

  Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

  Lea of Crondall, L.

  Brookman, L.

  Lockwood, B.

  Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

  Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

  Burlison, L.

  Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

  Campbell-Savours, L.

  McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller]

  Carter, L.

  Christopher, L.

  MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

  Clarke of Hampstead, L.

  Mason of Barnsley, L.

  Clinton-Davis, L.

  Massey of Darwen, B.

  Corbett of Castle Vale, L.

  Merlyn-Rees, L.

  Crawley, B.

  Milner of Leeds, L.

  David, B.

  Mitchell, L.

  Davies of Coity, L.

  Morris of Aberavon, L.

  Davies of Oldham, L.

  Nicol, B.

  Dixon, L.

  Orme, L.

  Dubs, L.

  Patel of Blackburn, L.

  Elder, L.

  Pendry, L.

  Evans of Parkside, L.

  Pitkeathley, B.

  Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

  Plant of Highfield, L.

  Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

  Prys-Davies, L.

  Faulkner of Worcester, L.

  Radice, L.

  Filkin, L.

  Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

  Fyfe of Fairfield, L.

  Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

  Gale, B.

  Rea, L.

  Gilbert, L.

  Rendell of Babergh, B.

  Golding, B.

  Renwick of Clifton, L.

  Goldsmith, L.

  Rooker, L.

  Gordon of Strathblane, L.

  Simon, V.

  Goudie, B.

  Slim, V.

  Gould of Potternewton, B.

  Smith of Leigh, L.

  Graham of Edmonton, L.

  Stone of Blackheath, L.

  Grocott, L. [Teller]

  Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

  Hardy of Wath, L.

  Taylor of Blackburn, L.

  182

  Temple-Morris, L.

  Whitaker, B.

  Thornton, B.

  Whitty, L.

  Turnberg, L.

  Williams of Mostyn, L. (Lord Privy Seat)

  Varley, L.

  Walker of Doncaster, L.

  Woolmer of Leeds, L.

  Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
  6.46 p.m.
  [Amendments Nos. 35 and 36 not moved.]
  Baroness Anelay of St Johns Baroness Anelay of St Johns moved Amendment No. 37:
  Page 17, line 42, at end insert—
  "( ) Nothing in this section shall apply unless it is confirmed that the witness has received independent legal advice."
  The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving the amendment, I also speak to Amendments Nos. 40 and 41. After our little local excitement, I should make it clear that Amendment No. 37 is a purely probing amendment to clear up uncertainties from Committee.
  In Committee, I made it clear that I would use Report stage to examine the protection that might be necessary for witnesses giving evidence by television links. Part 1 of Schedule 2 sets out the rules by which television links will work, but Clause 30(6) gives life to that schedule. My amendment goes to the heart of the Bill by amending the clause to state that nothing covered by it can happen unless there is confirmation that the witness has received independent legal advice. Have the Government given consideration to that proposal since Grand Committee? If so, will they accept it, or what are their reasons for rejecting it?
  I tabled a similar amendment in Committee that referred to Clause 31 and telephone links, but we have not debated the proposals in relation to Clause 30.
  In Committee, I tabled an amendment to Part 1 of Schedule 2 to increase the protection given to witnesses by changing "may" to "shall"—a change that I occasionally adopt. I have not tabled another such amendment because the point is covered amply by government Amendment No. 40 published last Thursday. I thank them for tabling that amendment as it meant that I did not have to bring back my own amendment.
  Paragraph 5 states:
  "The nominated court may intervene where it considers it necessary to do so to safeguard the rights of the witness".
  In Committee, I asked the Government how far they believed the court should have a role in safeguarding those rights. My amendment removed the court's discretion to act in such circumstances and required it to intervene if it considered it necessary to do so. That was achieved by changing "may" to "shall". At that stage, the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, cruelly rejected my proposal on the basis that the Government considered it unnecessary, as they had confidence that the courts would use the discretion bestowed on them by the word "may". However, government Amendment No. 40 changes "may" to "is to".
  I look forward to hearing from the Minister why the Government changed their minds about the drafting of the paragraph. Why do they now accept that an amendment is necessary? Will the Minister explain the difference between "may", "is to" and "shall"? I give notice that, as a result of this debate, the Government may, or shall, see a lot more of the words "is to" in future.
  Finally, I look forward to the explanation of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, for his amendment, which appears to have much merit. Will he explain in what circumstances he believes that written advice would be appropriate? I beg to move.
  Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I speak to Amendment No. 41, which is in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Dholakia. It is the return of an amendment debated in Grand Committee. It is an amendment to Schedule 2, which deals with the giving of evidence on a television link. The schedule provides, among other things, that,
  "The witness is to give evidence in the presence of the nominated court … The nominated court is to establish the identity of the witness … The nominated court may intervene where it considers it necessary to do so to safeguard the rights of the witness".
  It continues:
  "The evidence is to be given under the supervision of the court of the country concerned … Rules of court under section 49 must make provision for the use of interpreters".
  Paragraph 9 of the schedule goes on to deal with privilege. Sub-paragraph (1) states:
  "The witness cannot be compelled to give any evidence which he could not be compelled to give in criminal proceedings in the part of the United Kingdom in which the nominated court exercises jurisdiction".
  It is necessary, therefore, either for the witness himself to realise that he is being asked to give evidence in relation to which privilege applies and he cannot be required to answer in a United Kingdom court or for the judge to be able to intervene. This is, of course, a case where the judge is not controlling the hearing. Once the judge has established the identity of the witness, his only responsibility is to ensure that the witness's rights are respected. I believe that it would be appropriate in these circumstances for a witness to be given written information, in a language which he understands, in respect of his rights.
  I entirely recognise that that practice is not adopted in the ordinary courts of this country. However, in the ordinary courts, the judge is sitting on the bench conducting the hearing and is listening to the case himself. The witness will be someone who understands English or whose evidence is interpreted. In this case, it is not clear that the evidence necessarily will be interpreted. The Bill certainly does not state that it will be. When I raised the point in Grand Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, said:
  "The domestic court could intervene if a matter was not understood as it could view that as a necessary step to take to safeguard the rights of a witness. Translation will have to be audible to the judge … In those circumstances the judge should be fully aware of all the questions".—[Official Report, 21/1/03; col. GC 111.]
  184
  I am not satisfied that that will be the case. If the witness is being examined in a language that he does not understand, there will have to be interpretation. However, when a Greek witness, for example, is being examined by a Greek court—and this type of situation will arise very frequently—the witness will be examined in Greek and will reply in Greek. Is it really the case that the questions that the witness is asked and the answers will have to be translated from Greek into English so that the judge can be satisfied that there is no breach of privilege? If that is so, I think that there will be an awful waste of time and money. The proceedings will take twice as long and involve the presence of an interpreter, who otherwise would not necessarily be needed.
  It therefore seems desirable to recognise that the judge may not always be in the same position to intervene as he would be if he was actually sitting hearing a trial in an English court. In those circumstances, it seems that there is an entirely justifiable reason for saying that the witness must be given advice in writing, in a language which he understands, before the hearing of the case begins.
  Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I speak in particular to Amendment No. 37, which states:
  "Nothing in this section shall apply unless it is confirmed that the witness has received independent legal advice".
  The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, has just asked us to imagine a Greek court examining a Greek witness. Such a situation, if not a frequent occurrence in our courts, is an extreme problem that might be met in our courts. It is interesting to think about. It seems to me that it will be quite unnerving for a witness from another country to give evidence in this country over a video link if they have never done a video broadcast or given evidence before. It is quite important that they should be adequately protected. I am sure that they will need legal advice before they give their evidence.
  Subsections (4) and (5) of Clause 30 provide that witnesses have to understand what constitutes contempt of court and a statement on oath. Part 1 of Schedule 2 provides, as the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, set out, that they will understand the meaning of privilege. All those matters will have to be explained to them. It would be unfair and very unsuitable if the arrangements that we made in this country did not provide them with legal advice. I therefore hope that the Government will at least accept Amendment No. 37.
  Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I suppose that I have to declare an interest in relation to Amendment No. 37. I am a source of excellent legal advice. However, I do not think that legal advice is necessarily required in this case. I think that the amendment goes much too far, and I would oppose it. I think that government Amendment No. 40 goes a long way. In it, the Government have heeded the idea that any element of discretion should be swept away. I think that they should be applauded for that. I am not always in favour of applauding my Government, but I am on this occasion.
  There is no provision in the law at the moment that is at all comparable with Amendment No. 41. I think that a provision stating that,

  185
  "Rules of court under section 49 must provide for the witness",
  is rather exaggerated. However, I understand that there is provision, and rightly so, for rules of court to be obliged to make provision for the use of interpreters under paragraph 8 of Part 1 of Schedule 2. I believe that that is as far as the Government should go. I believe that the noble Lord and the noble Baroness fail to understand the way in which judges come to the assistance of witnesses and defendants. That is right and should be underlined.
  7 p.m.
  Lord Goodhart: My Lords, how does the noble Lord expect a judge to be able to come to the assistance of a witness who is being asked an improper question if he does not know what the question is that is being asked?
  Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, the noble Lord fails to give any recognition whatsoever to paragraph 8 of Schedule 2 which states:
  "Rules of court under section 49 must make provision for the use of interpreters".
  I believe that that is a complete answer to the point that the noble Lord seeks to make.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, as the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, made clear, Amendment No. 37 would require all witnesses participating in overseas proceedings via television link from the United Kingdom to have been provided with independent legal advice. We cannot accept this amendment. A witness taking part in such a hearing is participating in the proceedings of a court that is not a United Kingdom court. The role of the United Kingdom court is to facilitate the hearing and to conduct certain functions: it must ensure the identification of the person to be heard and ensure that the fundamental principles of law of the United Kingdom are respected.
  A requirement that a witness has received independent legal advice before giving evidence in criminal proceedings is not a fundamental principle of our law. There is no such requirement in relation to domestic proceedings. The amendment would introduce a wholly new process into our courts. It is worth reflecting that a witness may not wish to have legal advice. A witness may be summoned purely as an expert witness to provide technical information.
  The Government have listened to the concerns that the responsibility of the court to intervene to safeguard the rights of the witness should be absolutely clear. As has been said, paragraph 5 of Schedule 2 places this responsibility on the domestic court, and we are sure that a court would exercise its discretion wisely in this respect. But, after further consideration, we propose amending the wording, by tabling Amendment No. 40, to make it absolutely clear that the court is to intervene when it considers it necessary.
  I do not wish to start a lengthy debate about the merits of the words "may", "is to", "must" and "shall". I believe that we have made our intentions clear. The phrases "is to" and "shall" are mandatory—I do not believe that there is any doubt about that—whereas "may" is
  186
  discretionary. Parliamentary counsel consider that the phrase "is to" is better than "must". That is the simple explanation for that. No doubt if we debated the matter on another day, someone would suggest that the opposite was the case and perhaps on that occasion parliamentary counsel would prefer "must" to "is to". We believe that the measure works perfectly well and I have not heard any noble Lord this afternoon suggest otherwise. I sensed that there was approval for it.
  If there is any risk of self-incrimination—I believe that that concern underlines the amendments—the court must intervene to inform the witness that under domestic law he or she is not obliged to testify. That is an important point. We consider that to be an adequate safeguard and that it addresses the key concern behind this group of amendments. Article 10(5)(a) provides that the domestic judicial authority must, if necessary, be assisted by an interpreter, in order to understand the proceedings and be able to intervene if the rights of the witness risk being infringed. As the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, said, that answers the point that has been raised.
  I cannot accept the other amendment tabled to Schedule 2 (Amendment No. 41). This seeks to impose a requirement that rules of court must provide for the witness to be given written advice as to his rights when participating in a television link hearing. In line with the government amendment, the court will already be required to intervene to protect the witness's rights. We believe that to provide written advice is to go too far. The witness's rights under this paragraph relate to his privilege not to be compelled to give evidence in certain situations. We should acknowledge that important privilege. If a witness comes to the hearing with legal representation, that person will be responsible for advising the witness of his or her rights in this respect. If the witness does not have representation, then, as happens when evidence is taken under Section 4 of the 1990 Act for example, the court (usually the court clerk) will advise the witness verbally if there is a risk of self-incrimination. I do not accept that such advice needs to be given in writing. Television hearings will have translation if required so the translator can interpret the court's advice if the witness does not understand English.
  We believe that we have the balance right and that we have moved towards meeting some of the concerns that were understandably raised in Committee. I hope that noble Lords opposite will see the sense of our approach and feel able to withdraw their amendments.
  Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I am not at all disturbed by the Government dismissing my amendment as unnecessary. I made it clear from the very beginning that it was merely a tool to clear up any remaining uncertainties. It has achieved that purpose. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, for his explanation.
  My noble friend Lady Carnegy said—she was absolutely right to do so—that it was important that we considered the matter of safeguards for witnesses carefully. The noble Lord, Lord Bassam, said that he sensed there was approval for the Government's amendment. I hope that I made it clear that I welcomed

  187
  that amendment rather than just approved it. I have no amour proper with regard to the fact that the Government have decided to use the phrase "is to" rather than "shall". I look forward to using the words "is to" in the future and seeing whether I obtain a favourable response. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 31 [Hearing witnesses in the UK by telephone]:
  [Amendments Nos. 38 and 39 not moved.]
  Schedule 2 [Evidence given by television link or telephone]:
  Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 40:
  Page 63, line 34, leave out "may" and insert "is to"
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  [Amendment No. 41 not moved.]
  Clause 32 [Customer information]:
  Viscount Bridgeman Viscount Bridgeman moved Amendment No. 42:
  Page 19, line 8, leave out "appears to him to be" and insert "he has reasonable grounds to believe is"
  The noble Viscount said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 42, I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 45, both of which stand in the names of my noble friend Lady Anelay and myself.
  I gave notice that we intended to return to this matter at Report stage. In Grand Committee we were told that although the Minister understood that we were concerned about fishing expeditions, he did not feel that the legislative changes that we proposed were necessary. However, we are still concerned that the Bill as currently drafted leaves customer information orders open to frivolous applications.
  The reasons given by the Minister in order to assure us that the changes are not necessary are that under Article 1 of the 2001 protocol to the MLAC, the authority making the request shall explain why the information is likely to be of substantial value to its investigation, and that the Secretary of State has a discretion not to allow the order. He also stated that Clauses 32 and 33 achieve the right balance, as they state that a judge must be satisfied that the conditions are to be met.
  We are still concerned that the criteria are too wide. Will the Minister clarify to what criteria the Secretary of State and the judge will be working? I beg to move.
  Lord Filkin: My Lords, the two amendments are linked. They probe the level of discretion that the Secretary of State has to accede to customer information requests on the grounds on which he must base his decision. Amendment No. 45 seeks to refer back in general terms to the conditions in article 1(4) of the protocol, and we have concerns about both amendments.
  In relation to Amendment No. 42, we consider that the drafting as it stands is correct. It will or will not appear to the Secretary of State that the person is subject to an investigation into serious criminal conduct, on the basis of the information in the request in front of him. The amendment might imply a higher
  188
  test, although in practice the test will be the same whether the drafting is left unchanged or amended. If the Secretary of State's decision in that respect were challenged, the answer to the question of whether there were reasonable grounds would depend on whether the request had stated that the person was the subject of an investigation into serious criminal conduct. Equally, the answer to the question of whether it appeared to him that a person was subject to an investigation would depend on precisely the same matters. I can therefore see no merit in amending Clause 32(1).
  Meeting the requirement is only the initial part of the process, however. It is a precondition. If it cannot be met, the clause does not apply at all. Subsection (1) works as an enabling provision as the starting point in considering a request for customer information. In addition to it, the Secretary of State has a general discretion as to whether to act in any particular case. The use of the word "may" in subsection (3) reinforces that point, as we referred to in our discussions in Grand Committee.
  Furthermore, a judge must also be satisfied of all the matters set out in Clause 33(1) before exercising his or her discretion to make an order. The requirements are: first, that the person specified in the application is subject to an investigation; secondly, that the investigation concerns serious criminal conduct, and that it would constitute an offence in this country; and thirdly, that the order is sought for the purposes of the investigation.
  Amendment No. 45 is designed to cover the matters listed in Article 1(4) of the protocol. Its effect would be to list the requirements in the Bill. Let me explain why we are not happy with that approach. The Secretary of State's discretion on receipt of a request from an EU country will be exercised with the protocol requirements in mind. Our obligation to respond to requests for banking information extends only to those from participating countries that are made on the basis of the protocol. Requests must therefore comply with all of Article 1 of the protocol in order to be valid.
  We consider that the general discretion conferred on the Secretary of State in subsection (3) is preferable to a clause that explicitly states how the Secretary of State must act when a request is received in a particular form. It enables us to apply the article 1 conditions and to exercise a general discretion, which we think is right.
  Requirement for a full explanation of reasons could be interpreted—it might well be—as going way beyond what we are entitled to demand from the requesting authority under Article 1(4). It might be considered a breach of our obligations under the protocol. Article 1(4) lists certain points, but makes no requirement for a full or total explanation. It states why it is considered that the request for information is likely to be of substantial value for the purpose of the investigation into the offence—that is very clear—and on what grounds it is presumed that banks in the requested member state hold the account and, to the extent available, which banks may be involved.

  189
  I do not consider that explicitly listing Article 1(4) conditions is appropriate either. It is quite clear that the Secretary of State is operating within that ambit. I am happy to stress that the Secretary of State's discretion will be exercised with the protocol requirements in mind. In addition, one of the requirements in Article 1(4) is that the request include any information available that may facilitate the execution of the request. The Secretary of State could not tell at consideration stage whether that had been complied with—whether the additional information did facilitate execution of the request—so inclusion in the Bill would be wrong. He would not be able to tell if it had been complied with until the particular circumstances were confronted on a particular application.
  Although I respect the reasons for the amendments, which we trust are probing amendments, we think that the position is clear in terms of how the protocol will be applied. I hope that my rather full explanation has set the noble Viscount's mind at rest on the matter.
  7.15 p.m.
  Viscount Bridgeman: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for that very full explanation. I think that we are reassured, so I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Lord Goodhart Lord Goodhart moved Amendment No. 43:
  Page 19, line 9, leave out "participating country" and insert "country outside the United Kingdom"
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of the amendment and the others in the group, to which I will speak, is to allow applications for customer information orders and current monitoring orders under Chapter 4 of Part 1 of the Bill to be made by or to authorities in any country, and not only a participating country. As defined, the participating countries are quite limited. In effect, they mean the EU member states and others designated by the Home Secretary. I assume that the designation will be limited to states such as Norway and Iceland that are part of the EEA, and may be extended wider.
  The amendment is not one that I intend to press. It arises in particular out of concern about the handling in the United Kingdom of claims by the Nigerian government to matters of some hundreds of millions of pounds that are believed to have been looted by the Abacha family—the family of the late president of Nigeria—from the treasury of that country. In many cases, that money has been deposited in banks in the United Kingdom. Lawyers acting for the present Nigerian government have complained of a lack of help from the authorities in the United Kingdom, especially in comparison with authorities in Switzerland.
  A number of complaints are outside the scope of the Bill, but it is clearly desirable that third-world countries should he helped to recover assets stolen by corrupt rulers, a problem that is unfortunately all too common. We need to consider whether the Bill does everything that it can to assist such countries.
  I can understand why the United Kingdom might be reluctant to grant mutual recognition, as opposed to mutual legal assistance, to some foreign countries where the courts may be regarded as less than entirely reliable. I will therefore not press for anything in the nature of mutual recognition to be extended. With Nigeria, we have an agreement for mutual legal assistance, entered into in 1989. In itself, that does not seem to have prevented the very substantial difficulties that have arisen.
  I also recognise that some help may result from the implementation of Part 7 of the Proceeds of Crime Act, which very much stiffens the law on money-laundering and will make it harder for British financial institutions to deal with money that comes to them in circumstances where they suspect a problem. I wonder why the remedies of customer information orders or account monitoring orders under Chapter 4 of Part I are not made available to countries other than participating countries. The orders made under Chapter 4 are made in the course of mutual legal assistance and the courts have the discretion about whether to make them or not; they are not there simply for rubber-stamping. It appears that the availability by way of mutual legal assistance to countries outside the EU of customer information orders or account monitoring orders would potentially be very useful in identifying and tracing assets that had been looted from national governments. I beg to move.
  Lord Filkin: My Lords, I respect the reasoning behind the amendments. I shall respond to a number of questions raised by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, and explain what the term "participating country" means, why only participating countries are involved, how the Proceeds of Crime Act will assist and the relevance of the Abacha case, which was the origin of the matter.
  I begin with the definition of "participating countries". A participating country is defined in Clause 51(2) of the Bill as a country other than the UK which is an EU member state on a day appointed for the commencement of that provision, and any other country designated by an order. That mechanism enables different countries to be designated as participating countries for the purposes of different provisions of the Bill.
  The purpose is to restrict the application of certain provisions to those countries that are under an equal obligation to provide a particular type of assistance. In other words, the arrangements will be reciprocal. The provisions of Chapter 4, to which the amendments relate, enable us to request and provide assistance in identifying and monitoring bank accounts. Those forms of assistance are regulated for the first time in the protocol to the MLA convention. We are under an obligation only to provide those forms of assistance to countries that are party to that agreement and we have chosen as a matter of policy to restrict the application of Chapter 4 to designated countries rather than giving it general application. That restriction contrasts with our policy more generally on the provision of mutual legal assistance where we do not require the existence of an agreement as a condition for assisting. However,

  191
  those types of assistance are new and specialised, and the amount of work involved in executing such requests will be fairly substantial. We do not consider it appropriate to give the provisions general application when many countries will not be in a position to reciprocate. At heart, that is the reason why we started off in this tighter fashion.
  With regard to changes to the relevance of the Proceeds of Crime Act, Part 11 of the Act will streamline the UK's ability to co-operate with other countries in tracing, freezing and confiscating assets. It also provides for the investigation powers in Part 8 of the Act to be used at the request of foreign jurisdictions. The investigation powers include customer information orders and account monitoring orders, which are the types of assistance that Chapter 4 of the Bill introduces in respect of EU member states. That will be accomplished by subsidiary legislation. We expect to make the relevant Orders in Council later this year. Unlike the existing legislation, an overseas territory will no longer need to be designated before restraint and confiscation co-operation can be given. In the subordinate legislation, we intend to make restraint available from the start of an overseas investigation rather than at the point when a person is charged with an offence. That was one of the main criticisms of the UK legislation that stemmed from the Abacha case. Bringing forward the availability of restraint will help to prevent the dissipation of assets in overseas cases. I am sure many Members of the House recollect that at the time of the A bacha case, UK law did not allow assets to be restrained until the suspects were being charged, and it did not require a genius to predict what had happened to the assets very shortly after that, as was found to be the case.
  A second point relevant to the Abacha case is that the Act provides that the international co-operation arrangements are made by order rather than in primary legislation. I hope the House recognises that that is a further benefit. It will allow for easy amendment to keep pace with international initiatives, such as mutual recognition in the EU and enable us to deal effectively with ground-breaking and high-profile cases, such as the Abacha case. It is highly desirable that we do so and seek to prevent a recurrence of such situations. I respect the reasons that lie behind the amendment and hope that my response gives the assurance that we will not be in quite the same position again.
  Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord for his explanation. It may well be that it will satisfy our concerns but we will have to read very carefully what he said. It is still possible that we may bring the matter back on Third Reading. We shall have to decide on that in the light of our study of the noble Lord's comments. For today, as I said, it is not my intention to press the amendment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendments Nos. 44 to 46 not moved.]
  Clause 33 [Making, varying or discharging customer information orders]:
  Viscount Bridgeman Viscount Bridgeman moved Amendment No. 47:
  Page 20, line 3, leave out paragraph (a).
  The noble Viscount said: My Lords, In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 52. Both amendments appear in the names of my noble friend Lady Anelay and myself.
  Noble Lords will recognise this as an amendment to which I spoke in Committee. The British Bankers' Association first raised the point with us and I am keen to probe further remarks that were made at that stage. We are concerned that an undue and excessive burden is not placed on the financial community, especially by the use of fishing expeditions. We understand that the Minister feels that the amendments would be too restrictive in practice. As he explained in Committee, the Bill gives the Secretary of State discretion as to whether he executes a request for assistance and the court has at its discretion whether to make an order. The Minister went on to give a list of matters that the Secretary of State will take into account and explained that the test is the same as one of the tests under domestic law in PACE, all of which we welcome and find useful. However, it occurs to us that it would be more useful if that information appeared in the Bill so as to prevent confusion in future. I should be grateful if the Minister can explain why that is not possible, if that is still his view. Another issue, raised in Committee by my noble friend Lady Carnegy of Lour, although I am also keen to find out the answer, is what would happen regarding that point when there was a request for information from institutions in England and Scotland? Will the judge and sheriff consult? I beg to move.
  Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, my noble friend mentioned my question about cross-border consultation. If there is a request for information from institutions south of the Border and north of the Border at the same time, the sheriff and the judge could presumably make different decisions. The noble Lord kindly said that he would write to me but I do not believe that he has so far done so. He has done awfully well with his letter writing but if there has been a communication, I do not believe I received it. Perhaps he can comment.
  Lord Filkin: My Lords, I apologise if I have not written. I shall go out and shoot myself after I have shot an official or two first. I am genuinely extremely sorry; that was not our wish. The noble Baroness will have a letter within two days at the latest.
  The probing amendment of the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, seeks to establish whether there is a risk of an excessive burden on British bankers as a consequence of the measures. Our concern is with him in principle in this regard. We do not wish the British banking industry to bear more burden than is necessary in order to get necessary co-operation with regard to international crime and terrorism. I believe that from the beginning the British Bankers' Association

  193
  recognised that it would be exposed to some burdens. But, at the same time, it recognised that that was necessary as part of its contribution to upholding our way of life and, it is hoped, the rule of law.
  However, the focus of the amendment is on whether these are fishing trips arid whether there will be excessive use. I believe that I spoke on that matter in some detail during debate on the previous amendment. Therefore, I do not intend to talk through the test that both the Secretary of State and the courts would have to apply before making an order. Those discussions were detailed and gave strong reasons as to why fishing trips were unlikely.
  I shall speak, in particular, on why the amendments, as drafted, prevent an application for a customer information order from specifying all financial institutions. We understand that the amendment was tabled in response to concerns about fishing expeditions. We cannot accept the amendments for the reasons that I gave previously. We need to be able to specify all accounts. There may he circumstances in which we would want to be able to make such an order; for example, in a terrorism case where there was no evidence pointing to an account at a particular hank but where the seriousness of the offence and the need to trace any accounts were such that we considered them to justify a search of all banks.
  We spoke on those issues in Committee. We envisage that such circumstances are likely to be unusual and, we hope, rare and exceptional. But I believe that the House will recognise why the provision is essential. It gives the ability, in potentially extreme circumstances, to trace terrorist action or similar serious criminal action.
  The Secretary of State will consider whether a request meets the conditions of the protocol. Specifically, he will consider whether he is satisfied that the requesting authority has demonstrated why it considers that the information is likely to be of substantial value to its investigation and its grounds for presuming that accounts are held here. If he is not satisfied, he can refuse the request, as can the judge when the application comes before him.
  Finally, the clause is consistent with the Proceeds of Crime Act, which contains the power to make an order specifying all financial institutions.
  In essence, we have not put the matter on the face of the Bill because, following what I said today and on previous occasions, we do not believe that there is a need to do so. The situation is very clear. I have also explained why there is a need for flexibility in certain circumstances.
  I was asked what would happen if an order were made in England and invoked in Scotland. An order issued in England and Wales will be valid in Scotland. I am told that we answered that in the letter of 6th February. I shall go away and check that letter and bring back from the dead both myself and the
  194
  official whom I had intemperately dispatched. I hope that my explanation has answered the questions raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman.
  Viscount Bridgeman: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for recognising the concerns of the British Bankers' Association. They are obviously shared in all corners of the House. I believe that we must accept the noble Lord's explanation as to why he cannot accept the amendment, and I beg leave to withdraw it.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I beg to move that consideration on Report be now adjourned. In moving the Motion, I suggest that the Report stage begin again not before 8.33 p.m.
  Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

  Income Tax (Earnings and Pensions) Bill
  7.33 p.m.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. The Bill rewrites, with minor changes, the tax legislation for employment income, pension income and taxable social security income. The aim is to make that legislation clearer and easier to understand. The Bill marks a major milestone on the way to making tax legislation as a whole more user-friendly. It is the first Bill from the Inland Revenue's Tax Law Rewrite Project to venture into the realms of income tax.
  It may be helpful if I say a few words about the Tax Law Rewrite Project before going on to talk about the Bill. The project was set up in 1996 to rewrite most of the UK's direct tax code—currently running to more than 7,000 pages of legislation—enacted over the past 200 years. The key aim of the project is to produce rewritten legislation that is accepted by all the main users as clearer and easier to apply. Perhaps I may say straight away that, looking at the length of the Bill, which is in two volumes of text and one volume of sources with a two-volume series of Explanatory Notes, it is not simply a matter of length of legislation. The point is not how long it is but how long it takes to read and understand.
  The project uses various techniques in order to achieve the aim of making the legislation clearer and easier to apply. The first and most notable is the reorganisation of the legislation into a coherent structure. Existing tax law has grown organically over the years, resulting in a rather haphazard structure. The Tax Law Rewrite Project takes apart that structure and reorders it in a sensible, logical manner.
  Within that structure, the individual provisions are rewritten using shorter sentences, modern language, more consistent definitions and reader aids such as formulae and tables. Navigation around the legislation is

  195
  then made easier by the inclusion of scene-setting chapters at the beginning of each topic and plenty of signposts to other relevant material.
  However, while making the legislation more accessible, the project takes great care to preserve the effect of the present legislation, apart from minor agreed changes. It would be beyond the remit of the project to make any change in the main tax policies. Proposals for changing tax policy will continue to be dealt with in the usual way—most often in a Finance Bill. But, as was agreed at the inception of the project, the work of the rewrite can encompass minor changes in detail where they will further improve the legislation. Examples of such changes are: new provisions to fill in gaps in the existing legislation; the incorporation of extra statutory concessions; the abolition of obsolete material; and the correction of minor anomalies, and so on.
  It is perhaps worth pointing out that the project does not rely only on its own judgment as to whether it is delivering on its objectives; the project's work is overseen by a steering committee chaired by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe of Aberavon, who I am delighted to see in his place, with members drawn from both Houses of Parliament, the legal and tax professions, and business and consumer interests. There is also a standing consultative committee, drawn from the main representative bodies for tax, business and consumer affairs.
  The project also relies heavily on public consultation. It publishes draft legislation, with commentaries, for wider consultation. For example, in the run-up to this Bill, three exposure drafts and a draft Bill were all published for formal public consultation. There have also been meetings with representative bodies and informal contact by electronic means with various interested parties.
  This is the second Bill to rewrite tax law. I was privileged to take the first, which concerned capital allowances, through this House almost exactly two years ago. The Capital Allowances Act 2001 was warmly welcomed by tax professionals and other users.
  I now propose to say a few words about the Bill itself. The charge to income tax is currently broken down into a number of schedules. Schedule E is mainly concerned with income from employment, but it also includes some charges in pension income and social security benefits where those are taxable benefits. About 25 million people are taxable under Schedule E, giving rise to over 90 per cent of total income tax collected.
  The Bill rewrites the whole of Schedule E, doing away with that uninformative label in the process. It also includes certain types of pension currently taxable under Schedule D, so that all the rules for taxing pension income can be found in one place, and the primary legislation for pay-as-you-earn.
  The structural innovations in the Bill include a "benefits code" containing all the provisions dealing with the taxation of benefits in kind. And, for the first
  196
  time, the Bill brings together all the legislation for share-related remuneration, as well as the various types of share schemes, share option plans and so on. As is now becoming the established rewrite style, the Bill includes navigational aids to the reader, such as introductory scene-setting chapters and signposts to other relevant provisions. They are all designed to help readers to find their way through this large body of legislation.
  As to the provisions themselves, they have been redrafted using shorter sentences, modern language, more consistent definitions, and greater use of reader aids where helpful. All that represents a new style of tax law that is more accessible, easier on the eye, and altogether more user-friendly. Public reaction to the Bill confirms that; for example, last summer when the Bill was published in draft, the CBI described it as,
  "a very great improvement on the existing legislation".
  And the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales said that:
  "it is another major step forward in improving the intelligibility of UK tax legislation in areas of the law that affect the majority of taxpayers".
  In line with the established parliamentary procedure for rewrite Bills, this Bill comes to us after scrutiny by a Joint Committee of the two Houses. That Committee concluded in its report:
  "The Bill is a welcome clarification of the existing law and will be easier to use and more accessible to Parliament, the judiciary, informed professionals and business people and other users of the legislation".
  There has been well deserved recognition of the work of those involved in producing this first income tax rewrite Bill: the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe of Aberavon, who has been a stalwart champion of the rewrite from the outset; other members of the project committees; the many bodies and individuals who supported their work by taking the time to comment on the draft legislation; the project team itself and the project team at the Inland Revenue. I have pleasure in commending the Bill to the House.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)
  7.41 p.m.
  Lord Saatchi: My Lords, this is a truly unusual parliamentary occasion because I can find nothing in the speech of the Minister with which I could possibly disagree. I would have been happy to have delivered the speech myself.
  I begin by echoing the Minister's sentiments about the value of the rewrite process in improving the intelligibility of tax legislation and I join him in his praise for the light that it shines on notoriously opaque areas of tax law. As he has said, we have already seen the new Capital Allowances Act, and I look forward to rewritten Bills on corporation tax, capital gains tax and inheritance tax in the future, as well as the second income tax Bill on PAYE, which should appear this year.

  197
  Great credit is reflected on those involved in the process. The Inland Revenue team, the parliamentary draftsmen and not least the Government themselves all deserve to be congratulated. I say "not least the Government" because they have continued to provide resources for this worthwhile work.
  As the Minister has said, undoubtedly the hero of the entire project is my noble and learned friend Lord Howe, who began making noises about the need for simplification in his maiden speech in another place in 1964. My noble friend shares with Einstein the understanding that simplicity is the outcome of technical subtlety. That is why it takes longer; it is the goal, not the starting point. When lecturing at Princeton, Einstein said,
  "The laws of physics should be simple".
  One of his students shouted:
  "And what if they are not?",
  to which Einstein replied:
  "Then I would not be interested in them".
  I believe that the same test should apply to the laws of' finances. As ironically our party was the original inventor of income tax, the "certain duties upon income" of the 1799 Act that paid for the Napoleonic war, it is only fitting that the two best descriptions of this income tax Bill should have come from our Benches: the father of the process, my right honourable friend Ken Clarke, and my noble and learned friend Lord Howe, its mentor and guide. The then Chancellor, Mr Clarke, summed up the ambition of the project in his Budget speech. He famously said that it would be,
  "like translating the whole of War and Peace into lucid Swahili".
  My noble and learned friend Lord Howe added that it was,
  "like trying to repaint Brighton pier at a time when its owners are trying to extend it to the French coast".
  Their shared aim was to achieve what the Minister said was a less haphazard and more logical structure in all the ways that the Minister described and to do so without altering the substance. We have accepted, as the Paymaster General said in another place and the Minister repeated today, that the changes that have been made, although 183 in number, are clearly set out in the Bill and the sources of all the written clauses are clearly set out in the table of origins that accompanies the Bill. None of that is in any doubt to those on these Benches.
  Why do we need this process? As the Minister said, we need it because the present income tax system is an object designed by a committee which has been in standing session for 200 years. Here is an example of the problem, a still current provision of the 1986 Finance Act which states:
  "If, in a case where sub-paragraph (1) of Paragraph 10 above applies, neither sub-paragraph (1) nor sub-paragraph (2) above has effect in relation to the expenditure referred to in sub-paragraph (1)(a) of that paragraph, then for the chargeable period related to the disposal or cessation referred to in sub-paragraph ( 1)(6) of that paragraph, any allowance in respect of that expenditure shall be a balancing allowance".
  198
  Or try a provision related to electricity rebates from the 83 pages of Schedule 6 to the Finance Act which enacted the climate change levy, which states:
  "They are to be calculated by treatment of supply as a reduced rate supply to the extent, if any, that the exempt renewable supplies made by the supplier in the averaging period would have been reduced rated supplies if they had not been made on the basis that they were exempt".
  In an attempt to simplify all that, it is worth remembering that simplification has two meanings. The rewrite process seeks to address one: rewriting the law in a way that makes it easier to understand. The second is to simplify the actual mechanics and administration of taxation. The Joint Committee on tax simplification drew the distinction clearly when it recommended to the procedure committees of both houses that it should be renamed the Joint Committee on tax law rewrite Bills.
  As the Minister said, even this rewritten income tax Bill runs to 563 pages, and continues to make what the R IA for the Bill calls "elaborate" distinctions between different forms of income: trading, investment, property, employment, savings and so on and all the other complicated paraphernalia that Chancellors down the ages have decided are essential to the proper workings of the income tax system. Even the very helpful flow chart in the note on Clause 176, which pictorially depicts the flow of money, cannot disguise the difficulty.
  It is the tendency to discourage something by taxing it, to encourage something by giving it a relief, then to decide which class of person or entity should qualify for the tax or the relief and in what amount, that creates the complexity. That is why I would particularly recommend to your Lordships the Bill's simplification of Schedule E, which, as the Minister said, touches the lives of 25 million people.
  The main sources for the rewritten material in the Bill are those parts of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 that related to taxation of income under Schedule E. The division of income into five schedules, A to E, is 200 years old. It was the creation of Addington's 1803 Act; and the relentless tinkering with them is the reason why the present Chancellor has won gold, silver and bronze for lifting the three weightiest finance Bills of all time. No wonder that almost half of the £4 billion a year increase in government administration costs (up from £13 billion in 1998 to £17 billion in 2003) is allocated to the collection of tax or the distribution of benefits—now renamed credits.
  The charm of such a complicated tax system from the Government's point of view is the scope it allows for hidden tax increases via reduced allowances. Under that structure the Chancellor can raise tax without ever announcing a tax rise. People just wake up one day and find that they are in a higher tax bracket, with the result that tax as a percentage of national income creeps up invisibly. I am told that economists call that "fiscal drag", and it is the reason why, in the last three years, the Government's tax revenues have risen three times faster than average earnings.

  199
  It is also the reason why the Institute of Chartered Accountants recently warned that the tax system was so complicated that it had,
  "spun out of democratic control".
  No citizen, however intelligent, can match the massed ranks of No. 10, No. 11, the Treasury and Millbank—one man against the legions of Rome. So someone has to hold a torch for simplicity in the tax system, and that is why this Bill and this process are so important.
  Perhaps I may close with a suggestion. It follows from the analogy made by my noble and learned friend Lord Howe; that of Brighton Pier being extended to the French coast. Could not the principles of the rewrite process inform legislation as it is being framed during its passage through Parliament? Perhaps this is naive, but rather than enact complicated legislation and then ask my noble and learned friend and his Inland Revenue team to rewrite it in plain English, why not write it in English in the first place?
  What I seek is for the input of the tax law rewrite team to be brought to bear on financial legislation as it is happening—before the event and not after. How could that be done? For example, a permanent representative of the tax law rewrite team could be put on the Standing Committees of another place which examine financial Bills. Presently, these committees, being programmed, have neither the time nor the capacity for that task. Similarly, if your Lordships' House would agree, we could have a representative of the Tax Law Rewrite Project team as a permanent member of our new Economic Affairs Committee that is to look at finance Bills. If it was up to me, I would follow the practice of the UN Security Council—I would give that member a veto.
  The Bill has been welcomed by all those with an interest in tax simplification. It follows an exemplary process of consultation, as my right honourable friend Ken Clarke said in another place. This support is well deserved, and long may it last. The Opposition Benches in your Lordships' House congratulate all the members of the revenue team on their efforts and give the Bill our full support.
  Winston Churchill always admired Mark Twain's opening of a letter to a friend. It began:
  "I wanted to write you a short letter but I didn't have time".
  Let us give them the time and the tools to finish the job.
  7.51 p.m.
  Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I fear that the pressure of time on this debate will make our expressions of gratitude to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe, and all those who have been associated with him in this project seem somewhat perfunctory. That is not so. The whole nation is deeply grateful for what has been done. So I hope that it will not be misunderstood if I say that what we are doing here is cosmetic. I do not decry cosmetics at all. But, as the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said in his admirable opening of this debate, the project committee cannot
  200
  touch, interfere or recommend alterations in the substantive law. What it does in effect is to translate fiscalise into English. That is no mean task but it leaves underneath all the obscurities and anomalies of the substantive law. Will the Government consider extending the terms of reference so that as the admirably qualified committee goes through the law it can recommend alterations of substance as well as of language?
  I venture to deal with one aspect only of the fiscal law, but it is one where the provisions give rise to peculiar difficulties and obscurities; that is, tax avoidance. It is understandable because the draftsman will endeavour to impose the fiscal burden in such a way that it is not easily evaded. The wealthy man, seeking to evade the burden, will employ ingenious lawyers and accountants to work out ways around the complicated scheme which imposes the burden.
  When the Revenue in turn deals with that situation, of course the complication is compounded. It is a tradition of our fiscal law, unlike some others, to promote absolute fiscal equality and integrity. It is never a double-charged attack, however inadvertent. But, in following through the complicated and clever tax avoidance provisions in such a way as not to impose a second charged attack, the result becomes virtually incomprehensible even when rewritten.
  That is not necessarily so because a way of avoiding that has been found. It is the general anti-avoidance rule—GAAR. It exists in the United States and in Australia. Broadly speaking, it stipulates that any transaction, the paramount object of which is the avoidance of tax, shall be void for that purpose although valid for any other. As I say, that has been found to work in other comparable jurisdictions. It is not merely a flight of fiscal fancy.
  As a result, the then government—I think it was under the Chancellorship of Mr Clarke—set up a body in the Revenue to examine the potentiality of a general anti-avoidance rule. If it was the noble and learned Lord himself I apologise, but it was during that administration. Having looked at the matter, they put out a consultation paper in October 1998. There were 106 responses to it. Then, suddenly, peremptorily and extraordinarily, the whole issue was abrogated and the committee was dissolved. So far as I know, that action is almost unparalleled. I cannot think of any direct parallel.
  I am antipathetic to conspiracy theories. But what happened was so extraordinary that one cannot cast aside suspicions. First, the general anti-avoidance rule leads to great simplification of the fiscal law. Secondly, it is the most effective counter to avoidance and evasion of tax. Thirdly, it has proved itself in the United States and Australia. Fourthly, there are a number of wealthy people who were very close to the incoming government at that time. Persons whose treasure was safely secreted in tax havens abroad and, as we know, where one's treasure is, therefore one's heart is also. Fifthly, one of those was actually a Treasury Minister at the time, the Paymaster General.

  201
  Sixthly, 15 or 16 of the individual replies to the consultation paper were conditional on their not being identified.
  As I said, it is difficult entirely to cast aside suspicion. I said that that was almost unparalleled. The nearest parallel that I can draw is the Watergate investigation. When Professor Cox, a former Solicitor-General of the United States, the chief inquirer and senior counsel, was getting too close to the Oval office, he was suddenly dismissed in the same way as the GAAR committee was dissolved.
  These are muddy waters, and one does not want to paddle in them more than necessary. We trust that the Government share our view that our fiscal law should be fair, effective and clear. All that we are asking for—apart from the enlargement of the steering committee's terms of reference— that the Inland Revenue investigation into GAAR should be resumed.
  8.1 p.m.
  Lord Freeman: My Lords, I declare an interest as a former partner of, and now a consultant to, PricewaterhouseCoopers, a firm that has been strongly supportive of the tax rewrite project. Your Lordships would wish to note that the tax rewrite team is now of not inconsiderable size. Tributes should be extended not only to the tax inspectors who work on that team but the parliamentary draftsmen and those from professional life who are on secondment to the team. Draft No. 12, the precursor to the Bill, was excellent. I feel sure that your Lordships would want everyone to be congratulated on an excellent Bill.
  I agree with the first point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale. As the Minister pointed out, this is a clarification Bill, not a simplification Bill; and the two are very different. I therefore agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, that in the years ahead the initiative—introduced, from memory, in 1996—of a tax rewrite project to consider clarification should be extended to consider the law and rely on professionals—both within and outside the Civil Service—making recommendations to the Treasury on simplification of tax law. Therein lie tremendous savings in terms of both understanding and effectiveness, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, pointed out.
  While I am on the subject of progenitors of the tax rewrite initiative, if my noble and learned friend Lord Howe was its grandfather and Ken Clarke was, I suppose, its father, we should record that a friendly uncle in the process was my former colleague Tim Smith, whose amendment, I think to the 1995 Finance Bill, initiated the exercise.
  I shall briefly raise only a few points on behalf of the Low Income Tax Working Group, which has been generously supported by the Chartered Institute of Taxation and chaired by a former partner of mine, John Andrews. The group has for several years been considering tax law as it affects those who pay little or no tax. It made representations to the rewrite team hut, sadly, the proposals—I shall briefly deal with three of them—were deemed to fall outside the team's remit and were therefore not included in the Bill.
  202
  I must mention that 183 minor changes to tax law are incorporated in the Bill, and I should have thought that some charity and generosity might have been in order. But perhaps it is more useful if I simply put down markers. I do not expect an answer from the Minister tonight, but perhaps in due course he would be so kind as to acknowledge that, either for future tax rewrite Bills, for rewrite regulations or, more straightforwardly, for Finance Bills, these three specific points have been taken on board.
  The first issue is important for those in receipt of state and occupational pensions. As the Minister will know, tax is assessed on an accruals basis, not a receipts basis, unlike many social security benefits. That can give rise to anomalies and relative hardship for those who pay little or no tax. The anomaly could be simply removed if we moved straightforwardly to a receipts basis for all pensions and social security receipts. That proposal may well be a candidate for the 2003 Finance Bill or, if that has already been drafted, that for 2004.
  Secondly, I turn to annuities. Annuities are not within the pay-as-you-earn system, which is probably a result of the fact that computerisation of our retirement annuity systems was not general practice 20 years ago. At present, the standard rate is deducted from annuity payments, which can result in hardship for those who pay less than the standard rate. The Green Paper on pensions, which we are to debate on 5th March, indicates that the Government may introduce changes—possibly, as I understand it, in the Finance Bill for 2004, backdated to April 2004. I hope that it is not too late to consider the issue, already foreshadowed in the Green Paper, for inclusion in the 2003 Finance Bill.
  Finally, the state retirement pension should be within the PAYE system, so that tax can be deducted to offset minor tax liabilities for those on low incomes, where income is received gross. The Department for Work and Pensions should operate the PAYE system for the state retirement pension. It is already able to do so for jobseeker's allowance and incapacity benefit. My understanding is that, sometimes, the PAYE system is applied to incapacity benefit, but only when the claimants have that incapacity benefit as their only or main source of income and there is no employer. In the debate in another place this month, the Paymaster General indicated that the PAYE re-write regulations should be published in the spring. I hope that that timetable will be adhered to, and I look forward to the inclusion of this minor amendment in the regulations.
  I commend the Bill, and I join my noble friend Lord Saatchi in congratulating all those involved. I just hope that, in future, the remit for examining tax legislation will, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, said, extend to matters of substance—albeit minor substance—and not just writing tax law in the Queen's English.
  8.9 p.m.
  Lord Northbrook: My Lords, this important Bill carries forward the aspirations of the Tax Law Rewrite Project, set up by the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, Kenneth Clarke, in November 1996. The project deserves praise and has received it from all political parties. Its ambitious remit, covering capital allowances, income tax, corporation tax, capital gains tax, stamp duty, inheritance tax and taxes management, is welcome. Particular praise is due to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe of Aberavon, the first chairman of the steering committee, for his diligence on the project.
  The steering committee will have its work cut out if it is ever to complete its task. The most recent Finance Bill had 140 clauses and 39 schedules and did not even include some of the most significant legislation, such as the rise in national insurance contributions and tax credits for families and workers on low income. The Bill took nine pages to set out the reduced rate of duty for small brewers, six pages to set out the breaks for community and amateur sports clubs, and 14 pages—no less—to set out the tax relief for vaccines research. It included five clauses of revision of the new aggregates levy, which had come into effect only at the start of the same month.
  Apart from the 2002 Finance Bill, the two largest Bills were those of 1998 and 2000. Commenting on the 2000 Finance Bill, John Whiting, vice-president of the Chartered Institute of Taxation, said:
  "The whole of the personal tax area is ripe for simplification".
  On the same Bill, Frank Askew, an executive of the Chartered Institute of Taxation, commented:
  "This is out of proportion to anything we have seen before. The volume of tax law has doubled since the 1980s. I do not know how ordinary people have a hope of understanding their tax affairs. Even accountants are struggling".
  The trend of ever more complex and lengthy tax law is illustrated by the growing size of tax manuals. Tolley's standard tax manuals on VAT, income tax and corporation tax found it necessary, even by 2001, to add an extra 855 pages to explain the increased tax legislation since 1997. The three guides are now longer than London's residential and business telephone directories put together. Tolley's has even had to reduce the print size to cram in more.
  As can be seen, one of the major problems faced by the Tax Law Rewrite Project is not of its own making. New tax laws are coming in at such a rate that it is difficult to combine them with any rewrite that may be occurring. My noble and learned friend Lord Howe of Aberavon said of the 2000 Finance Bill that it was,
  "almost twice as long as our only Rewrite project so far—after four years work—the Capital Allowances Bill".
  I repeat the quotation that my noble friend Lord Saatchi used:
  "As I said last summer, it is like trying to repaint Brighton Pier at a time when its owners are trying to extend it to the French coast".
  Another of my concerns for the success of the project relates to resources. The Inland Revenue set out the problem clearly. As noble Lords will know, it
  204
  publishes an annual plan, reviewing progress to date. The 2002–03 report says:
  "We have always stressed that progress on the rewrite project must, of course, crucially depend on the availability of resources, in particular the availability of experienced Parliamentary drafters. We cannot emphasise too strongly the continuing importance of this point. Moreover, the current volume of new legislation annually on direct tax means that the project is now operating in a very different environment from that in which it was conceived. This has made it all the harder to find and maintain resources for our work, which in response to representations, additionally includes the rewrite of the PAYE Regulations".
  So how can the Brighton pier syndrome be avoided? First, income tax and national insurance should be combined for those under the PAYE system. That would simplify the regime for employers and employees alike. An employee could be given a notice of coding based on both taxes without the Treasury losing out.
  Secondly, my noble friend Lord Saatchi and Peter Warburton, in their series of research papers entitled The War of Independence, have suggested that by raising the personal income tax allowance to 10,000,8 million people earning less than £10,000 will stop paying income tax altogether. The authors' audited calculations show how the cancellation of the bizarre overlap between tax and benefits can be fiscally neutral for the Exchequer.
  Thirdly, capital gains tax needs reforming, particularly the treatment of non-business assets held prior to 1998. In my view there is an entirely unnecessary complication of the interaction between indexation and taper relief. It is no use saying—as the Minister said to me several years ago—that this problem will disappear in time. Clearly, that is not the case for shares and property held for a long time. I suggest scrapping taper relief and reindexing the 1982 base up to, say, 1998 values and moving the threshold on every five years.
  Finally, I ask the Minister, first, what resources by way of parliamentary draftsmen are assigned on a full time basis to the project? My noble and learned friend Lord Howe of Aberavon may like to comment on that.
  Secondly, can the Minister influence the Chancellor materially to reduce the size of Finance Bills? Thirdly, can the Minister persuade the Chancellor to simplify the tax regime, especially in the area of capital gains tax? Like my noble friend Lord Saatchi and others, overall I commend the Bill and the project generally for the future.
  8.16 p.m.
  Lord Howe of Aberavon: My Lords, first, I thank the Minister for his lucid, compact and helpful introduction to the Bill. I thank also all those who contributed to the debate, not least for the undeserved tributes to myself, which I nevertheless appreciate very much. I should like to extend thanks to Members of both Houses who sat on the Joint Committee and to the chairman of the Joint Committee who was the father of the project, now emerging in a godfather-like role in that particular position—the right honourable Kenneth Clarke.

  205
  A particular word of thanks, too, to a colleague who is not here tonight because he has a previous engagement—the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman—who has been a hero in shaping this project from the outset and has assiduously played a part in both sessions of the Joint Committee. And I join my noble friend in paying tribute to Tim Smith, one of the pioneers in this long-running exercise.
  As my noble friend Lord Saatchi explained, I am glad that there is now complete appreciation of the distinction between the Tax Law Rewrite Project and the tax simplification project. The change of name recommended by the last Joint Committee was entirely right.
  The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, and I belong to a distinguished club as we are both former Solicitors-General. He was citing yet another Solicitor-General, Mr Ross of the United States. We former Solicitors-General are a great group. I noticed particularly his call, echoed by many others, for the project to be extended—in his words—to embrace changes in tax policy and tax structure.
  Nobody could have been involved in this exercise as much as I have without becoming acutely aware of the scale of growth and the multiplication of complexity in every way. I am sure that it would not be right to try to encourage the Tax Law Rewrite Project to supplement or extend its role into that area. This is a subject which has been addressed in a series of lectures given at the Institute of Chartered Accountants. Mr Adam Broke gave the first Hardman Memorial Lecture on this theme some three or four years ago. I had the privilege of following him a year later and seeing my lecture published in a publication produced by my noble friend Lord Saatchi. We were all saying that we need a separate exercise to address policy problems. They do not go unnoticed. My noble friend has suggested additional policy problems to be examined from now on.
  The truth is that in our tax law rewrite documents, as we study the law, we identify the policy proposals that come to us. In the course of the exercise on this Bill alone, no fewer than 84 separate policy shortcomings are listed in the appendix to our final response document to representations on the draft Bill.
  So there is a huge and growing problem. For that purpose, I am sure that the prescription put forward by Mr Adam Broke and which I proposed in my Hardman Lecture is right. We need to begin to create a separate, independent Tax Structure Review Body and system. As my noble friend Lord Saatchi pointed out, it should have the objective of ensuring that the champion of tax simplification has as prominent and continuing a role in the formulation of tax legislation as the Chancellor himself. That is not to say that one person should do it, but the principle here is that there should he a watchdog always asking, "Where is all this going to end up?".
  I am happy to say that the topic will be addressed yet again within a few weeks. The Institute of Fiscal Studies has been tenacious in pursuing this. Its Tax Law Review Committee has appointed a working party under the chairmanship of Sir Alan Budd, the
  206
  former Chief Economic Adviser to the Treasury. It will produce on 20th March a report crafted to a large extent by that other tenacious tax Stakhanovite, Mr Malcolm Gammie, under the title, "Making Tax Law", readdressing all the issues and incidentally identifying the possible role that could be played by this House in the process. I think it right that the Economic Affairs Committee under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Peston, is about to generate a tax sub-committee to begin addressing the problem and thus employing the expertise available in this House.
  I listened with interest to the commendation made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, of a general anti-avoidance provision, a GAA R. I confess that it is a subject from which I have steered pretty well clear. It is one of huge complexity and much fascination for those who like to burrow around in it, but I have always refrained from that activity.
  Perhaps I may say a few words about the future plans for the project as they develop. In the course of rewriting Schedule E and the PAYE legislation, it became quite clear that it could not sensibly be done without tackling the regulations as well. Popular demand dictated that we must rewrite these regulations, many of which were written in great haste under wartime conditions. I believe that many of them may have been drafted by my noble friend Lord Cockfield in one of his previous existences.
  Therefore we have set in hand the rewriting of those regulations. This spring we shall publish for formal consultation a complete rewrite of the PAYE regulations. They were not within our original remit and thus represent some diversion of our resources, but when the consultation process is completed, they will be laid before Parliament later this year and will come into force in April 2004. That is an important addition to our work.
  Meanwhile work is continuing on our third Bill, which will be the second Bill on income tax. That is to be published in draft during the first half of next year. We seem to have established a kind of biennial rhythm. It will cover property income, foreign income, trading income and savings and investment incomes, but it will not finish the task of dealing with income tax. Our aim is to conclude the rewrite of the entire income tax code in our fourth Bill due in 2006–07. One or two noble Lords may still be around to handle that exciting piece of legislation.
  It is worth reflecting that it is exactly 200 years since Lord Addington introduced the schedule system, having repealed the William Pitt legislation of 1802. In 1803 he introduced the celebrated schedules. Having lasted for 200 years, the system is a formidable monument to Lord Addington. At the time he was Prime Minister, but he went on to become Home Secretary for 10 years. In that role he sent a vote of thanks to the magistrates and soldiers who were responsible for the Peterloo massacre. In 1832 his last act in this House was to vote against the great Reform Bill. His creation of the system of schedules was probably one of his more memorable activities.

  207
  I should like to close my remarks by referring to a point made by several noble Lords. My noble friend Lord Northbrook was the last to emphasise the consequences of the legislative lust with which all Chancellors become obsessed. It is extremely difficult to refuse recommendations for new projects from business, which wishes to be liberated by new incentives, and new projects from the Revenue, which often appears to want the opposite. It is very hard indeed to restrain that tendency, which creates a mounting agenda for us.
  It is quite right that Brighton pier is not doing too well. If one looks at the two previous Finance Bills, one finds that for 2001 there was a quite modest volume of 331 pages, but the volume for 2002 went back up to 494 pages. So in those two years the Chancellor generated 825 pages of new legislation. On our two statutes together, we have generated 894 pages of re-written legislation. We have established a fairly narrow lead but I am worried as to where we will end up.
  It is right that we have been under pressure, as my noble friend Lord Northbrook pointed out, because of the extension of our activities to the regulations and because of the sheer volume of work. We have been lucky to have a team of more than 40 people, including people from the private sector, and to have been, so far, sufficiently staffed with people from the Office of Parliamentary Counsel. The words from our plans which were cited by my noble friend were written by myself and underline the importance of ensuring that the resources needed are available.
  The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, will know that the Office of Parliamentary Counsel is probably under more pressure than any other department in Whitehall. It is extremely difficult to attract people of sufficient assiduity, talent and brilliance and to pay them enough to recruit them from the more lucrative private sector. I have campaigned since the 1970s, when I was concerned with the Industrial Relations Bill, for a multiplication of parliamentary draftsmen. The need is still there.
  Our project has been protected from any erosion of our resources and I am grateful to the Chancellor for achieving that. I am grateful to the people from the private sector who have been able to work with the Revenue in that role; and I am very grateful indeed to the dedicated group of people from the Revenue itself. Noble Lords who saw those people giving evidence to the Joint Committee a few weeks ago witnessed a mastery of detail. It is an illusion to believe that the Steering Committee understood any of it, but it does underline the brilliance and assiduity of those doing the work.
  I am extremely grateful to them, to the Office of Parliamentary Counsel, to the Chancellor and to the many people outside who have played such a crucial part in our consultative process. It must be dismal indeed to contemplate, night after night, the draft documents we generate. It is not an exciting task but it is very important. I am grateful to the House and to all those who have participated in it for understanding its importance and for continuing to support it.
  8.28 p.m.
  Lord Newby: My Lords, it is a great pity that my noble friend Lord Addington is not in his place because I am not sure that he is completely aware of the extent of the trouble caused by his noble forebear in establishing the schedules which we are now, some 204 years later, attempting to simplify.
  I congratulate all those involved in the project—the civil servants, the people in industry and the Members of the Joint Committee. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe, said, a huge amount of unglamorous work has to be undertaken to get to this point, and all those who were involved in it deserve our thanks.
  One of the more impressive features of the exercise is the degree of consultation. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, explained that there were three exposure drafts before the final draft was issued. There were meetings and a great exchange of e-mails. It is unfortunate that such a huge amount of consultation was undertaken in this relatively minor area of legislation and yet, when it comes to new legislation, very little consultation is undertaken in many cases. It would be a great service to the statute book if there could be a better balance and if, as it came forward, tax legislation could be subjected, wherever possible, to a greater degree of consultation than is normally the case.
  I very much agree with those noble Lords who have spoken about the need for greater simplicity in the tax system and not just clarification. The noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, cited Einstein, and in a way he exemplified one of the problems with which we are faced. While Einstein may have found the concepts of the laws of physics simple, I fear that lesser minds probably struggled with them and found them extremely difficult. When I started my career as a junior official in Customs and Excise, the Permanent Secretary at the time, who had just introduced VAT, was adamant that it was a simple tax. To him, it was; to the rest of the world it was fiendishly complicated. Therein, I suspect, lies the problem of tax simplification.
  On what may be a note of optimism to inject into the debate, there has been much discussion of the state of Brighton Pier. My understanding is that one of the two piers has collapsed and the other recently caught fire. Perhaps we might have a bonfire of the regulations to accompany those omens or auguries from Brighton.
  I do not want to detain your Lordships by listing a whole raft of tax simplification measures that might be desirable. I simply ask the Chancellor not to introduce wheezes that are unlikely to work. One of the main reasons why the last three Budgets and, indeed, the last three Finance Bills have been so long is that they were stuffed full of minor measures that may be attractive to only a very small category of taxpayers. As we have already heard, some of them take up a significant amount of legislation. In most cases, they have no effect or are counter-productive. A degree of self-restraint on the part of the Chancellor in this respect would be welcome.

  209
  On reading the debates on the Bill in the House of Commons, I was interested to see that when the Paymaster General was pressed on why recent Finance Bills have been so long, she said that one of the main reasons was the complexity of anti-avoidance measures. Although it may be a difficult and arcane area, the suggestion of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, that a general anti-avoidance rule might be considered has much merit, and I commend it to the Government.
  The noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe of Aberavon, mentioned that the Economic Affairs Committee will be looking at the Finance Bill when it comes before Parliament later in the year. However, given that we will be considering the Bill in parallel with its Commons Committee stage, I fear that our ability to look at more than a few aspects will be severely constrained. Therefore, while I hope that we can make some contribution, not least in ensuring that measures are not unduly complicated, one should not put too much weight on our ability to have a major and sustained impact on tax simplification.
  Finally, I would like to take up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Northbrook, and, to a certain extent, by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe, about momentum and resources. In one sense, it is admirable that there will be a Bill every two years—that may be as quickly as it can reasonably be done. None the less, even at that pace it will be many years before the entire 7,000 pages have been simplified. I join other noble Lords in asking that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, go back to the Treasury and the Revenue and express the strength of feeling in this House that the resources devoted to this project should be strengthened rather than weakened, because it is a valuable project, and we are all happy to support it.
  8.35 p.m.
  Baroness Wilcox: My Lords, it gives me great pleasure to join my noble friend Lord Saatchi in welcoming the Bill and thanking the Minister for his clear explanation of it. As we have heard, the Bill rewrites income tax rules on employment income, pensions and taxable social security benefits. This is a welcome clarification of the existing law, making it easier to use and more accessible to Parliament, the judiciary, informed professionals, business people and other users of the legislation—and even, dare I say, the overtaxed, overburdened sole trader, the ordinary taxpaying citizens of our country and the non-governmental organisations that try to represent them, such as the citizens' advice bureaux and the Money Management Council.
  In the early 1990s, I was pleased to be asked to join the then new Tax Law Review Committee of the Institute for Fiscal Studies. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe, had been invited to be the president of the committee. I served on it for three years. My job was to highlight the predicament of the sole trader and the citizen consumer, matched against the mighty power of No. 10 and No. 11 Downing Street and the
  210
  Treasury, and to insist on plain English, not some of the gobbledegook that my noble friend Lord Saatchi has already ably illustrated this evening.
  It quickly became clear to us that, so complicated and multi-layered were some of the tax laws that those who evaded tax were being aided by the ambiguities of the laws. Those who would avoid tax were uncertain of their ground and often fell prey to poor advice. Those who had, maybe unwittingly, stumbled and fallen foul of the tax law were often as confused and confounded as their lawyers—and sometimes, dare I say, as the judge presiding.
  It was a great encouragement when, in another place, the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, Kenneth Clarke, enacted the tax law rewrite concept, and an even greater relief when the succeeding Chancellor of the Exchequer, Gordon Brown, decided to continue the sterling work of the established steering committee, chaired by my noble and learned friend Lord Howe of Aberavon.
  Ten years on from those early thoughts of the IFS Tax Law Review Committee, I am honoured to be in your Lordships' House to see the Bill arrive and to congratulate my noble and learned friend Lord Howe and his team on having got us thus far. I understand that the whole project has cost only £7.6 million—a very low cost to our nation for the wonderful benefits that it will bring.
  It is a great satisfaction to see that those three years of mine were not wasted. This Bill and those that follow will be able to clarify the tax system and make it much more accessible. I understand that we are about to end the antiquated and irrelevant ban on your Lordships' House considering Finance Bills. What excellent timing, in view of Bills such as this. This House will bring a level of scrutiny that has been sorely missing in another place. We can put to an end the game of tug of war that I had to engage in to get a speakers' list put up for the Bill. If I had not done that, maybe we would not have had the benefit of hearing the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, speaking tonight on the general anti-avoidance rule. Maybe we would not have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Freeman, who congratulated the team on its work so far and talked further about the simplification of tax law and about his work with low income taxpayers and receivers of benefit. Maybe we would not even have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Northbrook, on the length of tax manuals and the worries about the amount of work ahead of the committee and the drafting resources available. I am sure we would have heard from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe, because he is this Bill. It was wonderful to hear him going back and telling us some of the things that he is still worried about. I hope that he will go forward with all those issues and may even be able to promote the separate exercise suggested by my noble friend Lord Saatchi and others, on the need for a separate independent tax rewrite group.
  It is time to move on. The Bill, which is welcomed by all those with an interest in tax clarification, is a great place to start. Like all those on these Benches, I wish the Bill well.
  8.39 p.m.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful to everyone who has expressed their support for the Bill, which has received a unanimous welcome. I must correct the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, to some extent. He described this as an unprecedented occasion. He is well known for finding awkward quotes in my past speeches, but I should remind him that two years ago, in the debate on the Capital Allowances Bill, he said:
  "It is one of the rare occasions in your Lordships' House when all the parties are in agreement".—[Official Report, 26/2/01; col. 1029.]
  Yes, it may be rare, but it is not unprecedented. With that minor lapsus, we have a considerable degree of agreement, and I am appreciative of it.
  The Explanatory Notes do, it is true, set out elaborate distinctions between different types of income, but they are there because they have to be. The noble Lord, Lord Newby, referred to the Budget containing detailed expositions of minor measures. The noble Lord, Lord Northbrook, made the same point. They may be minor measures to those who are not involved, but they are very important to those who are involved. We set ourselves a high objective of preventing avoidance of taxation, while avoiding double taxation, and we set ourselves the high standard that that should be explicit rather than included in general rules. Therefore, it is inevitable that there should be a substantial degree of complexity.
  The noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, said that we had permitted ourselves to raise taxes by reducing allowances. We cannot change allowances, any more than we can change taxes, without parliamentary approval. That is not what "fiscal drag" means—it means that tax revenues rise because, for example, more people are in work and earning more. It is not because of any sleight of hand by the Government to find ways in which to raise money without parliamentary approval.
  The noble Lord made a perfectly legitimate point about why the simplification of language, which is a feature of this Bill, should be applied to the Finance Bill. It will be, and it is being already. Some parts of the Finance Act 2000 were drafted in that way, such as the tonnage tax provisions in Schedule 22. However, if we are going to do that, provisions must be drafted as a separate, self-contained block of new legislation, and the new policy should be settled well in advance and should not be subject to change afterwards. It is the nature of the beast that such conditions would be difficult to apply to the annual Finance Bill. However, in future, when legislation has been rewritten and enacted, amending legislation will be easier to draft and to understand. That is the case in the Finance Act 2002, in which Schedule 21 amends the provisions of the last rewrite Bill, the Capital Allowances Act 2001.
  The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, was slightly ungenerous in using the word "cosmetic" about the Bill. He wanted to extend its terms of
  212
  reference so that alterations of substance were possible. He gave good examples of that. However, the Bill's virtue is that it has been subject to unprecedented consultation and consideration by those who are expert in these matters. The consideration in your Lordships' House is limited to not much more than an hour. Consideration in the House of Commons was limited by the fact that it is a Money Bill and the subject of a ways and means resolution. I do not think that the noble Lord would wish alterations of substance to be made other than in the course of political cut and thrust and political debate. I think that I heard the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe, agree—implicitly at any rate—that this is rightly a rewrite Bill rather than another way of enacting taxation legislation.
  The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, raised again an issue that he has raised with me before about a general anti-avoidance rule. That certainly would be a significant policy change, but it is beyond the remit of the Bill. We have given consideration to it. We announced our intention to consider a general anti-avoidance rule for corporation tax in the 1998 Budget. The Inland Revenue consulted on that, but the outcome of the consultation was that a general anti-avoidance rule would be ineffective in countering tax avoidance, although it would increase the compliance cost to businesses. It would be a major change to the UK tax system.
  As we were committed to consultation and took account of the results of consultation, we announced in the 1999 Budget that we would not take forward a general anti-avoidance rule, but we would tackle avoidance by more targeted legislation. That does not mean to say that it is off the agenda for ever. If it can be shown as an option and replacement of, or an addition to, targeted legislation, we might well do that. However, the consultation that we took in that year was certainly not encouraging for a general anti-avoidance rule.
  The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, asked whether the rewrite project seeks to make the legislation fairer. I think that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe, answered that point. More radical changes should be made in the Finance Bill, as I said, as the correct parliamentary vehicle to deliver changes in the way everyone is taxed.
  The noble Lord, Lord Freeman, having to some extent supported the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, raised three points. The first was on taxing the state retirement pension and taxable state benefits on the amount received in the tax year rather than the amount accrued. Our current basis of assessment was introduced in the Finance Act 1989. This is another longstanding issue. A change might materially alter tax liabilities and could complicate the coding of pension income for PAYE purposes. It would have significant operational implications. Although it was considered when the Bill was being produced, it was decided that that was not a suitable subject for revision.

  213
  The noble Lord's second point was on retirement annuity contracts. We are consulting on the simplification of the taxation of pensions. We issued a consultation paper in December 2002, and the consultation period closes on 11th April. We intend that, as for all other pensions in payment, pensions paid from retirement annuity contracts should be taxed as income under Schedule E. So PAYE would have to be operated. The practical issues are being considered in the consultation process. We are proposing further consultation this year and legislation next year.
  The noble Lord's third point was on the operation of PAYE on the state pension. The Department for Work and Pensions and the Inland Revenue are aware of that issue, and we accept that it could be seen as an improvement in service by pensioners. However, there are operational difficulties in operating PAYE on state pensions. The difficulties would have to be overcome before the improved service could be implemented.
  The noble Lord, Lord Northbrook, discussed a matter mentioned by a number of other speakers; that is, the length of the Finance Act. The noble Lord, Lord Newby, said that there was little consultation on new tax legislation. On the contrary, the Pre-Budget Report, which is published six months before the Budget, constitutes the beginning of consultation on matters in the Budget. Some 60 per cent of last year's Budget—that is 300 pages—was published after extensive consultation. As I said in my opening remarks, I simply do not accept that the number of pages is the significant consideration. It is the time it takes to understand the legislation and act on it that is really important.
  The noble Lord and a number of other speakers asked about the resources available for the project. He specifically asked about parliamentary draftsmen. There is a senior draftsman with two assistants attached to the project on a rotational basis. Three or four external draftsmen with experience of the Office of Parliamentary Counsel work with them. That is a substantial commitment which has not been reduced. We have continued the commitment that was made in the past. I believe that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe, recognised that.
  The noble Lord, Lord Newby, wanted the resources to be strengthened rather than weakened. That is the case. There is general agreement that the rewriting of tax law is worth doing and worth the continuing resources. The Chancellor stated in a letter in February 1999 to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe:
  "It is a massive exercise but one which we are committed to doing well".
  That commitment remains.
  As regards the future programme, I can confirm—as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe, said—that early next year we shall produce a draft on foreign income trading, income, property income and savings and investment income. The noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, said that we would produce a Bill on PAYE. We shall not produce a Bill, but rather regulations. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe, referred to that. It will be put in train later this year.
  214
  Clearly, the resources that are necessary are being made available. The terms of reference of the tax rewrite project have received universal support in this House despite the understandable wish for them to be extended. I believe that I have explained the reasons why it would not be possible or desirable to extend the terms of reference any further than they have been. Meanwhile, the fact that the Bill has been received with such universal approbation enables me to commend it to the House.
  On Question, Bill read a second time; Committee negatived.
  Then, Standing Order 47 having been dispensed with (pursuant to Resolution of 19th February), Bill read a third time, and passed.

  Crime (International Co-operation) Bill [H.L.]
  8.54 p.m.
  Consideration of amendments on Report resumed.
  Clause 35 [Account information]:
  [Amendment No. 48 not moved.]
  Lord Goodhart Lord Goodhart moved Amendment No. 49:
  Page 20, line 35, after "into" insert "serious"
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 50, 54, 55, 60 and 61. The amendments form part of a single unit and were raised in Committee.
  Under the Bill, two types of order can be made relating to information about banking transactions. One is a customer information order; the second is an account monitoring order. I do not propose to go into the details of what they involve but, broadly speaking, a customer information order requires a bank to indicate what different accounts a particular person may have with it, and an account monitoring order enables transactions on a particular account to be kept under scrutiny.
  A customer information order can be made only for the purpose of investigating serious criminal conduct. Such conduct is defined in the Bill as an offence to which paragraph 3 of article 1 of the 2001 protocol applies. However, an account monitoring order may be made for the investigation of criminal conduct, whether serious or not. Serious crime, as defined by paragraph 3 of the protocol, means an offence that is punishable by prison for a period of not less than four years in the requesting state, and not less than two years in the requested state.
  It is not clear why there is a distinction between a customer information order and an account monitoring order in that respect, in either the protocol itself or the Bill. In Grand Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, said that account monitoring orders were focused on specific identified accounts and were therefore less resource-intensive for financial institutions. I can understand that to be the case. However, what is perhaps

  215
  more important is that there is little difference from the point of view of the account holder. Both the orders are highly intrusive from that point of the view.
  The purpose of the amendment is to raise the standards for account monitoring orders to serious criminal conduct, which is the same standard as for customer information orders. Therefore, it would obviously not increase the burden on financial institutions. Indeed, if it reduced the number of account monitoring orders, it would slightly reduce the burden.
  The amendment would protect account holders from intrusive monitoring. In all cases where an account monitoring order would be appropriate, I believe that crimes are involved such as organised fraud, drug dealing and person trafficking, where the penalty would anyway be above the minimum for serious crime. It seems to me at least highly doubtful whether account monitoring orders would be used to any significant extent for offences where the investigation was not into a serious crime.
  Therefore, the balance between intrusiveness and crime prevention, which in this case has been got right for a customer information order, is wrong for an account monitoring order. The trigger for that order should be the same as for a customer information order—
  investigation into a serious crime as defined in the Bill and the protocol. I beg to move.
  9 p.m.
  Lord Filkin: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, for speaking so clearly about the central thrust of his amendment. As we know from our discussions in Committee, he understands the distinction between account monitoring orders and customer information orders and the levels of criminality involved. I shall therefore not speak at length. I shall explain why the protocol is as it is—it is the product of considerable deliberation between the United Kingdom and other European Union member states over a substantial period.
  The reason for the restriction in relation to tracing accounts was explained in Committee: as the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, signalled, such requests are likely to place significant demands on the resources of countries without central bank registers, and it was judged that there is a need for proportionality between the crime in question and the measure requested. The protocol explicitly states that the obligation to assist under Article 1 is limited to those cases which we have described, for simplicity, as involving "serious criminal conduct", as defined in Clause 46(3) of the Bill. The reasons for not having an equivalent restriction in relation to account monitoring orders are perhaps less clear and merit further explanation. We do not consider that a parallel restriction in relation to account monitoring would reflect the aims of the drafters of the protocol or make full use of the opportunities available to us as the requesting state.
  Article 3 of the protocol creates an obligation for member states to be able to monitor activity in specified accounts. During negotiations, as I signalled,
  216
  it was not considered necessary expressly to limit that obligation only to certain types of serious offence, in contrast to Article 1. Requests for monitoring will be targeted at an already identified account and so will not place such a burden on banks—and we can already provide historical details of activity in such accounts even without new legislation.
  As the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, signalled, that did not lie behind the amendment; if I understood it correctly, that involved more an argument about balancing the civil liberties of the person whose account, unknown to them, might be being monitored against the potential level of serious criminality—or otherwise—of the suspected person. I understand that argument but I am unsympathetic to it.
  The fact that we are defining some offences as "serious" in the Bill does not imply that the other offences of which a person is suspected of being connected with or potentially guilty of but which do not meet the strict tests—if I have them right, they are a maximum period of at least four years in the requesting state and at least two years in the requested state—are not serious. They simply do not meet the test. I should be happy to give a list of examples of offences that do not meet the test of being "serious" as defined in the clause to which I referred previously but which under any common-sense meaning of the word are seen by the public as being serious.
  The view that we should not use legitimate, properly tested conditional and proportional powers of the state to try to find out whether criminality is going on because it is argued that it is best to protect the civil liberties of the suspected criminals is deeply unconvincing. We will not use the powers willy-nilly; they will be used although they are burdensome to the requesting states, the officiating states and the courts. It will require effort to use them but we must use them and monitor accounts when there is a suspicion that people have committed offences.
  A further point is that in some cases people will be traced through account monitoring orders who may, to use the patois, be the small fish in events but they may lead us to the bigger people. For that additional reason, I am deeply unsympathetic to the restriction.
  I am sure that this is a probing amendment and that it is intended to tease out the Government's perspective. For the reasons that I have given, we do not expect there to be thousands of such monitoring orders. My recollection is that our best estimate is that at most there will be about 500 a year in those circumstances. These are people whom other international bodies believe to be potentially involved in criminal activities. Irrespective of the fact that we would be non-compliant with the protocol, not using these powers would seem to us to go completely against the thrust of government policy. I hope that the House will be sympathetic to that argument.
  Lord Goodhart: My Lords, the amendment is intended seriously and not merely as probing. I am a little unhappy with the nature of the noble Lord's response to it, because I believe that there is a potential

  217
  problem here of excessive intrusion into individual privacy. Of course, I recognise that the exercise of government powers in any individual case will be subject to control under Article 8 of the European convention. If it is used disproportionately, there will be a form of judicial control over it.
  Having raised the issue, in the circumstances I am not minded to press the amendment further. I simply hope and trust that the Government, or rather the responsible authorities—obviously decisions will not be taken at anything like ministerial level—will bear in mind that the powers which are given must not be used intrusively or disproportionately. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 36 [Making, varying or discharging account monitoring orders]:
  [Amendment No. 50 not moved.]
  Clause 37 [Customer information]:
  [Amendment No. 51 not moved.]
  Clause 38 [Making, varying or discharging customer information orders]:
  [Amendment No. 52 not moved.]
  Clause 40 [Account information]:
  [Amendments Nos. 53 and 54 not moved.]
  Clause 41 [Making, varying or discharging account monitoring orders]
  [Amendment No. 55 not moved.]
  Clause 43 [Information about a person's bank account]:
  [Amendments Nos. 56 to 59 not moved.]
  Clause 44 [Monitoring banking transactions]:
  [Amendments Nos. 60 to 62 not moved.]
  Clause 45 [Sending requests for assistance]:
  [Amendment No. 63 not moved.]
  Viscount Bridgeman Viscount Bridgeman moved Amendment No. 64:
  After Clause 45, insert the following new clause—
  "ANNUAL REPORT ON EFFECTS OF REQUESTS FOR BANKING INFORMATION
  (1) The Secretary of State shall publish each year a report on the effects of requests for banking information introduced under this Act.
  (2) In each report under subsection (1) the Secretary of State shall include—

  (a) a cost assessment of complying with requests for information,

  (b) the frequency of requests from participating countries, and

  (c) the time taken to comply with requests."

  The noble Viscount said: My Lords, in Amendment No. 64, standing in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Anelay, we return once again to the subject of annual reports. This is not a probing amendment. It concerns an issue which we raised in Grand Committee and to which we want to return again.
  Many noble Lords who spoke in Committee agreed with us in principle that, as we are breaking new ground with the banking section of the Bill, parliamentarians
  218
  have a right to know the cost to the taxpayer of complying with requests. I understand the point that the Minister made in response to this amendment in that an annual report would require resources. However, I cannot agree with his statement that those would be disproportionate or a potential waste. He has. after all, reminded us that, in any case, the cost to the banking industry of complying with the regulatory impact assessment will be between £1.26 million and £3.7 million a year.
  It is essential that there is transparency in this matter. As my noble friend Lord Renton and the noble Lord, Lord Monson, pointed out in Committee, we are in uncharted waters. In our view, in terms of monitoring, it is insufficient to rely on the odd parliamentary Question to check on what is an unfamiliar procedure but one that is absolutely crucial to the effective operation of this part of the Bill. The BBA has also stated that it is completely behind the measure that we propose, and it believes that the debate in Grand Committee showed the important issues involved.
  A report would also put pressure on the Home Office to meet another concern that the BBA has in relation to the partial regulatory impact assessment—the PRIA—of the protocol to the Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters between EU member states. After supporting the convention but noting that it had to be on the basis of mutual benefit, the BBA said—I hope that your Lordships will permit me to quote this:
  "The UK, and the information which the UK will, potentially, be able to obtain will not be less or less timely than that which the UK will normally provide. Differences could arise through., for example, different legal procedures or bank secrecy rules, in particular where the retail banking structure is less concentrated than in the UK. Such differences could reduce the benefits for more ready access to information in response to requests for mutual legal assistance".
  An annual report will help to establish the extent to which there is a level playing field both in theory and in practice.
  I return to a remark made by the Minister; namely, that he will consult the BBA when the Government reconsider the process for handling requests for information once an order has been made. He also stated that he would consult other relevant bodies. Would it be possible for him to name them now? That would help us to see how widely the Government are consulting on the issue. I beg to move.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am delighted that the noble Viscount has moved this amendment as it gives us a chance to return to our favourite topic of annual reports. I shall not level my common allegation that when stuck for an amendment one dreams up an annual report to demand.
  I see the point made by the noble Lord. Our argument is that an annual report is unnecessary and burdensome. On a matter of costs, a balance has to be struck as to whether the potential evil that it is attempting to monitor is outweighed by the evil of the unnecessary activity. In our view it is the latter case.

  219
  We would not want noble Lords to believe that we are not concerned about costs. For that reason we have had detailed and intricate consultation in the preparation of the Bill and we have been careful to consult the BBA. At an earlier stage in the proceedings on the Bill we undertook careful inquiries with the BBA to see whether in general it was happy with the arrangements that we are putting in place. My understanding was that that was the case.
  We believe that costs should be kept to a minimum. We shall be careful in our approach to the whole issue. As regards reviewing procedures on an annual basis, although the matter covered in the amendment will be monitored, we believe that the requests and the return of evidence obtained under them will be routed via the Secretary of State and that costs will be kept to a minimum. The absence of a requirement for an annual report does not mean that the effects of the new processes and procedures will not be monitored, nor that the banking industry will be excluded from any future consultations on the subject. We intend that they will be consulted.
  I am sure noble Lords will be aware that the procedures are not unique to this Bill. They mirror procedures put in place through the Proceeds of Crime Act and they will be available to domestic investigators as well as to overseas authorities. It may be worth reminding ourselves that there is no parallel requirement for an annual report on the use and operation of proceeds of crime procedures, although they make much the same demands. It will take banks as long to comply with a domestic request made under that legislation as one made under the protocol. I do not recall a large demand for annual reporting on the proceeds of crime processes.
  We shall not look at customer information and account monitoring orders made under the protocol in isolation. I give that clear undertaking. As regards the provisions in the Bill, we shall have the advantage of seeing how effectively the relevant provisions of the Proceeds of Crime Act operate in practice. It is worth reminding ourselves that those measures came into effect yesterday with the launch of the asset recovery agency.
  An annual report dealing only with requests made under Chapter 4 of the Bill would not represent the whole picture. Other, less formal, more practical monitoring methods may well be better suited. It will soon become apparent if those orders place an onerous burden on the banking industry or take a very long time to execute. It is worth reminding ourselves that in general costs will be borne by the requested state, which will have to meet the cost of compliance when a request is made, unless there is a particular agreement to the contrary where exceptional costs may arise. The amendment is unnecessary. It will not reduce costs burdens. For those reasons, we oppose it.
  The noble Lord asked what other bodies we might consult. I cannot provide him with a full list at this stage. We shall consult the financial crime team which implements the Proceeds of Crime Act. We shall seek to share experience with it. We shall continue to
  220
  consult the BBA. No doubt it will wish to advise us of relevant bodies which should be consulted. Therefore, we intend to listen; we shall be sensitive as to how these measures are applied; and we shall actively pursue our commitment to consultation.
  9.15 p.m.
  Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I do not think he commented on my noble friend's point about the bankers' desire to have a level playing field. Banking, as he well knows, is an international business these days. Different arrangements in different countries pertain in banks. Will the Minister make sure that in future consultations the British Bankers' Association is asked whether the arrangements are fair vis-à-vis banks in the various countries involved? Perhaps he will comment on that matter.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, we are sensitive to that issue. This is a mutual agreement. One would expect that, just as there will be costs on banks in the UK, if we or other states seek information in other jurisdictions costs will be incurred there. I made it plain that the general international rule is that the requested state meets the cost of compliance with the request in most circumstances.
  To that extent, there is a commitment to a level playing field. We are sensitive to the point. We shall listen carefully to what the BBA says on that precise issue because it is only right that we should play our part in ensuring that that level playing field exists.
  Viscount Bridgeman: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend Lady Carnegy for raising that point. Earlier, it was clear that countries outside the EU—indeed, outside Schengen—could be admitted to the scheme. I certainly understand the argument so persuasively advanced by the Minister for relying on parliamentary process to hold the Government to account for the operation of this part of the Bill. But this is a virtually new aspect to banking supervision in the fight against international financial crime. In our view, there is a strong case for providing a formal report, available in the Library of both Houses. To rely on a random sequence of parliamentary Questions is not an acceptable alternative. I beg to test the opinion of the House.
  9.19 p.m.
  On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 64) shall be agreed to?
  Their Lordships divided: Contents, 23; Not-Contents, 57.

  Division No. 4

  CONTENTS

  Anelay of St Johns, B.

  Carnegy of Lour, B.

  Astor of Hever, L.

  Cope of Berkeley, L. [Teller

  Blatch,B.

  Cox, B.

  Bridgeman, V.

  Crathorne, L.

  Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, L.

  Dixon-Smith, L.

  221

  Howe, E.

  Park of Monmouth, B.

  Hunt of Wirral,L.

  Pearson of Rannoch, L.

  Lyell, L.

  Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly

  Masham of Ilton, B.

  Seccombe, B. [Teller]

  Stodart of Leaston, L.

  Northbrook, L.

  Waddington, L.

  Northesk, E.

  Wakeham, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS

  Andrews, B.

  Greaves, L.

  Barker, B.

  Grocott, L. [Teller]

  Bassam of Brighton, L.

  Hardy of Wath, L.

  Berkeley, L.

  Harris of Haringey, L.

  Borrie, L.

  Haskins, L.

  Brennan, L.

  Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

  Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

  Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

  Brookman, L.

  Jones, L.

  Burlison, L.

  Lester of Herne Hill, L.

  Campbell-Savours, L.

  Livsey of Talgarth, L.

  Carter, L.

  Lofthouse of Pontefract, L

  Corbett of Castle Vale, L.

  McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller]

  Crawley, B.

  Davies of Coity, L.

  Mackie of Benshie, L.

  Davies of Oldham, L.

  Mar and Kellie, E.

  Dixon, L.

  Orme, L.

  Dubs, L.

  Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

  Evans of Parkside, L.

  Rea, L.

  Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

  Russell, E.

  Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

  Shutt of Greetland, L.

  Faulkner of Worcester, L.

  Simon, V.

  Filkin, L.

  Smith of Leigh, L.

  Fyfe of Fairfield, L.

  Stone of Blackheath, L.

  Gale, B.

  Taylor of Blackburn, L.

  Gilbert, L.

  Thornton, B.

  Golding, B.

  Tordoff, L.

  Goldsmith, L.

  Whitty, L.

  Goodhart, L.

  Wigoder, L.

  Gould of Potternewton, B.

  Woolmer of Leeds, L.

  Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
  9.28 p.m.
  Clause 47 [Transfer of UK prisoner to assist investigation abroad]:
  Baroness Anelay of St Johns Baroness Anelay of St Johns moved Amendment No. 65:
  Page 28. line 9, at end insert "except with the permission of the Secretary of State"
  The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 65, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 67. We now turn to a different issue: the transfer of prisoners in order that they can help in criminal investigations in participating countries overseas. I have grouped the amendments so that we can deal with the case of a prisoner in the UK being transferred abroad and with the case of a prisoner overseas being transferred here to give evidence.
  We are told that the new power is unlikely to be used frequently. I accept that it could be useful if a prisoner who is helping a UK investigation might be able to identify a site or take part in an identification parade. The clause says that, if the Secretary of State has an agreement with the competent authority of a participating country, he can issue a warrant that will make it possible to transfer a prisoner to a participating country. So far, so good, but, in Committee, I raised the
  222
  issue of the consent to the transfer given by the prisoner or by someone with the authority to act on his behalf, if he is incapable of making a decision for himself.
  The problem is that the Bill states that once the warrant has been issued, that is it— the consent cannot be withdrawn. I am aware that the Law Society is opposed on principle to a provision that makes the giving of consent an irrevocable act. My approach has been more commonplace and practical.
  My amendments today are slightly different. They are tabled in an attempt to determine whether my objective of fairness and practicality can be met within the Government's reasonable objective—
  which I fully support—of ensuring that prisoners should give evidence when it is material to a criminal investigation.
  I understand that Clause 47 builds upon existing legislation in the 1990 Act. However, I believe that the Bill gives the opportunity to plug the loophole in the original legislation at a time when we are introducing, as the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, said in Grand Committee,
  "some slightly different arrangements".—[Official Report, 27/1/03; col. GC 151.]
  The loophole to which I am referring is that consent cannot be revoked.
  What happens if the inability of the prisoner to act on his own behalf develops after consent has been given? What if he remains capable of giving consent but, having given it, becomes seriously physically ill? In Grand Committee, the Minister's response (at col. GC 151 of the Official Report of 27th January 2003) was to offer assurance that a decision to make the transfer was done only after extensive consultation with all parties.
  Surely the point is that consent may be given at a time when the person involved is well and able to participate. Trouble may develop later. The Minister admitted in Grand Committee that between the giving of consent by the prisoner and his transfer,
  "there will inevitably be some period of delay, perhaps a matter of weeks or a month at the most".—[Official Report, 27/1/03; col. GC 155.]
  That is time enough in which physical and/or mental problems could set in.
  The Minister said that unfit prisoners would not be made to travel even though there is no protection in the Bill, but then admitted that if mental problems developed,
  "it is extremely unlikely that any pressure would be put on that person to continue his journey".—[Official Report, 27/1/03; col. GC 154.]
  "Extremely unlikely" still leaves the possibility that pressure would be put on him to continue his journey.
  Surely the argument should be that the provisions on the face of the Bill make it clear how proper procedures should be in place to ensure that the right decisions are taken in the right way at the right time. That is what I have sought to do in tabling the amendments. They are simple. I have given the Secretary of State the right to decide. The amendments say that consent cannot be withdrawn once the warrant has been issued, except with the permission of the Secretary of State. That solves

  223
  the problem. If he decides not to transfer the prisoner, the opportunity is not only there, but it is actually a legal one for him.
  I hope that seems reasonable. It is definitely a probing amendment to find a practical solution. I recognise, too, that there may be circumstances in which the Secretary of State may decide that it is so vital to investigation that the prisoner should be transferred and give evidence even though he or she is ill. I do not discount that—
  where a prisoner's evidence is so vital. I beg to move.
  Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I support the amendments. They seem eminently sensible. It would be wrong to give the prisoner an absolute right to change his or her mind without giving any reason. That would encourage trouble-making. It seems that there are cases where there may be a genuine change of circumstances—illness or a number of other causes—which occur after the prisoner gave his or her original consent to transfer. It is plainly right that there should be a safety valve which would enable the consent to be withdrawn. Requiring the approval of the Secretary of State is a reasonable way of achieving that. There are alternatives, such as acquiring the approval of the court. However, I should be happy with the consent of the Secretary of State who would be bound to act reasonably in deciding whether to give that consent.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, on the face of it, the amendment appears entirely reasonable. I appreciate that the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, has gone some way to change her approach, but what we should focus on is how this is to work in practice. I hope that my remarks will persuade both the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, that as the practical application of the provision works through—we should bear in mind that this will not be a frequent event—the care with which such transfers will be conducted means that the procedure will work well and to the benefit of all.
  Having listened to the remarks of the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, I think that we are all agreed that, once granted, prisoners should not be able to withdraw consent for the practical reason that withdrawal of consent after a warrant has been issued might invalidate the warrant, so that the prisoner could not be held in legal custody. The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, made the important point, which lends support to our position, that if we were to allow for consent to be withdrawn after a warrant had been issued, it would play fast and loose with the process and could give rise to future mischief.
  We also agree that a prisoner who has given consent to be transferred should not be transferred if, between the time of giving consent and the date of the actual transfer, he becomes ill and unfit to travel. Other exceptional circumstances might arise where, even when the prisoner has consented, it might not be appropriate for him to travel, such as in the event of a national emergency in the destination country.
  224
  However, we do not agree that it is necessary to provide for the prisoner to withdraw his consent in such circumstances.

  I wish to repeat a point that I made in Committee; that is, the UK authorities would not transfer a prisoner if he were not medically fit to travel. A prisoner would not be transferred even if he insisted that he was well enough, if a doctor did not agree. That is an important point. Not only would it not be in the interests of the prisoner to be transferred when unfit to travel, I would argue that it would not be in the interests of the investigators. What use would an unwell prisoner be if he was incapable of helping with an investigation because it was clear that he could not give coherent responses due to a medical condition?
  We take the view that there is no need to provide for the possibility of withdrawal of consent by the prisoner, even with the permission of the Secretary of State—kindly granted by the noble Baroness in her amendment. In the event that a prisoner becomes unfit to travel, the transfer will be suspended or cancelled. It is worth remembering that the warrant is generally issued at the very end of the process; that is, just prior to the transfer taking place.
  The clauses reflect the terms used in Sections 5 and 6 of the 1990 Act. Those provisions have served us well. The provision regarding consent reflects exactly the position under that Act. The provisions have worked well so far and we will approach these matters sensitively. I have given an assurance on the health and fitness of the prisoner and his ability to travel. I have also reminded noble Lords that the issuing of the warrant is important and will in almost every case take place at the end of the process. Furthermore, I repeat that we are referring here to only a small number of cases in any given year.
  That is the position. I hope that, having heard what I have said, the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
  Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I said that it was a probing amendment. I am grateful to the Minister for his response and for making it clear that the Government do not intend that people should travel if they are incapacitated.
  I still believe that the situation is unsatisfactory in that there is not clarity about the issue of consent, but I do not intend to take the matter further. Both in Committee and on Report we have had helpful indications from the Government and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Lord Filkin Lord Filkin moved Amendment No.66
  Page 28, line 22, leave out "(4)" and insert "(3A)"
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 48 [Transfer of EU etc. prisoner to assist UK investigation]:
  [Amendment No. 67 not moved.]
  Clause 51 [General interpretation]:
  Lord Filkin Lord Filkin moved Amendment No. 68:
  Page 30, line 17, leave out from "article" to "applies" and insert "3(1) of the Mutual Legal Assistance Convention"
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Baroness Anelay of St Johns Baroness Anelay of St Johns moved Amendment No.69:
  Page 30, line 49, at end insert—
  "(2A) Each order made under subsection (2)(b) may only designate one country."
  The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the orders under this proposed new subsection will be made to add a new country or countries to the list of participating countries. We have had many debates on what comprises a participating country. In Committee, the Government tabled welcome amendments to ensure that the orders would be subject to the affirmative procedure. That was in response to the report of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Select Committee and met the objective of amendments that I had tabled at that stage.
  However, I had one remaining concern, which is the subject of the amendment, and that is that the Government may decide to list more than one country in each of the statutory instruments. If they did that, and noble Lords felt that it was objectionable that one or more of the countries on the list should be included, they would be in the invidious position of having to throw out the whole order as we cannot of course amend statutory instruments. We would have to throw out the baby with the bath water.
  The question can justifiably be asked—would the Government do such a thing? Would they include something in an order which they knew would be objectionable alongside something that we would welcome? Their track record in these matters shows that they would. In Grand Committee I gave the example of changes to the TV licence fee, where an increase in the level of the licence fee above the usual rate was introduced at the same time and in the same order as the system whereby those over 75 were exempt from paying for the licence.
  I know that that order was introduced by the DCMS, but is the Home Office any better? I am afraid it is not. The Terrorism Act 2000 allows for the same all-encompassing kind of order. Mr Jack Straw proscribed 15 or so terrorist organisations all at once back in 2001. As the Minister will recall, we on these Benches fully supported the Government on that then and we continue to support them. But Labour Back-Benchers, particularly in another place, were not so supportive of the Government at that stage. They disliked intensely the fact that the order was not amendable.
  Given the extension of the proceedings in cooperation on international matters in the Bill, we shall need to scrutinise very carefully the list of participating countries. It is right that any statutory instrument should deal with only one country at a time.
  The Minister rather side-stepped this issue in the letter he sent to noble Lords on 6th February. He confirmed that the Government,
  "might wish indeed to designate different countries at different times in respect of different parts of the Bill, and the Bill would allow this".
  That is exactly the point. I agree that the Bill allows that, and that is what I am worried about for the reasons that I have given. I beg to move.
  Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I support the amendment. I remember in particular the orders under the Terrorism Act which contained a number of suspected terrorist organisations. Although we were on that occasion happy to agree that all of them should be included on the list, we were also concerned that there was a possibility that in other circumstances there might be names on such a list which we would not wish to see included. We believe that similar considerations apply to the designation of countries for the purposes set out in the Bill.
  9.45 p.m.
  Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I support the amendment as well. The very nature of these orders means that the decision should be made clearly and should not be divisible into two or three parts on which the House might take different views. It is a misuse of our procedure to allow such a thing. The Government would be very wise to accept this amendment or one which has the same effect. It is really quite important.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the effect of the amendment would be that an order made to designate non-EU countries as participating countries in relation to any provision of this part could relate to only one country. This point was raised in Grand Committee when concern was expressed that an order might list a number of countries but one on the list might be objectionable to some members. The whole order might consequently be rejected, which would waste time and money. That being the case, I am still not convinced by the argument. We do not feel that we can accept the amendment.
  Having to designate individual countries in separate orders subject to affirmative resolution would create vastly more work than the occasional rejection of one multiple order, which in any event I cannot imagine would happen in anything other than very exceptional circumstances.
  Let us take just one clause as an example. We can designate countries as participating countries for the purpose of service of process under Clause 4. There is an article in the second additional protocol to the Council of Europe Convention on Mutual Assistance which provides for direct service in line with the M LAC provision. The Council of Europe has 44 member states and, even after enlargement, 19 will still be outside the European Union. So we could be faced with the prospect of designating 19 countries, each in individual orders, for the purpose of service of process, which is, after all, a very routine provision. Is this a sensible use of parliamentary time? I think that, on mature reflection,

  227
  noble Lords will conclude that it is not. For that reason, we are satisfied that orders designating multiple countries are entirely appropriate.
  I was intrigued by the parallels drawn with the terrorism legislation and the proscribed list of terrorist organisations. A rigorous appeals process was designed and allowed for in that provision. The fact that none of those organisations subsequently chose to exercise their right to go through that process is another matter. But there was full opportunity for debate on the nature of the order.
  We do not think this is an efficient and effective way of proceeding or that it would be a sensible use of parliamentary time, and I think that I have provided your Lordships with a very good example of why that is so. I hope that, having heard that, the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
  Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his response and for going into the detailed consequences of what might happen if, in the context of these orders, there were one country per order. I promise him that between now and Third Reading I will reflect on his response. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Baroness Anelay of St Johns Baroness Anelay of St Johns moved Amendment No. 70:
  Before Clause 52, insert the following new clause—
  "INTERNATIONAL ANTI-TERRORISM CO-ORDINATOR
  The Prime Minister shall appoint a Minister of the Crown to co-ordinate international co-operation between the United Kingdom and other countries in respect of investigations into, and the prevention of, terrorism."
  The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the amendment would insert a new clause to require the designation of a single Minister to co-ordinate the United Kingdom's efforts in international co-operation against terrorism. Noble Lords will be aware that responsibility is currently divided between several Ministers. The Prime Minister is in overall charge of intelligence and security matters. The Home Secretary is responsible for the Security Service. The Foreign Secretary is responsible for the Secret Intelligence Service and for GCHQ and the Defence Secretary is responsible for the Defence Intelligence Service. In addition, there is a ministerial committee on the security services, chaired by the Prime Minister and including the Deputy Prime Minister, the Home Secretary, the Foreign Secretary, the Defence Secretary and the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Foreign Office, Mr Mike O'Brien, is the junior Minister responsible for counter-terrorism issues at the Foreign Office, while the Home Secretary takes personal responsibility for terrorism policy at the Home Office. The Minister of State for the Armed Forces, Mr Adam Ingram, is responsible for intelligence and security matters at the Ministry of Defence. In addition, of course, Sir David Omand was last year appointed to the Civil Service post of security
  228
  and intelligence co-ordinator in the Cabinet Office. That litany alone shows how divided the issue is and how difficulty it must be for those responsibilities to be implemented effectively.
  There appears to be no senior Minister with a clear leadership role in the area. Of course I accept that the Prime Minister has overall responsibility for the work of the Government and no doubt takes a keen interest in matters related to terrorism, but it is unrealistic to expect him to supervise international co-operation in investigating and preventing terrorism on a day-to-day basis.
  The Bill and the amendment are concerned with international co-operation in the fight against crime and terrorism. My concern goes much wider. My right honourable friend Mr Oliver Letwin has for some time been calling for the appointment of a single senior political figure to co-ordinate the United Kingdom's efforts in the fight against terrorism. At this time of night, it would weary the House for me to go into further detail. The House has already devoted much attention to some technical parts of the Bill. The amendment introduces a matter of principle that I hope will find favour with the Government. At this stage it is a probing amendment to elicit a response from the Government on their overall view on these matters. I beg to move.
  Lord Goodhart: My Lords, on this occasion I do not support the noble Baroness. I am concerned about the constitutional implications of the amendment. As a matter of constitutional theory, the allocation of responsibilities between Ministers has always been a matter for the Prime Minister. It may well be right that there should be a single Minister with such responsibility, but I doubt whether it would be appropriate on this amendment to part from a long-established constitutional principle.
  Lord Filkin: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, for his sound reminder of the constitutional proprieties on the issue. I also have a sense of déjà vu. When I was asked in the House not long ago why we did not have one person to coordinate counter-terrorism, like Tom Ridge and the Department of Homeland Security in the US, my response, if I recollect it, was, "What a good idea, but we already have one. He is called the Home Secretary".
  Although I shall go away and check, as is my wont, and burden the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, with a further letter if I think it would benefit her, I think my answer is, in broad terms, the same. We have one senior Minister, apart from the Prime Minister, who has overall responsibility for co-ordinating the Government's efforts to counter terrorism, whether it originates abroad or is targeted at home. That person is the Home Secretary. We are all in accord with the point about the Prime Minister. While he has overall responsibilities, someone who is not so excessively burdened must have operational responsibility. From my direct experience, the Home Secretary fulfils that role clearly, strongly and powerfully.

  229
  Some other functions that contribute to counter terrorism have another ministerial lead over them. That is perfectly right and sensible and in no way weakens our efforts, as long as there is one senior, powerful Minister who is co-ordinating the Government's efforts and using the information to do our utmost to counter terrorism. That Minister is the Home Secretary. The fact that there are ministerial committees does not imply for a second that there is any division of responsibility. Any sane government have to have ministerial committees to ensure that there are proper processes to co-ordinate government activity. That is perfectly right, as long as it is clear who has the overall clout to bend the efforts of Ministers and officials to do— that in this case, it is the Home Secretary.
  I shall not discuss further operational matters, although I am happy to set them out in a letter, if it would help. At operational level, we try to ensure that we are strongly connected with other European Union countries, America, and other countries throughout the world, to counter terrorism, to support them in their efforts and to benefit ourselves. We are not aware of a problem to which this amendment is a solution. That does not mean that we are complacent, or believe that we could ever have total protection against terrorism. It is a fantasy to think that this proposal, which is a repackaged version of the homeland security argumentation, has merit.
  I have been robust due to the time of night, but I shall reflect on the amendment. If I can give further and better particulars, I shall be glad to write to the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay.
  Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his response. This is not a
  230
  repackaged homeland security measure; it goes far more broadly than that. However, I shall not argue with him on that matter.
  I was grateful to the Minister for his robust defence of the Home Secretary as being the person who carries the can. I do not know whether he has the clout, but he carries the can. We are all firmly supporting him and hope that there is no can to be carried in this regard. It is a difficult job.
  I was grateful to the Minister, too, for saying that he would write on operational matters with regard to the Government's contacts with other countries in relation to activities countering terrorism and the assistance that is available. I would be grateful for that letter, especially against the background of what is building up in the course of the next week or so. It would assist noble Lords who have taken part in this debate and might form a background to other debates that will be held in the next few weeks—perhaps under the Defence Secretary's rather than the Home Secretary's tutelage. I would like to take him up on the offer. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned.
  Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
  House adjourned at two minutes before ten o'clock.

  Sudan
  Sudan
  Zimbabwe: Cricket
  Zimbabwe: Cricket
  Treasury Counsel
  Treasury Counsel
  Ram Doctrine
  Ram Doctrine
  Equality Legislation
  Equality Legislation
  Corporation Tax Reforms
  Corporation Tax Reforms
  Krebs Tuberculosis Trials
  Krebs Tuberculosis Trials
  Hunting Bill
  Hunting Bill
  Grey Squirrels
  Grey Squirrels
  CPS Racist Monitoring Annual Report
  CPS Racist Monitoring Annual Report
  Asylum Seekers: Checks
  Asylum Seekers: Checks
  Asylum Seekers from Zimbabwe
  Asylum Seekers from Zimbabwe
  Oakington Asylum Centre
  Oakington Asylum Centre
  Asylum Applications
  Asylum Applications
  Rape
  Rape
  Road, Rail and Air Transport Breakdown, 30 January
  Road, Rail and Air Transport Breakdown, 30 January
  Virgin Trains: Punctuality and Reliability
  Virgin Trains: Punctuality and Reliability
  Cars: Recyclability Standards
  Cars: Recyclability Standards
  Access to Work Programme
  Access to Work Programme
  Historic Environment
  Historic Environment
  Northern Ireland Civil Service: Security Vetting
  Northern Ireland Civil Service: Security Vetting
  Irish Language Agency
  Irish Language Agency
  Northern Ireland Railways
  Northern Ireland Railways
  Medical Qualifications
  Medical Qualifications
  Health Protection Agency
  Health Protection Agency
  Human Embryos in Research
  Human Embryos in Research
  Lactase Tablets
  Lactase Tablets
  Modernising Medical Careers
  Modernising Medical Careers
  Universities: Archiving Students' Marked Work
  Universities: Archiving Students' Marked Work
  Lifetime Earnings: Graduates and the National Average
  Lifetime Earnings: Graduates and the National Average
  Connexions System
  Connexions System
  Local Authority Housing Stock: Reletting
  Local Authority Housing Stock: Reletting
  Starter Home Initiative
  Starter Home Initiative